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

[EastStandBlue]

As i've told you before, I was told that Grays refused to do business with SUFC anymore because we still owed them money from the Eastwood sale.

This was before Eastwood's sale.

And BC, you have mail.

 

[GBJ]

And you know this for a fact, i.e. Brush or Tilson told you this? i am not saying this may not be the case, I am just intrigued when people state things like the above and are unable to substantiate the claim. You can PM me the source of the information if you like to keep it away from public domain.

To be honest at the time i guess you are suggesting is when we were entering the Championship, he may have decided it was just too risky for Championship football, of course if we had stayed down then who knows what could have happened.

McClean was on our radar after the CCC season. Same as Dennis Oli

 

[GBJ]

This was before Eastwood's sale.

And BC, you have mail.

No we went after, McClean and Oli post-CCC season, as far as i'm aware, and tbh I trust the source of the info

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

ditto. except i heard different re boere. Basically adams wanted to negotiate, jeroen's agent was playing hardball - vic walks past the office, and adams tells vic hes got a problem re wages. vic says no problem, pay him what they want!

Interesting that Adams was trying to negotiate, while Jobson was actively "fiddling while Rome burned". I'd forgotten that we often referred to that era as JobAdams. Wonder what Adams actually did, and what he's up to now...

 

[EastStandBlue]

No we went after, McClean and Oli post-CCC season, as far as i'm aware, and tbh I trust the source of the info

Considering that Aaron McLean initially moved to Peterborough on loan in 2006, and Eastwood left us in July '07, I find that hard to believe...

 

[Napster]

Interesting that Adams was trying to negotiate, while Jobson was actively "fiddling while Rome burned". I'd forgotten that we often referred to that era as JobAdams. Wonder what Adams actually did, and what he's up to now...

adams is doing business development for southend council. he did a lot by the sounds of things.

 

[GBJ]

Considering that Aaron McLean initially moved to Peterborough on loan in 2006, and Eastwood left us in July '07, I find that hard to believe...

That's upto you. I've been told Grays, namely Micky Woodward won't do business with SUFC, after we messed them about with the Eastwood money. Maybe it wasn't the sell-on money, maybe it was something similar, but it is apparently true that they won't do business with us.

 

[Jam_Man]

Thanks first to brigadista, for a thought-provoking first foray onto these boards. However, one thing ought to be cleared up: the notion that Ron "got the club for next to nothing". I don't think that's right at all.

People seem to forget that our current woes trace back entirely to the mid-1990s - and specifically to the Whelan-Chipmunk stewardship of the club (at a time when Vic was fighting a losing battle with cancer - hence with no one properly running the club from a financial point of view). We signed players on ruinously high wages (e.g. Boere on - supposedly - £3,500/wk basic... and that was in the mid 90s!), whilst gates were dwindling below 5,000 as we commenced our seemingly inexorable slide down the table.

When SEL (half Delancey, half Martin Dawn) bought out Vic's 76% shareholding, they not only paid a healthy sum (about £4m?), but they bought a club with at least £4m of debt - and rising. John Main did nothing to halt that decline - players wages alone were, infamously, 123% of turnover during his stint (and that's before we account for the £150k paid to Peter Storrie - what for, exactly, I've never understood).

By the time of our first appearance at the door of the Winders Court in 2000, we were a club that was already substantially broke. Where Ron Martin can be criticised is that he has done nothing to improve that situation. Instead, he has taken on some very substantial liabilities (e.g. the finance to buy out Delancey's half-share of the club), he has spent a lot of money on some expensive architects and planning consultants... and all seemingly predicated on a business plan where he would always be able to obtain a ready stream of working capital from external sources.

This we all know, and we've talked about numerous times. So, what's the point in repeating it? Well:

1. We shouldn't trick ourselves into thinking that, somehow, Ron is the problem and that the panacea is to remove him. Ron clearly is a problem. But our club was screwed long before him, and is likely to be for some time afterwards if/when he goes.

2. Ron - through a sophisticated (tangled?) web of sub- and offshore-companies - has already spent and invested a lot of money in this club. Brigadista - what makes you think that somehow he'd simply walk away? Administration, or a CVA, wouldn't change a thing. He'd still be the largest single creditor. He'd still call the shots, and we'd still have to deal with him.

3. Liquidation wouldn't be a great solution either. We would have to rename the club (he'd probably own the intellectual property in the club badge and the club name) - we'd have to become AFC Southend, and re-start at the bottom of the footballing pyramid. It would be 10-15 years before we were even close to the league - and I imagine we'd have lost a lot of our fanbase along the way. FC United is linked to Manchester United, one of the largest football clubs in the world; and AFC Wimbledon is linked to a former Premier League club in a place that was always a hotbed of football fan-dom. Southend is neither of those things. What makes you think the club would survive at all, let alone in anything like its current form?

