Skip to content

New revenue streams

12346»

Comments

  • @TruthWillOut said:

    Because from the things Marlowchair has said in the past are 100% accurate from my own experience first hand. I don’t know who he is, but I know he’s telling the truth and he speaks facts!

    He speaks ‘facts’ in the way a drunken Geordie* speaks English. It is occasionally discernible but is usually mangled sufficiently to make it hard to understand what he’s saying.

    *No offence to drunken Geordies - the world is a better place with them around (sometimes)

  • One of three things seems to be the case

    1) marlow and his mates continually distort and spin and exaggerate with a view to undermining the trust board. There is no conceivable way that anyone would cancel a prebooked charity event without extremely good reason. The majority of the gSroom has lost its marbles. Marlow has won
    OR
    2) marlow was right all along. The trust are universally inept, corrupt or working to some other agenda apart from the best interests of the club although nobody seems to know why, or simply evil. Only I cannot see this obvious fact
    Or
    3) I have inadvertently taken some pretty weird drugs.

    In Brexit news I have just read that Rees Mogg’s sister joined the Tory party aged five years old.

    I think it must be the drugs

    Either way, you win, I’ll stick to predictions and puns until all this is over.

  • Ps, if you really want to know why a charity game was cancelled a year ago, you could always ask the trust at one of the forums,
    Fans councils etc

  • @DevC I usually quite like your postings and admire your persistence and patience and think taking a contrary view often widens the scope of a debate, which then requires more reasoned analysis to rebut thereby enhancing the knowledge of all participants.

    On this occasion saying ‘he HAS got a thong on” when the little boy has shouted out that the Emperor hasn't got any clothes on and the crowd have all looked and noticed that he’s naked is really not adding to anything (in my opinion).

    It was right originally to question the validity of the source but the Gasroom has responded magnificently in procuring evidence that strongly (in my opinion) validates the original claim.

  • Your entitled to your opinion @bookertease
    Perhaps you are right.
    I don’t think so.

    I think what is most likely to have happened is that the management were worried that in the event of wwfc making the playoff final, they wouldn’t have the resources to manage the significant workload of arranging the details of that final and a third party charity event. So rather than risk cancelling at the last minute, they cancelled we’ll in advance.
    Hiring a pitch needs almost no effort so no reason not to do that. The implications of cancelling their own charity event at the last minute were far less seeious than doing that to a third party one.

    I might be wrong. As I have said many a time I have no inside information whatsoever.

    If the truth is that they casually cancelled it for no good reason and it’s proximity to the play off final was coincidental, then I would agree that would be an appalling error of judgement. That simply doesn’t ring true to me though.

    I am puzzled why this has only come up now when the cancellation was publically known a year ago. Plenty of opportunity then, since and into the future to ask the trust for anexplanation if you wish.

    Meanwhile we are all supposed to care about the club and there is a game tomorrow. I hope you enjoy it if you are heading down.

  • I am no more in the know than you @DevC. I also take your point that it is unlikely someone would knowingly cancel a prearranged charity match for no good reason. That is however not the same (in my opinion) as ‘no conceivable way’.

    If I read the evidence presented correctly, there was definitely a charity match planned and postponed and there was definitely subsequently an offer to pay money to the club to play on the pitch at a time when the charity game had been scheduled.

    Now it is entirely possible that the latter was a reaction to the former but it is also conceivable that the former was a reaction to the latter.

    In a well-resourced and focussed organisation the implications would have almost certainly been identified and stopped, but if in isolation and under pressure to increase revenue an individual took a view that they would more likely be seen to have performed in their role by making money for the club, then that’s decision could almost be seen to be the right thing to do.

    Not saying that’s what did happen but I’m saying I could see it happening that way.

    If you haven’t already realised from my previous musings I am not a great believer in conspiracies but I am a firm and experienced believer in the capability of human beings to completely fuck it up all on their own.

    Here’s hoping there are more of those on the Southend side than ours tomorrow.

    Sadly one of the compromises that I have had to make in having a ST and living 200 miles away from Adams Park is that I have to suitably pamper and indulge Mrs Booker (sounds weird) on weekends off so sadly will be resorting to dropping my phone in joy/despair every time it pings an update tomorrow (cue 0-0 draw).

    Take care and keep posting

  • I’ve read it all on my tiny iPhone screen.. I’m bleary eyed and it’s late even by my standards.

