FAO Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan

Remember those that you met on the way up because you are about to meet them on the way down.
Disgusted.
You greedy two faced jack bastards.
We,the real fans can hold our heads held high and be proud to be call jack bastards.
You?

 

At the final whistle, Huw was straight out of his seat & into the stadium building, followed (not far behind) by Morgan.

 

They went to count the takings.

 

They weren't hiding it again?

 

please log in to view this image

 

Where`s all the money gone, they can`t use Fairwood and Landore as an excuse till their ****e comes out smelling any sweeter.

please log in to view this image

These money grabbning barstewards have turned our club into their own money making machine. These clowns (very rich clowns) should hang their heads in shame and not be so brazen as to turn up at our club. Well, it was our club till these judas`s took their thirty pieces of silver and gave out a big laugh to fans everywhere.

But then again, perhaps I`ve got it all wrong and the board have done everything above board.

 

I have to ask what money? Most of the money from TV rights goes on the expense of running the club. Players wages, wages of the backroom staff, wages of medical staff, wages of coaching staff upkeep of the academy facilities. Although we will get the parachute payment this will in no way cover the loss of TV money when we get relegated. So are you saying Jenkins, Morgan etc should have put their own money in to the club. Well they did in the beginning but anyone who can do simple arithmetic knows that couldn't be sustained. Would the critics put their own money in? I think not. As for the shares they sold, they were THEIR shares and have the right to make a profit from the sale if they wished to. I have never met any of the directors don't know them or their families but would like to think I am not as one eyed as some posters seem to be.

 

I know one of the (former) shareholders pretty well.

As you said, the shares were THEIRS to sell and they had every right to cash in when they wanted, and also had every right to receive dividends. (The payment of dividends returned more cash to them, by the way, than the quantum of their investment in buying their shares.)

What "grates" people is the "propaganda" that the Chairman & (former) Board put out to justify the change of ownership - namely the existing Board & Shareholders had taken the Club as far as they could and that external new investment was needed to take the Club forward.

However, there was no investment into the Club by the Yanks - the Yanks' £75m (for 68%) went straight into the pockets of the sellers.

They could have issued new shares which would have resulted in all (or part if a combined share sale and well as share issue) - then there would have been new money into the Club's coffers.

That said, it was their decision to sell - you reap what you sow.

 

I can only give you one like, but it's BIG one.

Here's my take.
Business men purchased an ailing Football Club, saving it from extinction.
They breathe new life into it, and it flourishes, eventually reaching the top division.
Businessmen come to the conclusion that they have gone about as far as they can with the project, and decide to sell the Club.
An American consortium purchase the Club, with the original owners selling some, or all, of their holdings.

Nothing illegal about any of the above, at least as far as I can see.

 

Agreed

 

I'm watching Mr Bean at the moment in France, we got a few Mr beans on the board, selling shares is one thing, but starving the club and squad of funds is another, no way will I let the grubby bastards off what they have done to this team, and our club. They can all rot in hell, even that would be far too good for them, piss artists the lot of them.

 

Mr Bean would do a better job then our lot.

 

A couple of points

• They took a punt with their money , all business men do hoping for a return on their investment ( and that's exactly what they did ,investing rather than gifting the Club the money unlike Mel Nurse who's part in all of this has been air brushed out by the likes of Jenkins and Co )
• Just in case you've forgotten but a lot of people who are a lot less wealthy than Jenkins and co put their money into the Club by buying shares in the knowledge that their money was going into the Club and didn't expect a return but did it for the love of the club ,they have every right to be critics
• Who pays for jenkins & co to attend home and away matches , travelling in luxury , no travelling on a supporters coach for them,
• Who awarded the Chairman a half a million pay deal
• Which DOF has cost the Club millions with the purchase of championship players when we've been desperate for PL standard players just to keep treading water
• Which Chairman awarded long contracts to players who should have been moved on and replaced with better 2 / 3 years ago.
• Which chairman has cost the club millions in compensation payments to sacked managers because of the ridiculously expensive long contracts
• Who decided to pay themselves large dividends but pleading poverty when it comes to buying players
• Who's' company build Fairwood and Landore.
• Who's' company has contracts with the Club to supply vending machines.
• Which director was caught selling match tickets en bloc at inflated prices
• Which director leases a club shop in Cwmdu.
• Which director leased the development facilities at Cwmdu.
• Put hundreds of local jobs at risk by pursuing their greedy agenda.

You mention shares ,what's your view on how they manipulated the Trust and denied them the opportunity to ensure security and maintaining a say in the future of the Club ? .or the fact that they dismissed out of hand the opportunity for Chinese INVESTORS to buy a portion of Jenkins and co's shares then INVEST in the Club and the City but that would have meant then that the rats wouldn't have made yet even more money now would it. Instead they choose to exclude the second majority shareholder and keep them in the dark about their sordid scheme and when confronted lied about the original shareholders agreement which specified exactly what shouldn't happen in the event that some shareholders wished to sell .Sold the Club to a bunch of self styled Adventure Capitalists (by their own admission) with out ensuring the financial security of the Club ,
I'll finish by using your last sentence
"but I would like to think I am not as one eyed as some posters seem to be "
Some maybe one eyed but obviously not as ignorant as some.

 

First of all Jenkins as chief executive is entitled to a salary and perks that come with the job. Secondly if directors award contracts to their own companies and they can do the job as well and as cheaply as other contractors nothing wrong with that. I'm not defending all of Jenkin's decisions but what I do question is people thinking there is a bottomless pit of funding. I get the impression that some think the past directors should have been sinking their own money into transfers. This is an over simplification I know but let's take Martin Morgan as an example. I read somewhere that his personal fortune was approx £60 million. Interest on that at 5% gives an income of £3 million. You can't buy much of a player for that these days I think there have been a lot of bad decisions on the playing and managerial side of the club but I don't accept the greedy bastards side of the argument.

 

I don't think I've read anywhere that people believe that there is a bottomless pit for funding.

Similarly, I can't recall anyone calling for the Directors to personally fund transfers.

 

Then what is all the greedy bastards song and dance about because where is investment going to come from if not from the owners. We know commercial revenue is relatively poor I don't disagree with any comment s about bad decisions because we all know there have been.

 

What gripes most people is that said contracts never went out to tender, so they have charged what they like. I know a little on how Fairwood was done.

 

Selling their shares to the Yanks rather than issuing new shares which would have seen the Yanks' money go into the Club's coffers.

 

Or selling to the Chinese investors who would have invested heavily into the club and regenerasted the city, like the man city owners.

But the 'greedy bastards' wouldn't have received as such money as they did from these Yanks.

 

I respect your opinions but do you believe that the points above in my post are an acceptable way for the so called custodians of the club to behave ?