FAO all Ron Martin believers, apologists, apathists: why I shall be voting option 5..

[GBJ]

Sorry GBJ, but the original point about aggressive/abusive posting came from me, and in hindsight I was incorrect in stating it was the majority of the anti Ron brigade ( A comment I would now like to withdraw) I still feel there has been the type of posting I described but not by the majority.

As I said, it's been both sides over the months, and even then it's not been that bad (imo of course). Anyway, let's get this thread back on track...

I think Ron's a **** because.....

:)

 

[Beefy]

Regardless of what it was over, whether it was a convincing arguement or not, my point is a very valid one in response to what ACU was saying. He was accusing the Anti-Ron Rebels of the usual agression/abuse etc. And i've shown, with proof, that not only is it a two way street, but if anything the condecending and patronising is more evident from the Pro-Ron Brigade.

Now if I was Ace Ventura, I might now say;

"Ooh, ooh, can ya feel it, huh? huh? can ya?". :)

I don't think it is valid. If someone makes a stupid comment with no arguement to back it up then they are obviously going to attract criticism. Plenty of people who are well and truely in the 'Ron-Out' camp now made posts ridiculing the kid who started that thread.

 

[GBJ]

I don't think it is valid. If someone makes a stupid comment with no arguement to back it up then they are obviously going to attract criticism. Plenty of people who are well and truely in the 'Ron-Out' camp now made posts ridiculing the kid who started that thread.

I'll agree with the highlighted bit, as it is a fair point. However, there is a difference between criticism and being condescending/patronising.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Folks... FWIW, I think passions have run fairly high on this thread - as well it might. We're talking about the future direction of our club - I'd be a bit alarmed if we weren't (collectively) a bit passionate about it.

It seems to me that both the "Pro-Ron" (is anyone really Pro Ron?) and the Anti-Ron Brigade have said some pretty strident things - some of the comments said by and against (respectively) ACU and Groyney surprised and shocked me, since both are amongst the Zone's most reasoned and reasonable members.

Whilst we all encourage spirited debate, can I all ask you to adopt a modicum of self-moderation? Please re-read your comments before you press that reply button. For instance, would any of you call someone a liar to their face? If not, perhaps you ought not to do so on this board; that it's done from the safety of a room and a computer screen should give none of our members any free rein to say things which are at best impolite, and at worst deeply insulting.

Fundamentally, we all want the same thing - a better, stronger, financially viable club. Let's try not to fall out if we disagree as to the best means of achieving that.

Matt

 

[steveo]

I think the thread has been debated in quite a decent manner overall, its just a shame there are 2/3 sides. hopefully by the end of the year there will only be one side and it will be supporting FF, Ron, The Club, The Manager and most importantly the team.
Bring it on.

 

[united we stand]

None of us know the exact workings of the club finances.
The hypothetical question I would like to ask Ron is with hindsight if we could go back to the first day of last season what would you have done differently?
I think most people on this board feel that if the players had been paid on a more regular basis then we might still be in league one , and the contracts cancelled fiasco would not have happened. So on that premise what should have been done differently to ensure that we paid players on time? Where would the money come from ? This is a serous question , if you were chairman what would you have done differently if you stepped in on the first day of last season.

Clearly the way Ron has spoken to the players could have been massively improved, if various posts on here are correct . And this would have cost nothing . There are certain 'lies' as people put it that may have been in the 'clubs' best interests , but on balance communication could/should have been a lot better. But what tangible things should have been done differently ?

for example
Could/should we have sold Mccormack to Milwall when allegedly there was a fee on the table. Would this have helped, or is the amount insignificant
Could we have paid the tax bill earlier, would this have stopped the call for the full amount ?
What incentives could we have given the players when paying them was difficult.
Could the Sainsbury’s deal have been tied up months earlier- would this have made a difference?

So what would you ahve different and how ? Pay the palyers is not an answer without suggesting where to obtain the funds to pay them with

 

[Beefy]

I think the damage would likely have been done by the first day of last season and what little cash we had left was about to be wiped out by HMRC demanding two year's worth of tax arrears a month or two later.

That said, we should have been more proactive last summer in reducing the wage bill. Betsy and Revell were moved on, and we tried to do the same with Freedman and Walker. Not selling McCormack was an obvious mistake, but not attempting to sell Barrett, Francis, Mildenhall and Barnard (this would have been before his run of goals, remember) was equally an error. As unpopular as it would have been, had we have managed to get all of those players off of the wagebill then we likely would have been able to bring in enough replacements to have a balanced squad (with more than one central defender) and still have been able to massively slash our expenditure.

As usual I think his biggest mistake was saying too much. Had he not have promised signings early last summer then he wouldn't have had as much stick when those signings didn't materialise. He should have come out and said that we'd had two attempts to get back into the Championship but it hadn't panned out and like many other businesses it was necessary for Southend United to massively cut back on expenditure until such time as the economy has recovered and the Stadium project can be pushed forward.

