I don't know. I have a vague memory that he is, but I could be wrong. Not the most helpful reply, but it's all I've got. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bullit
Printable View
I don't know. I have a vague memory that he is, but I could be wrong. Not the most helpful reply, but it's all I've got. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bullit
I'm afraid I have no inside knowledge. My feeling that they'll carry on with the way things are is that there's no point in trying to get in a different manager as anyone who might have a track record is going to be put off by the club's situation. The revenue from the Man Utd game might have been a useful carrot to dangle, but that's already eaten at this stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by bullit
That doesn't explain why they haven't paid Henderson any money. They may not have been in a position to provide for it all, but any half-responsible debtor would at least make a token gesture to acknowledge the debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by gormacha
Unless, of course, said debtor doesn't believe they legitimately owe the money.
I couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I'm sure there are some who hold that point of view. To my mind though it's irrelevant. A court has decided, and that's pretty much that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I think the Blues have been irresponsible in this matter. I really think they deserve credit for not trying to buy their way out of the First Division. There's too much of that crap going on in football everywhere. But I'm absolutely baffled as to why they didn't engage with Henderson on some level. The only way I can explain it is that they hoped he'd go away. As I said earlier, foolish and wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainee
Member / Supporter Trust run clubs are well able to crash and burn. "Lurching from one disaster to another", not "cutting their cloth according to their measure" and spending "more than you earn" readily fits with both member owner and privately owned models in recent seasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by disgruntled
Bellavistaman, it's simple league of ireland logic from both parties. From the club - sit and do nothing, hope it all goes away. From the person - get onto a journo mate and shout loud. I know this is too simplistic, but I've followed this story from the off and each time it curls back to the same thing. 2 opposite opinions and no professional way of curing it. And in some ways it rolls back to contracts and stability, clubs want to be more settled and plan for the future, things go wrong and the club wants to bail on the manager and they realise the situation they're in is bad. It will take the FAI to step in and do something with it.
You talk a lot about "engaging with Henderson on some level"Quote:
Originally Posted by deiseach
What exactly do you mean by this when Waterford were obviously unwilling to pay him anything?
It sounds like something Leo Varadkar might say.
I believe that a supporters run club has a better chance of staying within their means because they are run by people who love the game & are fans of the particular club involved & not some business wanabe who uses the club as a play thing or as a means of advancing himself in the public eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezeikial
It doesn't mean they can't get themselves in trouble but being football people they have a better chance of seeing the warning signs.
If Waterford had met with Henderson I'm sure they could have come to some arrangement as to how to pay him off. Instead they choose to ignore him on the chance he might just go away in a similar way to what some people do with their individual debts.
Its not easy running a football club but there's a right way & a wrong way.
disgruntled, you're right to a large degree, supporters run clubs have more of a chance of staying within their means, though in essence all clubs are run/owned by supporters (or the majority I should say). Football clubs are not for proper investors, those who want to shift funds, okay, or to fund other ventures, but not for long term traditional returns. But supporter run clubs can also have their issues and the central one is division in the ranks, this can damage the effectiveness of an otherwise good model.Quote:
Originally Posted by disgruntled
German clubs (as well as many on the continent) are supposedly led by supporters, but dig a little below the surface and the bulk of power is from the commercial or governmental side. In Russia, almost all clubs are set up as societies organised around a defined entity (army, factory etc) and in the paperwork are owned by supporters, however the funding is usually from 1 or 2 sources (or both) - a local company or benefactor and/or the local government. Each club will have a rep from one or both controlling issues and it only takes a fall from grace to destroy a club - I can list 11 from this past 14 months from Premier to 2nd Division. Regardless of how well they're run (as supporters clubs) the central issue is funding and access to funding, nobody can be 100% sure of either so ultimately it's all based on eliminating negative factors and reducing risk as much as possible.
This type of post baffles me. Both deiseach and I have pointed out - repeatedly - that we don't agree with what the club did, and that they should have have begun negotiations at the very least about how to structure paying him, and that they should pay him because a court has decreed that has to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by dong
I was just wondering why deiseach would use that phrase rather than just saying the club should have paid the money owed.Quote:
Originally Posted by gormacha
I've read through the last couple of pages and I accept your point to an extent but there is a contradictory theme as well in a few posts of saying sure where would we get the money?
Would Waterford not consider setting up a new company and transfer anything worthwhile into it (fai licence, players reg, playing gear etc) and leave debts etc in the old/current one. A number of the big LoI clubs have done this over the years, even Pats if I remember correctly.
MOD NOTE: Folks- there were allegations made above with nothing like the level of support required for things of this nature.
Please be very careful with what you post.
It is perfectly possible to comment on the matter and indeed introduce new material without making bald accusations that could lead to legal issues for the site and the poster. But if that proves beyond people then yeah, the thread will end up gone.
Edit. Cleaned out the whinging crap. If you want to complain do it in the support forum. We have already lost a thread because people can't use a bit of sense when posting, it would be good if we could avoid doing so again.
Just saw this on Twitter, a photo from Feb 1932 advertising a Waterford/Dundalk game. Too much tradition to allow Waterford to go under.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BN3UXVTCUAAVbgN.jpg:large
Kilcohan Park, Sunday, Feb 14th. If my eyes are up to it?
Wonder what the 'we have peace' is all about?
20-20, Nesta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99
The election posters of that era are fascinating. The one you mention can be viewed here in more detail.
http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000275417
Link much appreciated WH, early 20th century Irish political history pointers on a football forum! Nice!
i like the 5th poster over. the silhouette of the gunman. was the pic taken in dlk or Waterford I wonder?