B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
But others DO want to own that bit of paper. The club's underhand tactics should not be ignored, just because you don't want to own a stake.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Dick Knights shares, final chapter?
- Thread starter AmexRuislip
- Start date
But others DO want to own that bit of paper. The club's underhand tactics should not be ignored, just because you don't want to own a stake.
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
Well said, TLO.
I've explained my view earlier that the club haven't been underhand. On the contrary, they've abided by the law and the Articles in a confidential, professional way. Perhaps you could explain how you think they've been underhanded?
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
Read Dick's 'final' email in this thread.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
He clearly has. Read Goldstone1976's first email in this thread.
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
He clearly doesn't believe a word of it... I do...
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
The facts are incontrovertible. The club have acted to the letter of the law, the rules of which were set up by DK himself. There's absolutely nothing underhand about it. If you know different, then I suggest you take it up with the Club Secretary.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Ask yourself this: If it was always the intention for DK to widen share ownership to the fanbase at large why did he not do this when he was chairman (and thus bringing in much needed tax-free revenue to the club in our biggest hour of need) and why did he not try to amend the rules that he set in place to prevent sale of shares to non-shareholders?
A simple amendment to the memorandum of articles so that shares could be sold openly if the shares on sale were under a de-minimis limit and no one buyer could receive more than X percentage, I would have thought. Aside from anything else these questions are the ones that best indicate DK's intentions in this respect were to cause a bit of mischief and generate publicity for his book.
A simple amendment to the memorandum of articles so that shares could be sold openly if the shares on sale were under a de-minimis limit and no one buyer could receive more than X percentage, I would have thought. Aside from anything else these questions are the ones that best indicate DK's intentions in this respect were to cause a bit of mischief and generate publicity for his book.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,221
Trying to compare the respective achievements of Knight & Bloom is like trying to compare a defender with a striker, surely.
Each are vital to their team in different ways, but you can't look at the raw stats and say that one is better than the other.
Personally, I found Knight's book a little disappointing at times, a tad self-indulgent if you will (and I know: if you can't do that in your autobiography, where can you?!). He seemed to be shocked & angry that Bloom expected the chairmanship in return for taking financial control of the club. I struggle to see what else you'd expect of a man making that sort of investment- "that's OK, Dick, I'll just sit quietly here in the corner and let you stay in charge of my money"- and that came across as a bit "me me me" when I read it. It's about the Albion, not about a popularity contest, and his share thing struck me as something of a publicity stunt to (a) get the book more widely promoted, (b) try & boost his standing amongst fans amid the stadium-fuelled Bloom-wave, & (c) to have a little pop at the club or at least annoy them.
Each are vital to their team in different ways, but you can't look at the raw stats and say that one is better than the other.
Personally, I found Knight's book a little disappointing at times, a tad self-indulgent if you will (and I know: if you can't do that in your autobiography, where can you?!). He seemed to be shocked & angry that Bloom expected the chairmanship in return for taking financial control of the club. I struggle to see what else you'd expect of a man making that sort of investment- "that's OK, Dick, I'll just sit quietly here in the corner and let you stay in charge of my money"- and that came across as a bit "me me me" when I read it. It's about the Albion, not about a popularity contest, and his share thing struck me as something of a publicity stunt to (a) get the book more widely promoted, (b) try & boost his standing amongst fans amid the stadium-fuelled Bloom-wave, & (c) to have a little pop at the club or at least annoy them.
Box of Frogs
Zamoras Left Boot
Hoist by his own petard!
sir albion
New member
I've never been a fan of knight to be frank...I think he's been the most overrated chairman in BHA history,one of 3 that had the task of taking over the club with nout to lose,spent 1.5 million in 10 years and got that back.Yes many will call him a legend and the saviour,but i think he got lucky with his legendary status,bloom rescued knight and protected his status as a legend by paying the withdean debts off.If bloom hadn't of came on board what would knight have done?the funding for the stadium under knight failed and the withdean wasn't a viable option.It was just a case of anybody taking us back to brighton from gillingham would be a legend,wether you had 10p or £10 million
You could say he's the only chairman to be seen as a god without spending any money...While he was the chairman at the withdean the debts just grew and grew as he didn't have any funds to pay the debts...bloom saved his blushes.
Just my opinion and i respect everyone else's
Langley
New member
Could not have put it better myself, a great post. Don't recall any other names coming forward in our hour of need.
sir albion
New member
3 consortiums did...knight was the best
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
Almost exactly the way I see it.
Knight's mistake was not to accept that his exalted place in Albion history and time at the helm was for a CERTAIN TIME ONLY, and enjoy it for that. That didn't lessen his role or achievement, we will always remember, but time moves on and he didn't. Real shame he could never get his head around that, because it has made him do and say things since that don't paint him in a great light.
There were aspects of the book that smacked of vanity, terrible name-dropping and some questionable versions of events. To be honest I'd happily forgive him all of that in an autobiography that was still great reading, but he needs to shut it now and get behind the man whose money finished the job he started, without whom equally we wouldn't be at the Amex.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,221
Oh I'm so glad it wasn't just me who thought that about the name dropping
And that bloody hotel in London must have been paying him commission, he mentioned it so often.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
The trouble with Dick Tight is he enjoyed the prestige too much, the limelight, the speeches on the pitch, the FA committees, the FL lunches and when it all came to an end he became bitter and twisted towards Tony Bloom instead of thanking him for bailing him out
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
I've never been a fan of knight to be frank...I think he's been the most overrated chairman in BHA history,one of 3 that had the task of taking over the club with nout to lose,spent 1.5 million in 10 years and got that back.Yes many will call him a legend and the saviour,but i think he got lucky with his legendary status,bloom rescued knight and protected his status as a legend by paying the withdean debts off.If bloom hadn't of came on board what would knight have done?the funding for the stadium under knight failed and the withdean wasn't a viable option.It was just a case of anybody taking us back to brighton from gillingham would be a legend,wether you had 10p or £10 million
You could say he's the only chairman to be seen as a god without spending any money...While he was the chairman at the withdean the debts just grew and grew as he didn't have any funds to pay the debts...bloom saved his blushes.
Just my opinion and i respect everyone else's
I really don't want to get sucked into shouting for one side or the other on this - like most people on the thread I'm just team Albion - but there are some bits in here I really don't understand.
You say that Dick Knight was one of three 'that had the task' of taking over the club with nothing to lose... what does this mean? Who were the other two? And what is the basis for you saying that Dick Knight spent £1.5m and got it all back? That's news to me and I suspect Dick Knight.
I honestly don't know if you're on a wind up anymore. He saved the bloody club. Who cares what he could and couldn't do, without him we wouldn't have a team to support on a Saturday.
You too. What was your alternative to Knight taking over from Archer and co?
BensGrandad
New member
Not wishing to re open old wounds I know of 3 consortiums who met Bill Archer at The Savoy. There may have been others. The fact is DK took over with virtually no money. At the time his wealth was estimated at £2m and other money men helped him out as the debts grew. Hence we now have a club, a stadium and a team that we will all be proud of. Without 1 the other wouldnt have survived. Without DK and his push TB wouldnt have built The Amex without TB and others money DK wouldnt have been able to push for The Amex.