Defeat on the pitch, more foot in mouth stuff off it.

6 Responses to Defeat on the pitch, more foot in mouth stuff off it.

1. Dai Woosnam says:

   April 15, 2015 at 9:43 am

   Golly, Paul…I salute you for the work you put into that piece.
   So well-expressed.
   WalesOnline…eat your heart out! None of your sportswriters could even get close.
   That said Paul…me being me, would inevitably query the occasional thing.
   And the one area where we differ here, is in your assessment of that statement from the Supporters’ Trust.
   I think Steve Borley is right to highlight its unfortunate tone.
   Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for supporters to request/desire/anticipate a course of action.
   But not to DEMAND or imply they are the people with the real interests of the club at heart…and not the (implied) dilettante Malaysian owner.
   Some “dabbler” eh? Put £160m of his own money in and saved the club from extinction?!
   Yet these ungrateful fans don’t think HE has got the club’s interests at heart???
   Gordon Bennett …give me strength.
   And talking of strength…more power to Steve Borley’s elbow.
   Kindest,
   Dai.
   PS. I wrote you following the Colchester game which I saw all 90+ minutes of, to say that best player on the pitch by a country mile was Freddie Sears. His darting runs that night made Ben Turner look like he was treading water.
   Why didn’t City go for him in that January window?
   DW
2. The other Bob Wilson says:

   April 15, 2015 at 1:50 pm

   Thanks for the reply Dai – needless to say. I disagree with most of it.
   I’ve just read the thing through again to confirm the suspicion I had that the word “demand” does not appear once in the Trust’s statement. Furthermore, Vincent Tan is mentioned just the once and that is to acknowledge his investment and the need for “the club to operate on a more sustainable footing” – it’s a bit to leap to get to implications of Mr Tan being a dilettante.
   However, as we are talking about him, much of the £160 million (a ridiculous sum when you consider that we are worse off in virtually every way I can think of now than we were when he first became involved officially in 2010) he has put in is still currently repayable at 7% interest. Although I’m not saying you do this, I struggle to see why so many of those who praise Vincent Tan choose to vilify Sam Hammam in the same breath because, as far as I can see, the only difference between them is we are in debt to one for about six times the amount we are to the other.
   As for Steve Borley, I cannot agree with your more power to his elbow remark – as I mentioned on a City messageboard this morning when trying to look at things more from the club’s perspective, they must have needed his contribution this week like a hole in the head.
   Finally, to end on a more harmonious note, I agree with you on Freddie Sears.
3. Dai Woosnam says:

   April 15, 2015 at 9:30 pm

   Thanks as ever Paul for your thoughtful response.
   And it is good we agree on the transfer chance missed with Freddie Sears.

   Re your objection to my word “demands” though. I have to tell you that you helped put the word in my head with these earlier words of yours in your main piece:

   ‘…
   Now, incidents like this invariably bring out comments from people saying that they are only interested in watching the football, who maintain that this is what all fans should do rather than making “demands” on the club of the sort that so annoyed Mr Borley.
   …’

   But at no stage did I say the Trust actually used the word demand, but hey just reading their piece again, it is crystal clear that these ARE demands.
   If it walks like a duck, quacks like one etc…you get my drift, I am sure.

   As for the word dilettante: again, whilst they did not use THAT word, that is indeed what they would call him on a good day (but be a lot more Anglo-Saxon on a bad day!) were the word in their lexicon.

   And the 7% may appear at the Shylockian end of the usary scale in terms of current interest rates, but it is meaningless if the club go belly-up.

   He loses the lot…bar whatever a fire sale will cough up.
   Kindest,
   Dai.
4. The other Bob Wilson says:

   April 16, 2015 at 6:38 am

   And there was a reason why I put the word “demands” in inverted commas Dai – it’s because people read something with their minds already made up and put their own predetermined spin on it. Speaking for myself, I’d like the club to reveal their plans because, based on the wild switching from one extreme to the other over the course of this season, I struggle to see any proof that they have plans. I accept that what the Trust says about a fan on the Board amounts to a demand, but I’d say even those making it probably realise that it’s pie in the sky stuff at the moment, I don’t see any other demands though – they are expressing concerns that I’ve heard many others come out with over the course of the past few months.
   I just looked up a definition of the word “dilettante” – it said “a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge.” which is exactly what I understood the word to mean. As you said, £160 million is a lot of commitment, but one visit to the object of that funding over the course of a season strongly suggests it’s waning. Still, I’ll concede the commitment aspect, but there’s no way I will when it comes to the knowledge one. Right from his first public comments on the game around the time of our League Cup Final appearance I said Vincent Tan doesn’t “get” football and nothing he’s said since then makes me think that initial impression was wrong – this, along with Mr Tan’s refusal to employ people who do get football in the most important off field roles at the club goes right to the heart of why it has been such a shambles in the last two years. So, if it’s possible to be half a dilettante, then I’d say Vincent Tan is definitely one and, as such, if the Trust are accusing him of being one, then they are not entirely wrong.
   Vincent Tan’s comments on Christmas Day shortly before his change of mind on the rebrand made for interesting reading – he spoke as if some sort of pact had made between him and supporters three years ago whereby we accepted the rebrand and he ploughed £100 million into the club, but it was not as straightforward as that. The main reason why many (myself included) were prepared to live with the change to red initially was because a commitment to convert his debt into equity came with it. Leicester’s chief shareholders converted their £100 million investment into equity last season, but at Cardiff all we’ve heard is one excuse after another and there have to be doubts now as to whether it will ever happen. Unless or until it does, all we’ve got is a situation whereby Vincent Tan is a kind of Sam Hammam mark II except that, given the amounts involved, he represents far more of a danger to the future of Cardiff City – if the club does go belly up, Mr Tan not getting football will be one of the main reasons why it happened, so, in some respects, it’s something he will have brought on himself.
   I presume Vincent Tan has to realise that the best chance he has of getting his money back is for the club to get back into the the Premier League, but, in so many ways, we are heading in the opposite direction at the moment. The Trust acknowledges and, presumably, welcomes the current cost cutting and I’m not going to disagree with that, but, yet again, the lack of footballing expertise in off field positions at the club means the task it faces is so much more harder than it could be – there are one or two signs that people are learning from their mistakes, but virtually everyone in non playing roles at the club are going to have to perform at levels that they’ve not even hinted at getting close to before if we are going to get into the Premier League under the present regime.
5. Bob Morgans says:

   April 16, 2015 at 8:41 am

   Super article. Spot on!
6. Anthony O'Brien says:

   April 16, 2015 at 10:42 am

   My Lud,

   My Learned Friends have each presented an interesting and informative case in respect of the word “demand”, a word with a venerable history of dispute.

   I refer you to America versus France, 1830. You will be aware, of course, that the French Government wrote to the American Government asking for information, using the French verb “demander” which means “to ask”. The Americans, however, mistakenly translated it as “to demand” and accordingly took umbrage. The incident nearly led to war between the two countries.

   The present case, however, is notable for its level of civilised discourse (to use a phrase from a recent posting by the inestimable Dai Woosnam). I venture to say that both My Learned Friends are ultimately saying the same thing – namely, that the PLAN for Cardiff City should be a rapid return to the Premiership. On this we can all agree. At this stage the detail on how this Plan is to be achieved is not required – all that matters is an agreed outcome. I rest my case.

Comments are closed.