 

[EastStandBlue]

I think the damage would likely have been done by the first day of last season and what little cash we had left was about to be wiped out by HMRC demanding two year's worth of tax arrears a month or two later.

That said, we should have been more proactive last summer in reducing the wage bill. Betsy and Revell were moved on, and we tried to do the same with Freedman and Walker. Not selling McCormack was an obvious mistake, but not attempting to sell Barrett, Francis, Mildenhall and Barnard (this would have been before his run of goals, remember) was equally an error. As unpopular as it would have been, had we have managed to get all of those players off of the wagebill then we likely would have been able to bring in enough replacements to have a balanced squad (with more than one central defender) and still have been able to massively slash our expenditure.

As usual I think his biggest mistake was saying too much. Had he not have promised signings early last summer then he wouldn't have had as much stick when those signings didn't materialise. He should have come out and said that we'd had two attempts to get back into the Championship but it hadn't panned out and like many other businesses it was necessary for Southend United to massively cut back on expenditure until such time as the economy has recovered and the Stadium project can be pushed forward.

Can you imagine the uproar, particularly on here, if Macca, Barrett, Francis, Mildenhall and Barnard were all shipped off before being replaced with cheaper options, though? It'd be a Warzone full of accusations of embezzlement and leaving Tilson out in the cold. Selling Barnard when we did was the correct move given the financial implications and we did have a firm offer on the table from Millwall for McCormack... However I'm led to believe that this hinged on us finding a replacement, which we didn't, and Macca played himself out of a move towards the end of last season.

I think the largest crime was handing lucrative, long contracts to these players based on their reputations within the club, rather than according to their talent. I'm indifferent to the relegation-decrease clauses because, although the wages were large for us, they were still average Championship wages and clauses like these will always prove to be stumbling blocks with agents. There's no way on God's green Earth that Barrett should've been handed a three year deal on a wage unsustainable outside of the Championship.

I'll agree with you on saying too much though... The infamous blogs have proven to be the rise and downfall of Ron.

 

[united we stand]

I think the damage would likely have been done by the first day of last season and what little cash we had left was about to be wiped out by HMRC demanding two year's worth of tax arrears a month or two later.

That said, we should have been more proactive last summer in reducing the wage bill. Betsy and Revell were moved on, and we tried to do the same with Freedman and Walker. Not selling McCormack was an obvious mistake, but not attempting to sell Barrett, Francis, Mildenhall and Barnard (this would have been before his run of goals, remember) was equally an error. As unpopular as it would have been, had we have managed to get all of those players off of the wagebill then we likely would have been able to bring in enough replacements to have a balanced squad (with more than one central defender) and still have been able to massively slash our expenditure.

As usual I think his biggest mistake was saying too much. Had he not have promised signings early last summer then he wouldn't have had as much stick when those signings didn't materialise. He should have come out and said that we'd had two attempts to get back into the Championship but it hadn't panned out and like many other businesses it was necessary for Southend United to massively cut back on expenditure until such time as the economy has recovered and the Stadium project can be pushed forward.

But if we had admitted to the brown stuff we were in, and put half the starting 11 up for sale what would this have done for morale?
We spent a good part of the year under an embargo so if we had sold players there is no gaurenteee that we would have got new players in ? Would getting the wage bill down have meant that we could have paid the players , not borrowed from the PFA and not been under a transfer embargo?

 

[GBJ]

But if we had admitted to the brown stuff we were in, and put half the starting 11 up for sale what would this have done for morale?

TBH though, was the morale that good anyway?

 

[Beefy]

But if we had admitted to the brown stuff we were in, and put half the starting 11 up for sale what would this have done for morale?
We spent a good part of the year under an embargo so if we had sold players there is no gaurenteee that we would have got new players in ? Would getting the wage bill down have meant that we could have paid the players , not borrowed from the PFA and not been under a transfer embargo?

I think we'd have had trouble paying our wagebill no matter what last season - we'd sold season tickets very early the season before which is a clear sign that the cashflow problems were already hitting home and I doubt that there was much of the season ticket money left by the time we got to the summer. But had we been able to cut ourselves adrift of those handful of contracts which had been acting as an anchor weighing the Club down we could have been able to bring in adequate replacements and cut the wagebill at the same time, just as we're doing right now.

 

[united we stand]

Selling Barnard when we did was the correct move given the financial implications and we did have a firm offer on the table from Millwall for McCormack... However I'm led to believe that this hinged on us finding a replacement, which we didn't, and Macca played himself out of a move towards the end of last season.

I.