* * *

Don't get me wrong - I believe Ron has acted in a shabby, shameful manner in the last year. He has peddled half-truths and misinformation; he has strangled the club of cashflow; he has failed to pay the players; he has treated the fans with disdain; he alone set the club on course for relegation through his actions; and he continues to act like some sort of risible pocket Napoleon. He is a total bloody embarrassment, of that there can be no doubt.

But the way I see it, the choice we face now is to stick with him - since he is determined to make his supermarket deal - or to face oblivion. If the club can survive for long enough to see us in a new stadium - one in which, perhaps, we might have a chance of growing the fanbase - then there may yet be a future for this club.

Maybe we are, ultimately, doomed - even if we move. Maybe relegation and penury beckons. But there remains a chance that things will turn out OK - we'll stay in the league, and we'll prosper. A slim chance, but a chance nonetheless.

If we all boycott the home games, however, then we have no chance - it's liquidation, and 15+ years of obscurity while we scrape together the money to buy a plot of land, build a stadium and work our way back up the footballing pyramid from the bottom. You'll forgive me if I don't think that that looks like a terribly appealing prospect.

If we support the club (and its unappealing current chairman) we have a chance. If we boycott it, we don't. That's how I see it; and that's why I'll be at Roots Hall on 7th August, cheering on the boys (and saving an especially loud cheer for Anthony Grant).

Matt

Post of the month and cant believe only Beefy has responded.

People are so blinded with hatred for Ron Martin that they are suggesting adminstration etc are good for the club, but right now we are tied to Ron Martin until the project is delivered or he is bought out with a realistic offer from the consortium.

Until the latter happens we have to continue to support the club and just pray RM can sort out the mess.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

That's upto you. I've been told Grays, namely Micky Woodward won't do business with SUFC, after we messed them about with the Eastwood money. Maybe it wasn't the sell-on money, maybe it was something similar, but it is apparently true that they won't do business with us.

We signed Freddy on loan with a view to a permanent move, and once he scored a few goals Grays tried to change the asking price. So Ron said OK and took out the sell-on clause (for which he deserves credit).

Didn't stop us signing Mitchell Cole the following season.

 

[EastStandBlue]

That's upto you. I've been told Grays, namely Micky Woodward won't do business with SUFC, after we messed them about with the Eastwood money. Maybe it wasn't the sell-on money, maybe it was something similar, but it is apparently true that they won't do business with us.

That was definitely the case over the Eastwood sell-on clause after Eastwood had gone, but we'd watched McLean for a while before it had escalated. I understood it as Woodward alledging that RM had verbally agreed to sell-on percentage, however there was nothing in writing and it effectively descended into a tit-for-tat his word against RM's slanging match in the local press. Given both RM's and Woodward's apparent untrustworthiness, you wouldn't know who to believe.

 

[Jam_Man]

OK, answer me this, IF Ronald McMartin had come out and said "we can sign such and such, but cannot sign certain players on high wages because 3/4/5 years down the line we could face liquidation", just how many of the people causing the so-called uproar would persist?

Pretty much all of them.

Even in the past few weeks Ive seen people criticise Ron Martin for not splashing the cash on players like Theo Robinson only 7 months ago.

Supporters wanted money spent and if RM had said it would have led to financial problems (problems he didnt forsee as the credit crunch hadnt happened) then people would have criticised him for that. There was massive unrest that money wasnt spent and to be told of financial problems that didnt exist so obviously back then wouldnt have appeased anyone.

In hindsight it would have been better to have not spent anything but lets not make out he didnt do what supporters wanted, in fact he didnt spent half as much as most wanted.

 

[Jam_Man]

We signed Freddy on loan with a view to a permanent move, and once he scored a few goals Grays tried to change the asking price. So Ron said OK and took out the sell-on clause (for which he deserves credit).

Didn't stop us signing Mitchell Cole the following season.

...or Gary Hooper.

I think there was some issues when Eastwood joined Wolves though that there was a gentlemans agreement. It was discussed on here and to be honest at the time I hoped that we didnt pay Grays anything, if it wasnt in the contract then thats their issue.

Weve missed out on big money by letting players go before, thats life.

 

[Norwichshrimper]

Thanks first to brigadista, for a thought-provoking first foray onto these boards. However, one thing ought to be cleared up: the notion that Ron "got the club for next to nothing". I don't think that's right at all.

