The Cost Of Laws (above)
By Dave Thomas November 28 2011
The dust from the end of year accounts settled and the near £4million deficit was no surprise. That it would be thus had been said long before the accounts were published. The question: “Where has the money gone,” was pretty much answered, except people would have liked a little more explanation of the high operating costs. Exactly what do they consist of? How much of the costs were taken up by compensation paid to Brian Laws et al, and Bournemouth? The bit that stood out for me (not that I have read the whole thing) was that at the end-of-year there was only £20k in the bank, if I read it right.
So, on Saturday November 19th, there we were after a 2 – 1 defeat at home, and contemplating having no money. By the end of the next day we contemplated being just 2 points above the drop zone after Bristol City won. It looked horrible. I can’t imagine that Barry Kilby didn’t think the same.
The general picture at that point seemed to be that; some supporters have their grumbles about Eddie Howe. The most severe say he is out of his depth. Others say he lacks the contacts within the game to find the essential loan players needed.
But, the majority realised that he needs time and patience and were incredibly open-minded. He was receiving tolerance in abundance bearing in mind the season’s low win percentage of not even 33%. There are few if any grumbles about the actual appointment of Eddie Howe. He was the hot property, being courted by Charlton and Crystal Palace. The CV was good. The generosity being displayed towards him may have shifted somewhat after the Birmingham game.
The grumbles that do exist go back to the Laws appointment, but on that score the directors will argue till the cows come home that there was no one else either available or interested at such short notice. The supporters reply to that is simply to ask why he was given such a lengthy contract. Why was he allowed to inflate the wage bill so much? The perception, rightly or wrongly, is that the Laws appointment and its consequences, was a major cause of the loss.
That Eddie Howe was receiving the benefit of the doubt stemmed from the general perception that, “he’d had the rug pulled from under his feet” by the Board, although how fans perceive things is not necessarily the same as what actually happens behind the boardroom door. But what they perceive is that player sales and cost-cutting are boardroom policies not Eddie Howe’s. Howe is seen as the victim with little say in the decision making process. The view is that he has so far worked with his hands tied behind his back. The majority rue the sale of Fox. The verdict was split on the sale of Elliott. The rest of the departures were seen as inevitable.
Opinions about the Board ranged from wanting to see them replaced, to the other view, by what or by whom? There is a boardroom mantra that says if you know anyone better or wealthier than us you know where to send them. The rumour started that FUN88 would be taking over.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net
There is a boardroom mantra that says if you know anyone better or wealthier than us you know where to send them. The rumour started that FUN88 would be taking over.