Flicker v The Don Part II

Other people have enough money to join a progressive board , not necessarily to buy the whole club.

But they have never been talked to.

 

Really ????

 

I feel that the policy that we have employed for the last seven years will, in the end, merely result in a controlled descent to a lower division rather than a crash. Seven years of standing still and fighting relegation every year has simply resulted in the slow loss of the fan base, as Reds fans tired of the constant battle to stave off relegation. In business, it is important to seize opportunities when they arise. There have been three occasions in the past seven years when this was possible. The first came when we were promoted under Ritchie. The club had the chance to benefit from that glorious day in Cardiff, the owner was a more enthusiastic investor, but instead of seeing the potential and building upon that, the club decided on limited investment and watching the pennies.

The second occasion was the season after our cup run to the FA Cup semi-final. The third and probably our best opportunity was after the survival day at Huddersfield last year. I call it our best opportunity because, not only were the fans galvanised by our survival, the club must have had money to spend. At the start of that season, the club was paid £1m for Jacob Butterfield, in February they negotiated a deal of £3m for John Stones. There was also a windfall of £1m from the cup run which ended at Manchester City. Now, I do not for one minute think that all of that money should have been added to Flitcroft's budget for this season. However, I cannot see where even one fifth of that cash has been spent. Flicker's only major transfer fees were spent on O'Grady, Jennings and presumably a loan fee for Pederson. Every other player was picked up on free transfer or off the dole. If you know different, then please let me know where the rest was spent. Perhaps you can convince me that Flicker wasted £5m, but I doubt it.

If the clubs managements do not have a unity of purpose, as seems to be indicated by both your comments and by the public ruck between Don Rowing and David Flitcroft, how can we expect the club to succeed. I do not blame the owner for this. He has been ill and he has been fighting off serious charges through the courts. During this time, he has been an absent landlord relying on the reports of others for his information. In the end, the owner has gotten shut of both sides of the argument and will begin again, no doubt hoping that Mansford and the next manager will function better as a management team.

 

All I can say is wait for the 2015 accounts.
We got 700k for Jacob. That plugged the TV revenue hole. And we have only received £1.5m to date, for Stonesy. So yes, Flitcroft has easily spent up, and then some. The fees to agents (Pedersen and Jennings especially, I am told were like transfer fees themselves), the wages given to secure Kennedy, COG, Etuhu, Cranie, and the non-football expenses... £1.5m gone and more.
Anyhoo, bed for me. Dreaming of 3 points. You reds etc.

 

Just look at the size of the squad. All picking up a wage. 10 players on just a grand each is half million a year. And we all know they are on more than that. And we are probably 10 players heavy when all are with us. The accounts will be interesting indeed. How much has the pampering that flicker insisted on cost us? He was backed alright. Couldn't spend it on transfer fees because it was being *****ed elsewhere.

 

Don went in to see Pat and said it's him or me allegedly, Don left.

 

Personally, I am looking forward to the accounts for the 2013 season. Then we will all know the real truth behind the amounts of the transfer fees and the way those payments are being phased. If you are right, it will be yet another reason to be disappointed in the ability of Don Rowing to negotiate his way out of a paper bag. I will simply reiterate my point that the two strands of management must support each other. The failure of the first team manager cannot be looked at in isolation to the failure of commercial management.

 

All fair points but Don was there with a specific brief. This brief came from the owner. Therefore the owner is culpable.

 

But isn't the way to a sustainable future to constantly break even mate? I agree entirely about improved commercial revenue but adding investors just makes us reliant on others doesn't it?

 

Weren`t it 2 blokes just trying to do their best in testing times for the club. Makes the survival even more sweeter knowing it was done with two of the main players at each others throats.

 

For me, the policy in itself is not the problem. It is no different to the policy that has run the club throughout most of the years that I have supported it. The problem is in the failure to recognise opportunities and to invest at that point in order to build on those opportunities. For me, such an opportunity has just passed us by. Last season's remarkable and successful battle for survival in this division saw a real turnaround in sentiment towards the club. There was a chance to send out a message to supporters and lapsed supporters that the club was ready to invest in the future. The club had told us about transfer fees received for Jacob Butterfield and John Stones (or at least they did not disown the figures widely published in the local press). These were just the conditions that persuaded a past board to splash out on Alan Clarke and to fund the club's rise from the 4th tier to stability in the 2nd tier. These were the conditions that persuaded the club to invest in the purchase of Viv Anderson and Danny Wilson from Sheffield Wednesday, a move that was initially a failure, but which subsequently resulted in promotion to the Premiership. My problem is that by employing Don Rowing, the owner had someone in charge, who was paid not an insignificant salary, but who's career had been spent fighting fires in the lower leagues and who was conditioned to manage negatively and was consequently unable to recognise an opportunity.

If your argument is that the buck stops at the top, then you have an argument. An absent owner is not a good situation. A small board does not have enough opinions to drive discussion and encourage the formation of new ideas. Although it was done for genuine reasons, the separation of the land and buildings into a different company jointly owned with the council, from the football club denies the possibility of obtaining loan finance from any other source but the owner. Without an alternative source of finance, an opportunity can only be taken if the owner can be convinced that it is worth pursuing. However, unlike yourself, I am cautious in my criticism of the owner. It is not everyone who would have spent £7m of their own money to save a football club, knowing the money was probably lost and knowing how ungrateful the majority of football fans are. He saved my club, and for that I am eternally grateful. I think he has probably made mistakes, but none of us are right all the time.

 

The fee for Jacob was 700k up front, with another 500k in add-ons that are now redundant since leaving Norwich. And a week or two after his departure Don Rowing stated that that money would plug the gap caused by the shortfall in TV revenue that season (2012/13). The transfer fee itself was determined by a tribunal, so I don't think Don can be blamed for that. However, knowing the facts as I do, Jacob did want to extend his contract in the Summer of 2011 when Keith Hill arrived but Don vetoed the idea, suggesting such negotiations were always held just before Christmas. Now, whoever decided that was a good model and made good business sense deserves all the stick possible.

i am led to believe that the fee for Stones was the much talked about £3m. But we only received half up front. I think the rest is due over a set period in installments, but I'm only going on what I was once told. I hold no facts for that.

I do know the club were willing to give Flicker the funds to recruit Jacob again though, this season. But Flitcroft told Jacob, and the club that he already had creators in Mellis and McCourt. So Jacob went to Boro instead for 500k and we ended up with David Fox on loan...

 

All interesting stuff that mate, thanks for sharing.

I don't think there can be any blame attributed to the loss of 500k from Norwich. I doubt we could have got more than 700k elsewhere, and it was reasonable to assume that he would develop further with Norwich than at many other clubs, their policy lends towards that. I didn't realise the fee was set by tribunal though, I thought they'd compromised before reaching the tribunal?

If Butterfield wanted to extend in summer 2011, it is utterly criminal that the club didn't take him up on that. He'd clearly shown sufficient promise, and Hill made him club captain pretty soon after that. The way he was heading before the injury, he would have brought in at least £2.5m in a transfer fee the next summer. After Brown did the number on him, that probably wouldn't have happened, but he'd have been in the right place to get fit instead of wasting 2 years of his career. In hindsight I bet he wishes he'd signed a new deal and done that anyway.

Regarding the opportunity to come back this summer, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm willing to trust that Flicker made that decision on a sound basis (as you describe) and as the manager he was entitled to do that. Maybe he regrets it, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he'd have made a difference, maybe he wouldn't - he certainly didn't seem up to much when Boro visited. But as you say, the fact that other midfielders have been recruited and the lack of creativity present in the team would suggest he had something to offer.