People seem to forget that our current woes trace back entirely to the mid-1990s - and specifically to the Whelan-Chipmunk stewardship of the club (at a time when Vic was fighting a losing battle with cancer - hence with no one properly running the club from a financial point of view). We signed players on ruinously high wages (e.g. Boere on - supposedly - £3,500/wk basic... and that was in the mid 90s!), whilst gates were dwindling below 5,000 as we commenced our seemingly inexorable slide down the table.

When SEL (half Delancey, half Martin Dawn) bought out Vic's 76% shareholding, they not only paid a healthy sum (about £4m?), but they bought a club with at least £4m of debt - and rising. John Main did nothing to halt that decline - players wages alone were, infamously, 123% of turnover during his stint (and that's before we account for the £150k paid to Peter Storrie - what for, exactly, I've never understood).

By the time of our first appearance at the door of the Winders Court in 2000, we were a club that was already substantially broke. Where Ron Martin can be criticised is that he has done nothing to improve that situation. Instead, he has taken on some very substantial liabilities (e.g. the finance to buy out Delancey's half-share of the club), he has spent a lot of money on some expensive architects and planning consultants... and all seemingly predicated on a business plan where he would always be able to obtain a ready stream of working capital from external sources.

This we all know, and we've talked about numerous times. So, what's the point in repeating it? Well:

1. We shouldn't trick ourselves into thinking that, somehow, Ron is the problem and that the panacea is to remove him. Ron clearly is a problem. But our club was screwed long before him, and is likely to be for some time afterwards if/when he goes.

2. Ron - through a sophisticated (tangled?) web of sub- and offshore-companies - has already spent and invested a lot of money in this club. Brigadista - what makes you think that somehow he'd simply walk away? Administration, or a CVA, wouldn't change a thing. He'd still be the largest single creditor. He'd still call the shots, and we'd still have to deal with him.

3. Liquidation wouldn't be a great solution either. We would have to rename the club (he'd probably own the intellectual property in the club badge and the club name) - we'd have to become AFC Southend, and re-start at the bottom of the footballing pyramid. It would be 10-15 years before we were even close to the league - and I imagine we'd have lost a lot of our fanbase along the way. FC United is linked to Manchester United, one of the largest football clubs in the world; and AFC Wimbledon is linked to a former Premier League club in a place that was always a hotbed of football fan-dom. Southend is neither of those things. What makes you think the club would survive at all, let alone in anything like its current form?

* * *

Don't get me wrong - I believe Ron has acted in a shabby, shameful manner in the last year. He has peddled half-truths and misinformation; he has strangled the club of cashflow; he has failed to pay the players; he has treated the fans with disdain; he alone set the club on course for relegation through his actions; and he continues to act like some sort of risible pocket Napoleon. He is a total bloody embarrassment, of that there can be no doubt.

But the way I see it, the choice we face now is to stick with him - since he is determined to make his supermarket deal - or to face oblivion. If the club can survive for long enough to see us in a new stadium - one in which, perhaps, we might have a chance of growing the fanbase - then there may yet be a future for this club.

Maybe we are, ultimately, doomed - even if we move. Maybe relegation and penury beckons. But there remains a chance that things will turn out OK - we'll stay in the league, and we'll prosper. A slim chance, but a chance nonetheless.

If we all boycott the home games, however, then we have no chance - it's liquidation, and 15+ years of obscurity while we scrape together the money to buy a plot of land, build a stadium and work our way back up the footballing pyramid from the bottom. You'll forgive me if I don't think that that looks like a terribly appealing prospect.

If we support the club (and its unappealing current chairman) we have a chance. If we boycott it, we don't. That's how I see it; and that's why I'll be at Roots Hall on 7th August, cheering on the boys (and saving an especially loud cheer for Anthony Grant).

Matt

That'sjust ridiculous. There's no place for logic on this site. Must try harder

 

[GBJ]

Pretty much all of them.

Even in the past few weeks Ive seen people criticise Ron Martin for not splashing the cash on players like Theo Robinson only 7 months ago.

Supporters wanted money spent and if RM had said it would have led to financial problems (problems he didnt forsee as the credit crunch hadnt happened) then people would have criticised him for that. There was massive unrest that money wasnt spent and to be told of financial problems that didnt exist so obviously back then wouldnt have appeased anyone.

In hindsight it would have been better to have not spent anything but lets not make out he didnt do what supporters wanted, in fact he didnt spent half as much as most wanted.

But again, you and others, seem content to just accept it. What has happened is serious financial mismanagement. It's so serious that we've escaped liquidation (temporarily) by the skin of our teeth. It's being played down, as if it's just a minor mistake or a kind of "well it could have happened to anyone" accident.

