dsr wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 9:13 am
Nobody wanted the club to be sold to another Garlick. You're getting obsessed with the idea that Garlick and Pace are the only two models for football chairman and anyone who doesn't want one, must want the other. Other football chairmen are available.
Garlick hoarded lots of pennies. Whether he did it because he knew it would be easier for him to get his hands on those pennies later, or whether that was a sale-time decision and he had other reasons for hoarding, there is no doubt that he was hoarding. By "every penny" I didn't mean literally every penny and he spent nothing; it;s a figure of speech for miserly behaviour.
So when someone says they would've preferred the club to have been sold to someone who could run it in a sustainable manner, who does that remind you of?
I'll give you a little hint to help you along, Garlick
People sling around this claim he didn't spend much when the accounts show that yes actually he did, what the people are doing is changing the narrative about a man who did a lot of good for this club by running it in a sustainable manner.
He didn't horde much of anything, he made sure the club didn't have the need for a bank overdraft, loans etc.
The money in the bank at the time of sale was just that.
We were in the midst of a pandemic at the time and fans hadn't been allowed into stadiums for the best part of an entire season, we knew there would be TV rebates etc.
I'm well aware there are lots of different types of people who own football clubs but they do tend to fall into two categories.
1- run the club within its means
2- run the club beyond its means/at a loss and keep pumping money into the club to keep it afloat, either borrowed or their own until such time as they sell it and then they either recoup what they put in or write it off.
There isn't really a middle ground unless you can show me it