Chairmans Chat... | Page 13 | Vital Football

Chairmans Chat...

My opinion, I’m never a Scally hater, but I do think he should not get so involved with this group that is purposely trying to harm the club.
I sort of agree sunny.
I think he should push back but not so publicly.
If I were in his position, then a couple of neatly worded solicitor letters would spook the ringleaders and word would go round like wildfire.
Criticism is acceptable.
Abuse and libel are not.
 
It was like over the McCammon affair when some blamed it on the club‘s HR Department. Thinking the club could possibly have a department devoted to HR shows just how far away from reality some people are.

It came out that the club before sending out a dismissal letter to McCammon had referred the letter to a firm of solicitors to review and advise. It transpired later that the solicitor who did the reviewing wasn't actually a specialist in Employment Law and so gave bad advice.

Please note I have no idea if the club were aware that the solicitor wasn't a specialist.

From experience of working in similar sized companies there will be a "HR department" even if it is just a single person responsible for dealing with the admin side of things. Quite possibly falling under accounts. But when it comes to more legal stuff like serious discipline issues they will sought advise from the solicitors.
 
In any case, things at GFC will be even more centralised at present, because Scally understandably got rid of staff to cut costs during the Covid lockdown - so he's having to do more himself. I dread to think how many hours he's working.

It will be interesting to see the club accounts in terms of average staff over the period. Certainly a lot of people went into furlough and have probably returned. The workers who have not returned are likely to be those in the banqueting side of things whose workers are likely to be on zero hour contracts and hired on matchday or whenever the Whitney Houston impersonator is rebooked.

Maybe there might be less staff in terms of the ticket office and shop but I always get the impression that they had other tasks to do and were merely covering the ticket office whenever anyone happened to pop in rather than just sitting there all day.
 
"my own kids don't go to matches" - this isn't a Ratner moment, more of a his kids are sick of listening to him being abused moment.


I was referring to the whole article on KOL. Imagine if you were joe public and you read the article. My point is would it make you more or less likely to purchase the product (match ticket)

How much better would that article read if it covered an exciting period of football coming up with MK and Charlton - including an exciting ticket promotion to attract the punters in ?


Gillingham chairman Paul Scally tells critics that he is going after them following defamatory comments (kentonline.co.uk)
 
Last edited:
Not only is it a private business but it’s a bloody small business. It wouldn’t be unusual for such a small business to have a degree of owner control.

I suppose its the degree of control I am questioning. Mind you a few days back the size of the business was used to support his fee so can't be that small
 
Completely unfair Mark. It's a private business, so of course key decisions are taken by the owner and board! I run a business. Everyday operational decisions can be taken by employees, but I still want to know about them and have the ability to veto them if necessary. It's called responsibility, because if things go belly up those staff lose their jobs. In any case, things at GFC will be even more centralised at present, because Scally understandably got rid of staff to cut costs during the Covid lockdown - so he's having to do more himself. I dread to think how many hours he's working.

Fair enough EE I didn't word it that well. I guess my point was does he need to take all of the decisions and is that why he's working so many hours. Presumably he's got a bar manager so surely he/she should be the one chasing down the beer for Saturday as an example.

You are right that my comment came across as unfair. Point taken.
 
Markinkent - I tend to agree with you, Paul should be letting his bar manager do the nitty gritty (with him Paul being kept informed and having overall control). As discussed before, marketing (which now has an appointee) communications and finance should all be delegated to an appropriate person(s) with the full professional skills. However, Paul does give the impression of being a control freak.

I appreciate that these positions all come with high associated costs, but without these in place Paul could/will be working himself into an early grave.
 
Fair enough EE I didn't word it that well. I guess my point was does he need to take all of the decisions and is that why he's working so many hours. Presumably he's got a bar manager so surely he/she should be the one chasing down the beer for Saturday as an example.

You are right that my comment came across as unfair. Point taken.
I think that’s the point. What we do know that right across the sectors with hospitality and entertainment badly affected, there are severe shortages of staff. You’re making the assumption that we’ve got the right people in place. I wouldn’t mind betting that we haven’t and a lot of the operation is being run on a wing and a prayer with Scally backfilling personally wherever possible. I’m sure he’d like to have an easier life but I’ll bet he’s pissed off because he is being stretched to the limit and instead of getting any kind of recognition, all he gets is abuse.
 
I think that’s the point. What we do know that right across the sectors with hospitality and entertainment badly affected, there are severe shortages of staff. You’re making the assumption that we’ve got the right people in place. I wouldn’t mind betting that we haven’t and a lot of the operation is being run on a wing and a prayer with Scally backfilling personally wherever possible. I’m sure he’d like to have an easier life but I’ll bet he’s pissed off because he is being stretched to the limit and instead of getting any kind of recognition, all he gets is abuse.

To be fair waldo I think he has had lots of recognition from people on this board, but there has also been questions and concerns. As for the bar manager / supervisor if he hasn't got one by now then little chance of opening Saturday but you are right we do don't know.

The best thing that could happen is that he announces a process where people could email in their genuine question for him to address in his chats. Lets have a bit of transparency and build a build a bit of trust between owner and fans. That can only be a good thing as at the moment (in my view) his chats are just driving more people away.

