Let’s have a bit of patience with the DIRECTORS

Below was what Reverre said at announcement of takeover


“Between the passion of its fans, its world-class stadium and future training center, the infrastructure is in place to achieve the management team’s vision”.
Which suggests it was all in place.

 

Who says anything else is coming out? There has been absolute radio silence. The supporters trust asked for clarification. They got picked up by national media, local media, social media and local radio. They've chosen not to make any comment at all. Not even acknowledging that comment is required on their part.

Of any group that may have a chance to illicit a hint of information, you would hope that the supporters trust may well be the most important organisation to do that.

Its not an irrational thought to suggest having seen so much hostility intertwined with apathy to the point of rejecting the club, that owners, who may suggest they have been successful, could realise a situation was developing that wasn't ideal and may need heading off. Of course they may not care. They may have been advised and rejected it. They may be unaware as they are busy doing something else (doubtful as we now have a permanent CEO) or they may just be aware and be taking the actions they think suits their interests best.

But 4 days on, I would at least have hoped the courtesy of letting the supporters trust know that they would make a further comment or not would be the base minimum of what may occur in that 4 day period.

 

As I linked in another post, the training centre was completed about a year after takeover but started 2.5 years before takeover.

I can't speak of others, but the way Conway talked about the training centre, I never felt there was ambiguity that it was their decision, their planning, their design, their investment. With the timeline that's openly in the public domain, that's clearly not 100% the case and is certainly ambiguous.

I can only talk personally, but I don't tend to claim, by assumption or assertion, other peoples successes.

 

If you're right nudge I'd take a screenshot of the last few days pages to capture some of the thread headings.

It could be the boards biggest ever flounce.

 

Still sticking to the holding statement theory I see

 

If I’ve missed something to evidence it’s not please feel free to enlighten me.
Can you answer any of the questions above apart from ‘cos I want to know’?

 

Nobody has said anything else will follow, but equally nobody has said it won’t, my opinion based on experience on both sides of the fences is something will follow.
Nobody who has jumped on the hysteria of ‘21 words etc’ bandwagon can give a reason why it’s not..

It’s also not an irrational thought for intelligent people to accept that they may be legal ramifications that need to be played out behind the scenes first.

Time will tell and as I have said on numerous occasions now if they don’t have the courtesy in due course I too would agree with the comments.

 

PR wise and to connect with the fans yes it does. In the grand scheme of things death poverty honelessness no

 

Do you think its wise of them to ignore the supporters trust?

Its basic PR management to see a storm and try and appease or circumvent it. Particularly when that group are alleged to be your customer or fan base that can hurt your revenue streams.

There is no legal constraint to allow a comment to state the club will comment further in due course. By not commenting, they are allowing things to fill the void which insinuates there may be reasoning for the terse statement, whether it is necessary or not.

They've dug a hole, they know it, we know it, they seem to be showing no signs of helping themselves with any action since Monday when they decided to sack him.

 

The owners of the club are private equity investors. Long term for private equity is three to five years. Nearly two years in little to nothing has changed, we sit managerless and in the bottom three of the championship.

We have a case study at Nice which shows pretty horrific behaviour yet we cling to the belief that the board want to get us to the Premier league.

The clearest sign of their intention was the sale of Potts during the promotion push followed up by the further unforced sale of Moore in the summer.

Buy cheap and sell high, run a budget which is division one so the loss of extra solidarity payments doesn’t hurt but allows us to keep player trading.

I don’t know what happened with Daniel but there is plenty of evidence to their intentions.

 

I think that's been done to death and explained by several people on here already...

 

I've often been drawn to the word verisimilitude. The illusion of truth. I've used it myself, in pricing in particular (its essentially one of the reasons Asda had most of their products ending with a 7 rather than a 9).

There is a vagueness to much comment from our owners. I spent a bit of time yesterday looking at the few interviews they've given, and the comment that struck me most.... in a short 6 minute something video, the owners mentioned "long term" multiple times. It was only towards the end after the interviewer had asked "is there anything you'd like to tell us about your summers".... that Chien in particular returned to the comment about being long term investors. Now, i've often thought, and i'm sure i've picked up various teachings that suggest over compensation to cover actual motives is very common. However staged and prepped, intent will leak out somewhere. To repeat that mantra of long term investors over and over suggests they want us to believe it. Though the actual term of investment is highly likely to not be long term at all, certainly not in our view, and probably lesser than many of our previous ownerships.

Nice is a prime example, to the days before they eventually sold to Ratcliffe, they were stating they were long term investors. Not bad when you then trouser 100m Euros for a 20m (ish) Euro investment just a few years before.

When you start to dig, the loans, the use of imagery, the stories about their academy and investment... theres a lot of ambiguity and opacity. There are tenets that it could maybe sort of be like they said. But verisimilitude is seaping out more and more.

Interviews of internationalisation (in the 6 minutes interview at the start of last season). Maybe Barnsley a brand overseas. Getting overseas supporters to subscribe and visit. reinvesting every penny... and interestingly in an interview with Andy Giddings in February (audio) he touched on the extra 6m revenue for promotion also being reinvested into the club. Now if that's the case, on top of the Potts money and the few quid for Moncur, the sales of Moore, Pinnock and Lindsay, the release of several players in the summer and the net effect of salary savings.... I'm not quite sure where we've spent the best part of £12-14m quid, including our existing salaries and costs.

I'm busy the next few days, but next week I'm going to look into this more and revisit more source information.

Verisimiltude. The illusion of truth.

I'll sign off til next week with the comment often used by Conway when he was asked why Barnsley. Amid the sentences of non explanation. "Too good to be true"

 

Strange I’ve not seen one comment that has shown they will not make another comment.

 

Wise, is completely different to what is it isn’t correct.
You have obviously never had to deal with lawyers in these circumstances, I have on both sides of the table and I can tell you their advise would be to say nothing until everything is resolved.

You’ve got the nail on the head with your comment about void, which in a strange way is sort of what I am saying that people are jumping to conclusions.

Just so we are clear I am not saying it was a great statement (it isn’t), I’m saying there may be reasons for it.

 

So what is an acceptable timeframe then to connect?

 

On the train to Bristol...

I’ve dealt with many lawyers, even advised lawyers.

I’ve yet to see a lawyer advised statement that would undermine potential revenue and alienate “customers”. Til this. Legal, commercial and general care have to be delivered in sync.

This isn’t a typical business environment, and should never be treated as such.

 

As I am someone who is largely ignorant of the law, could the owners potentially place themselves in jeopardy, legally, if they had added on to the current statement a very basic ‘we would like to thank Daniel for his efforts and wish him well in the future’ or something to that effect? Or, ‘Barnsley football club will issue a full statement in due course’? Could there seriously be ‘legal ramifications’, because if so I feel like absconding?

 

Not really, but Solicitors will always advise a non descript statement, whilst stuff is being resolved.
Which of course could raise the question why not.
The company I worked at had a very large Solicitors on a retainer basis, which basically meant if we followed their instructions to the letter if a successful claim was made against us they would cover the costs and payout(like an insurance policy).
It could be as simple as that why the statement was how it was.