Ron is a very clever man who would have had people working with him and discussing the possible repercussions of signing players on big wages.
Either there was no foresight/planning or Ron has ignored it anyway, thrown caution to the wind, and gone on to find himself in a world of ****.

In the words of ACU, you seem a 'level headed' poster, so tell me, if Ronald McDonald had said "if we spunk X amount on wages etc, there is a severe possibilty we'll be on the verge of going bust 3/4 years down the line", would you have still called for money to be spent?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Post of the month and cant believe only Beefy has responded.

People are so blinded with hatred for Ron Martin that they are suggesting adminstration etc are good for the club, but right now we are tied to Ron Martin until the project is delivered or he is bought out with a realistic offer from the consortium.

Until the latter happens we have to continue to support the club and just pray RM can sort out the mess.

I too thought it an excellent post, people have simply to put their disgust and mistrust behind them and hope that Ron actually does know what he's doing even if it's not to our taste.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

...or Gary Hooper.

I think there was some issues when Eastwood joined Wolves though that there was a gentlemans agreement. It was discussed on here and to be honest at the time I hoped that we didnt pay Grays anything, if it wasnt in the contract then thats their issue.

Weve missed out on big money by letting players go before, thats life.

Hooper was on a free IIRC.

As I understand it, there was a sell-on in the fee originally agreed for Freddy when we signed him on loan. Freddy then scored a few goals and Grays got greedy and reneged on this deal. They then later claimed that the sell-on clause from the original deal should count. Serves them right for getting greedy and reneging.

Unlike when we screwed Rotherham over JCR, I have no sympathy in this case.

 

[Kris]

Regarding Aaron McClean, I believe Paul Brush released him when manager of Orient as he didn't rate him, something which has riled Os' fans ever since. As such, I'm not convinced he was ever on our radar.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

But again, you and others, seem content to just accept it. What has happened is serious financial mismanagement. It's so serious that we've escaped liquidation (temporarily) by the skin of our teeth. It's being played down, as if it's just a minor mistake or a kind of "well it could have happened to anyone" accident.

Ron is a very clever man who would have had people working with him and discussing the possible repercussions of signing players on big wages.
Either there was no foresight/planning or Ron has ignored it anyway, thrown caution to the wind, and gone on to find himself in a world of ****.

In the words of ACU, you seem a 'level headed' poster, so tell me, if Ronald McDonald had said "if we spunk X amount on wages etc, there is a severe possibilty we'll be on the verge of going bust 3/4 years down the line", would you have still called for money to be spent?

I have no issue with condemning Ron for authorising the signings of Peter Clarke and Richie Foran, but were you not one of the ones jumping up and down shouting 'where's the Freddy money gone?' 'Open the warchest' etc etc?

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

Good grief!

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply. I will gladly respond to your response to my response of someone else's message.


If you check back, Beefy makes the very point that you are arguing against - that if you are percieved to be in any way pro-Ron, you are likely to be called some fairly derogatory names.

The comment was made (not by Beefy, it must be said) that such terms are the majority of what anti-Ron protestors and posters use. I merely requested factual clarification as I believe that not to be the case.


Perhaps suggesting that you were calling Beefy a liar was a bit further than I meant to go, but it doesn't invalidate the point. You are trying to suggest in your first paragraph that suggestions that name calling takes place are wrong or exaggerated.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer.


Anyone who reads back through these threads will know that simply isn't so, and I am suprised and disappointed that you posted that, especially since you yourself described people who didn't agree with your point of view "heartless and gutless".

For want of a better term, that is a lie, or at best misrepresentation. My original comment, although I can't remember word-for-word, was that there were too many heartless and gutless people within our support to make any protest truly effective. Which, sadly, was proven last Monday. This, of course, referred to people who were particularly vocal and angry at the way the club was being run but have just sat on their backsides when the time came to do anything. That is a world away from 'people who didn't agree with your point of view'. I graciously accept your apology in advance.


As for our personal arrangements, I didn't think that the public forum was the place to discuss them - surely a PM would have been more appropriate?

If we have any 'personal arrangements' in place, please let me know, as I am unaware of any. A PM will, of course, be gladly accepted.

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[Steve]

There are people who write on fourms like this and people who write into the local paper but, until now, I'm one of the majority - the people who watch matches, read what's going on but don't get involved in feedback. Until last season I was a season ticket holder but I don't think the club needs my £20 a match. So I will boycott Roots Hall because Martin has treated fans badly. He's been shifty and dishonest - the comment about Macca on the interview by his staff member on the officail site proved that to me, although I didn't really need proof. I know there's no other way forward at the moment but I don't like Martin and I don't like the direction it's going, already mentioned here. The car stickers are coming down as well!