Views from the Sieve

Let's get opinion decided on here once & for all .... well, at least until the next poll !! :)

Sorry to be "that guy" that comments rather than just votes, but none of the above really apply to me.

I think I'd be a "reluctant yes" if it meant he didn't have a controlling interest. I don't think it's as black and white as "yes or no".

TomMc wrote:Sorry to be "that guy" that comments rather than just votes, but none of the above really apply to me.

I think I'd be a "reluctant yes" if it meant he didn't have a controlling interest. I don't think it's as black and white as "yes or no".

I'm very much of this opinion too. No businessman gets involved because he 100% loves that business, they get involved because there's potential bigger returns in it.

There's no getting over that money is needed and there is a dose of reality needed somewhere along the line.

Either way, we face ruin. Get Tamplin in and it might be the worst thing to happen to us. However, it might not.

Stay as we are, the investor's cash potentially dries up and we're back in the shit.

Doing nothing is a choice we probably all can't afford to take. We either trust the club or we don't.

In my opinion, Tamplin will probably get the club; but will hopefully throw a bit of commercial nous; make us a bit of a brand and bring us to a level where someone else further up will look at us and think we're worth a punt. He makes his money back, the club has a raised profile and bank balance and we move on.

If we can get him to have an equal number of votes on the board as the rest of the board combined, then that is the way forward.

The great thing with leasing the ground is that there isn't much to asset strip. The playing squad aren't worth millions so there's actually quite little for him to mess about with.

Why do we need this sudden investment? Who are you believing? We have survived within our means for 25 years i'm not sure where all this sudden need for investment comes from.

Also yes he cant asset strip but he can leave us with no club and loads of debts in a couple of years when we find out he is not actually that rich and he gets bored.

i would say yes to tamplin, if it meant he told Dave Bennett and Steve Thompson to leave the club, but as that not going to happen so it a big fat No from me

The option of "no, with a lot of abuse thrown in" wasn't available so it was just "hell no" from me.

We might not need imminent investment to survive, but that doesn't mean that we should just say no to everyone that offers it. I want us to get investment and definitely under new management because I want to see the club grow.

I'm open to the idea of Tamplin, Goodwin or whoever taking over the club providing they give us some clear plans and aspirations before the acquisition, and also show themselves to be trustworthy/reliable. This is something though that NONE of the candidates/consortiums have done so far IMO. However I'm open to all of them changing my mind on this.

Tamplin may come across as a bit of a dick, but so does Abramovich. He set up and liquidated several companies in his early career. He's also involved in Russian politics, which makes him as dodgy as they come. But that hasn't stopped him from being a great owner for Chelsea, has it? Now obviously I'm not saying Tamplin would be our Abramovich and he's gonna make us a huge club- but I am saying that what he's done in his own business history doesn't necessarily dictate what he will do as the owner of a club. So all these prophecies of his evil plans can't be taken seriously without real proof. Nothing even close to that has been given so far.

I'm not sure I'd fit into any of the options given, but I've voted for the final one as its closest to what I think.

I should point out that my overall preference is that we stay a member's club, but that wasn't an option.

Diggerthedog wrote:Why do we need this sudden investment?

I thought Dave Bennett had said in the DiggerDagger interview that it was projected that we could need investment (or an overdraft facility), not that it was definitely needed?

We've all known that our business model (i.e. selling on players) was what kept us in the black, and that if at some point the conveyor belt stopped or stalled action would need to be taken.

Not saying that this is the right or the wrong way to solve our problem, but we've all been aware of the reality for a long time, so all of this "where's the money gone?" stuff doesn't make sense, at least to me. People cite the Everton FA Cup game but it was mentioned on here a couple of times that the figures bandied around about what we received were fanciful.

My gut feeling is to run a mile but this is clouded by all the different stories we are hearing about the state of the club's finances, as such I'm undecided whilst leaning towards no.

Lets be honest we cant trust the Thommo or Plumber as even there own stories differ.

Thommo was on camera stating that the investment was only to push the club on and not to pay outstanding debts.

The plumber has now said investment may be needed but it is not essential.

Now, what i personally believe to be true, Tamplin has bailed the club out by paying some of the debts which the club clearly have and Thompson has been trying to cover.

I think its all when and good Tamplin investing in the club as of course extra investment will indeed aid the club. Whether that is to push on as we keep hearing or to simply save the clubs existence is a different matter. But no way in a million years should a person who has no previous interest in the club or in fact any football experience gain full control of the club. I am in agreement with the East's, if Tamplin is serious about investment this should be guaranteed and not just a verbal promise to a dodgy managing director and his puppet.

Take his money and any marketing nous he may have. I can't see what his motivation is, everyone knows a football club is rarely a profit making organisation. I don't see how gates of 1200 covers the outgoing a on a match day let alone behind the scenes. We can't give tickets away let alone charge what we do. Add into that any sustained period of poor results and I fear this will herald the end. Mathematical no brainer Maybe digger can explain the finances to me.

ARNU wrote:Take his money and any marketing nous he may have. I can't see what his motivation is, everyone knows a football club is rarely a profit making organisation. I don't see how gates of 1200 covers the outgoing a on a match day let alone behind the scenes. We can't give tickets away let alone charge what we do. Add into that any sustained period of poor results and I fear this will herald the end. Mathematical no brainer Mayberry digger can explain the finances to me.

Seeing as the club chairman and MD cant get their stories straight about finances etc not sure why your asking me.

The club is currently a FULL members club and not here to make a profit. We do not need investment just need to live within our means, Not really that difficult.

I said from the start Tamplin should invest but there is no reason whatsoever for him needing control of the whole operation. To think we could have Tamplin, Thommo and Bennett running this club in a few weeks :shock: :shock: :shock:

Yeah I get it but what sort of revenue do you think 1200 gates produces ? Bearing in mind my st works out about £8.65 a game. What sort of success do you expect on that? With this money we might just go up again sometime soon.

People either in favour or undecided seem to keep referring to how useful this money & investment to be to the club.

In normal or usual circumstances I guess I'd probably agree but it's been made clear as hell (as pointed out in the last consortium response) that Tamplin isn't prepared / isn't able to give any guarantees past the initial year 1. investment.

So, when the money in year 2 isn't forthcoming and Tamplin already has his full control - then where would that leave us exactly I wonder... ?