    Two things. I’m thoroughly intrigued as to who @TruthWillOut could be - clearly a very prominent person at the club if he/she reckons to be known to all of us on here and very troubling if that is the case.
    Secondly, if the Panache situation really was handled as insensitively as has been implied, then I am edging, sadly, towards the groundswell of unrest about the competence of those in charge.

  • Post of the thread @bookertease

  • I hope you haven't been up all night DrivelC doing this. Its the same every day, most posters can tell what is opinion or speculation and give it appropriate weight. Why you need to argue into the minute detail that there may still be a possibility that what you said earlier might be correct despite having even less evidence than the original poster or subsequent opinions.

  • I remember the Panache match being promoted on the pitch on a match day, shortly before it was cancelled. They had pictures taken with inflatable fire extinguishers etc. I couldn’t work out at the time why the club would actively promote an event and then cancel it but I also couldn’t understand the logic of hosting two different charity events within days of each other. Strange decision making, regardless of any ulterior motives.

  • I’m sure Dev will be along in a moment demanding that you provide proof that you remember that @Sherrinford and then posing some halfwitted straw man hypothetical questions and demanding answers to those too.

  • @DevC said:
    One of three things seems to be the case

    1) marlow and his mates continually distort and spin and exaggerate with a view to undermining the trust board. There is no conceivable way that anyone would cancel a prebooked charity event without extremely good reason. The majority of the gSroom has lost its marbles. Marlow has won
    OR
    2) marlow was right all along. The trust are universally inept, corrupt or working to some other agenda apart from the best interests of the club although nobody seems to know why, or simply evil. Only I cannot see this obvious fact
    Or
    3) I have inadvertently taken some pretty weird drugs.

    In Brexit news I have just read that Rees Mogg’s sister joined the Tory party aged five years old.

    I think it must be the drugs

    Either way, you win, I’ll stick to predictions and puns until all this is over.

    This is nothing to do with me Dev. I referred to this issue here in gasroom last year cryptically when stating “ where there is smoke there is fire” when questioned to give an example of a local backer who has walked away from the club due to poor management.

    There are others. It is still happening.

    Unlike truthwillout I don’t understand the reason to be anything to do with Stroud as pointed out he actually had to step in and attempt to placate the disillusioned sponsor however had been sufficiently botched by that stage to be beyond saving.

    So your assertion that this is some conspired attempt to “undermine the trust board” is your typical stretch when clearly truthwillout named the employed general manager as being the issue.

    This isn’t a poor old volunteer by the way who we must forgive imperfections due to their heavy workload and voluntary status, this the most senior employee at the club who has been for two years or longer. So the point people are making and the questions being asked are fair and valid are they not ? Especially when tabled in a climate of a severe decline in club operations , revenue and financial solvency over that same period and or current position of being in the most precarious off-pitch position in 7 years ?

  • It does seem a remarkable turnaround from being told that the future was rosy when Damian Irvine was in charge of commercial ops, to being told there is no future when the GM took control of commercial ops.

  • Can't wait for Dev to come on and demand proof for that as well

  • Just to be clear, this GM is still in office now?

    Not that the gasroom has much power or has seemingly anyone with any clout or desire to raise this, but it sounds the sort of scenario that should be escalated and explained, or sanctions taken.

  • Malone, let’s not forget that this is, as yet, an unproven allegation from an anonymous poster. There are usually two sides to every story and I agree that it would be good to hear the club’s version of events before this version is accepted as accurate.

  • edited April 2019

    @glasshalffull I would love to hear the club’s side of the story on how the commercials have failed so catastrophically since Mr Irvine left. Sadly the clubs side of the story appears to be “that’s football ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ “

  • @glasshalffull , yes, there is certainly the need to be sure about facts.

    But if it is true that our top man Mr Stroud did his best to get the sponsor back on side, and the GM is still in situe, then I dare say they'd want it to disappear into the banks of memory, alongside stuff like the Phillips sell on clause gaffe

  • @glasshalffull said:
    Malone, let’s not forget that this is, as yet, an unproven allegation from an anonymous poster. There are usually two sides to every story and I agree that it would be good to hear the club’s version of events before this version is accepted as accurate.

    Unfortunately WW has a lengthy history of trying to cover-up “negative” stories. That’s why so many conspiracy theories abound, many of which turn out to be true.

  • It will never compete with Gavin Grant's "cold" though. That was magnificent.

Sign In or Register to comment.