I think I'd be going over old ground if say anything more so said my piece on this weeks "chat" and look forward to the next one. Hopefully after two good home wins.
 
I suppose its the degree of control I am questioning. Mind you a few days back the size of the business was used to support his fee so can't be that small

His consultancy fee (and we now know that this doesn’t equate to his income because of the expenses it needs to cover) is small for a company turning over £5m per year.

The business is sufficiently small for him to want to exert a reasonable amount of central control.

The two statements are not mutually exclusive,
 
His consultancy fee (and we now know that this doesn’t equate to his income because of the expenses it needs to cover) is small for a company turning over £5m per year.

The business is sufficiently small for him to want to exert a reasonable amount of central control.

The two statements are not mutually exclusive,

Fair cop trashbat my last point was a little tongue in cheek mind. Mind you I look at his fee as the cost to the club irrelevant if its going to him or going to pay "other costs" incurred out there. That's enough though now. Let's leave it there.

It is what it is. Some support him, some don't. Those that don't can lump it or take his advice and stay away.
 
Fair enough EE I didn't word it that well. I guess my point was does he need to take all of the decisions and is that why he's working so many hours. Presumably he's got a bar manager so surely he/she should be the one chasing down the beer for Saturday as an example.

You are right that my comment came across as unfair. Point taken.
Maybe there isn't a bar manager working other than on match days.You are making some fair points I for example am less likely to be able to talk about positives while there is so much negativity in the news .With this likely to continue for many months if not years if it is going to court .I have no idea what is being planned legally as has been said I don't believe anyone on here is in deep water with the chairman at this moment. However that doesn't rule it out altogether. Whatever the future holds I can't say that is looks like the fan base will increase any time soon that in itself is sad .We have also got to remember that any legal cost however great or small will come out of the clubs already too small spending budget.
 
Last edited:
Fair cop trashbat my last point was a little tongue in cheek mind. Mind you I look at his fee as the cost to the club irrelevant if its going to him or going to pay "other costs" incurred out there. That's enough though now. Let's leave it there.

It is what it is. Some support him, some don't. Those that don't can lump it or take his advice and stay away.

The ‘other costs’ would otherwise have been paid directly by GFC. What does it matter that certain costs were paid out from a separate legal entity?
 
Personally I don't see it likely that the club will gain in any financial way what so ever out of any legal action against a private individual or individuals who probably won't have two pound coins to rub together.But it is clear perhaps understandably given the legal battles in the past that Mr Scally is going to proceed anyway.
 
Last edited:
Personally I don't see it likely that the club will gain in any financial way what so ever out of any legal action against a private individual or individuals who probably won't have to pound coins to rub together.But it is clear perhaps understandably given the legal battles in the past that Mr Scally is going to proceed anyway.

So if someone started making false accusations about you implying you enagaging in fraud and other criminal activities then you wouldn't launch legal action unless you could make money from the action?
 
So if someone started making false accusations about you implying you enagaging in fraud and other criminal activities then you wouldn't launch legal action unless you could make money from the action?
Depends how much it damages him and his business and the need to clear his name publically. Suing is a very expensive business and even if he won, I surmise that he'd never get all his costs back off the type of person he is referring to.
 
So if someone started making false accusations about you implying you enagaging in fraud and other criminal activities then you wouldn't launch legal action unless you could make money from the action?
I refer you to 58s answer.The club is unlikely to gain financially and it is also unlikely that as a result of such action more supporters will attend games.So in my view even if it is the correct course of action for Mr Paul Scally it will result in a negative action for the club.For which indirectly the supporters will have to pay for any shortfall as a result. I am not a gambler but I would say financially the club would be more likely to win if it put all the money it is invested in Solicitors fees on a horse or lottery tickets.
 
Last edited:
I refer you to 58s answer.The club is unlikely to gain financially and it is also unlikely that as a result of such action more supporters will attend games.So in my view even if it is the correct course of action for Mr Paul Scally it will result in a negative action for the club.For which indirectly the supporters will have to pay for any shortfall as a result. I am not a gambler but I would say financially the club would be more likely to win if it put all the money it is invested in Solicitors fees on a horse or lottery tickets.
You say “it will result in a negative action for the club” Chris.
Well my response to that would be that spreading lies regarding fraudulent activity by the chairman is negative for the club, hurling abuse and foul language at the board is negative for the club. Creating a toxic atmosphere at games is negative for the club.
So the response should be to do nothing?
Sue the arse off the morons!
 
Any legal action may not be as expensive as some are suggesting. It will start with a 'cease and desist' solicitor's letter, warning of formal proceedings if the defamation continues. I'd be amazed if any of the Scally abusers have the resources to risk a court case - unless they're even more stupid that I thought!
 
Any legal action may not be as expensive as some are suggesting. It will start with a 'cease and desist' solicitor's letter, warning of formal proceedings if the defamation continues. I'd be amazed if any of the Scally abusers have the resources to risk a court case - unless they're even more stupid that I thought!

I'm sure there will be those who will argue that Scally is using his financial might to silent the messengers of truth and that the legal threats is evidence that Scally is guilty of all their accusations.