This is my problem I don't get the logic here . Barney was irreplaceable, not Macca. Hindsight is a wonderfull thing, but with it I am struggling to understand why we didn't sell Macca when alledgely we could have . In the back of my mind I keep thinking that at the begining of the season Ron thought that he was going to get some money in from somewhere and that for whatever reason this did not come to fruition. Its either that or he has been exceptionally clever/stupid/lucky (delete as appropriate) in hoping/knowing that Sainsbury's would step in to stop the oblivion from happening. Maybe the truth is that in reality the business plan for this season had just one point --- stay in business, and everything has been centered around this. With hindight the resons for decisions normally become clearer, and it just isn't happening for me

 

[Rob Noxious]

Form an orderly queue.
My choice would be the aluminium baseball bats that were used in 1983 to give Kevin Keegan a doing and sold on eBay a few weeks back *

* - this is entirely fiction and so immune from any legal recourse

Rich - wasn't it a bit later that 'The Messiah' got that pasting? I think it was when he returned home in '86 - he was sleeping in the back of his car after taking a cross-channel ferry IIRC. I know it's :offtopic:but I just need to have some idea of how far my Alcozheimer's has kicked in.

 

[united we stand]

TBH though, was the morale that good anyway?

fair point , but I can't see that putting half the starting 11 up for sale would have helped improve it ---- unless of course it resulted in wages being paid and,maybe good free transfers /loaness whatever coming in, which is difficult in itself

 

[EastStandBlue]

This is my problem I don't get the logic here . Barney was irreplaceable, not Macca. Hindsight is a wonderfull thing, but with it I am struggling to understand why we didn't sell Macca when alledgely we could have . In the back of my mind I keep thinking that at the begining of the season Ron thought that he was going to get some money in from somewhere and that for whatever reason this did not come to fruition. Its either that or he has been exceptionally clever/stupid/lucky (delete as appropriate) in hoping/knowing that Sainsbury's would step in to stop the oblivion from happening. Maybe the truth is that in reality the business plan for this season had just one point --- stay in business, and everything has been centered around this. With hindight the resons for decisions normally become clearer, and it just isn't happening for me

Barnard was out of contract this Summer and would've certainly walked on a free on the back of a 20+ goalscoring season, even if we had stayed up. Barnard's sale meant that we got a much needed investment of £150,000 liquidity, as well as Paterson who, if he leaves, will see us receive another £100,000 or so. Whilst I think that we should've sold McCormack when he had the chance (I would, because I happen to think he's a very limited midfielder) I can see that, from a financial position, it makes sense to sell your asset who's value is vastly depreciating, rather than the one who's value will more or less stay the same as he's under contract.

Of course, the latter remark doesn't matter now, as Macca's walked on a free as a result of our financial implications.

 

[united we stand]

Barnard was out of contract this Summer and would've certainly walked on a free on the back of a 20+ goalscoring season, even if we had stayed up. Barnard's sale meant that we got a much needed investment of £150,000 liquidity, as well as Paterson who, if he leaves, will see us receive another £100,000 or so. Whilst I think that we should've sold McCormack when he had the chance (I would, because I happen to think he's a very limited midfielder) I can see that, from a financial position, it makes sense to sell your asset who's value is vastly depreciating, rather than the one who's value will more or less stay the same as he's under contract.

Of course, the latter remark doesn't matter now, as Macca's walked on a free as a result of our financial implications.

I understand all of the above and it all makes sense-----------------to a club on a sound financial footing. Hindsight has proven that we were deperate for cash , Ron must have known this as he has the accounts. Actually as I am writing this I realise that I know the answer. Ron didn't think that not paying the players would have the impact it did. Taking that into account not selling Macca (and using the funds to pay players) now makes sense-- from a Ron perspective. Or as I have said- he genuinely thought funds were coming in from god knows where.

 

[Beefy]

I think Ron has even said that selling Barnard was a mistake.

I doubt it would have made much difference though - I think the stats show that we didn't struggle to score goals after we'd sold Barnard but we certainly struggled to keep them out at the other end.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I think the damage would likely have been done by the first day of last season and what little cash we had left was about to be wiped out by HMRC demanding two year's worth of tax arrears a month or two later.

That said, we should have been more proactive last summer in reducing the wage bill. Betsy and Revell were moved on, and we tried to do the same with Freedman and Walker. Not selling McCormack was an obvious mistake, but not attempting to sell Barrett, Francis, Mildenhall and Barnard (this would have been before his run of goals, remember) was equally an error. As unpopular as it would have been, had we have managed to get all of those players off of the wagebill then we likely would have been able to bring in enough replacements to have a balanced squad (with more than one central defender) and still have been able to massively slash our expenditure.

As usual I think his biggest mistake was saying too much. Had he not have promised signings early last summer then he wouldn't have had as much stick when those signings didn't materialise. He should have come out and said that we'd had two attempts to get back into the Championship but it hadn't panned out and like many other businesses it was necessary for Southend United to massively cut back on expenditure until such time as the economy has recovered and the Stadium project can be pushed forward.

I wonder how much Tilly resisted such moves?

It seems Tilly's preference was to cut down on squad size rather than the highest earners.

 

[Rob Noxious]

Hats off to 'brigadista' - has a debut post & thread ever generated such a prolific response? :clap:

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Hats off to 'brigadista' - has a debut post & thread ever generated such a prolific response? :clap:

Yes, my one, but then again I posted about us getting to Cardiff about 3 seconds after the final whistle at Layer Road ;)