Scally 14 page letter

[OneSirKeefy]

Another thing about Scally and him wanting only people and supporters who agree and bow to him. Why on earth would he employ managers like Tony Pulis, Martin Allen, Stan Ternent, and now Steve Evans and Paul Raynor?

Not exactly “yes men” those lot are they? Very divisive at times and have the ability to turn supporter bases against him. Why would he bother if he just wanted an easy agreeable life at the helm.

 

[jogills]

Another thing about Scally and him wanting only people and supporters who agree and bow to him. Why on earth would he employ managers like Tony Pulis, Martin Allen, Stan Ternent, and now Steve Evans and Paul Raynor?

Not exactly “yes men” those lot are they? Very divisive at times and have the ability to turn supporter bases against him. Why would he bother if he just wanted an easy agreeable life at the helm.

Take your point OSK but they were/are all his employees and ultimately he can dismiss them. He does have a problem with understanding fans and how football support works and seeks to manage everything. He's not alone amongst chairman in this but it's smarter to realise that a great deal of what supporters do and say can be safely allowed to pass and that the overwhelming sentiment of supporters is positive towards their club. Witness the general reaction to the facebook prats.

 

[alphabet_king]

I think what people are missing in this communication is that he's not just saying he will follow up with anyone that disagrees with him. That would indeed be 'wrong'.

I think his point is, as OSK has said, that actually a number of fans are actually slandering him and the club. They come out with comments like "he's stealing from the club" and comments of that ilk, many still post about dodgy accounting, going on holidays at the expense of the club, and many simply accuse him of lying whatever he says.

Then you have the lot who will actively try to dissuade other GFC fans from giving their money to the club, be it in ticket sales, or at the club shop etc. I remember the club shop being opened, and some of our so called fans who don't want to give their money to GFC were actively encouraging other fans to not buy from it.

These fans are disgusting, and not true 'fans' in my opinion either. They seem to want GFC to fail at every opportunity. In fact when we do fail/lose, they seemingly rub their hands with glee and are usually the quickest to post fairly toxic messages on social media.

It's clear to me that Scally is not just going to pick on anyone that disagrees with him, but is simply saying that anyone who's actively slandering himself, or specifically working against the club as per the above, will be outed.

To be honest, I am not sure they need to be 'outed' they are on facebook and they use their real names (i think). I also think it's an incredibly stupid/combative and aggressive approach to take by Scally. He's never going to win that battle IMO and it's only going to piss off more indifferent fans.

 

[OneSirKeefy]

I think what people are missing in this communication is that he's not just saying he will follow up with anyone that disagrees with him. That would indeed be 'wrong'.

I think his point is, as Jo has said, that actually a number of fans are actually slandering him and the club. They come out with comments like "he's stealing from the club" and comments of that ilk, many still post about dodgy accounting, going on holidays at the expense of the club,

Hang on AK. That’s what I said, not Jo....

 

[alphabet_king]

Hang on AK. That’s what I said, not Jo....

Ha. Oops. amended.

 

[shotshy]

If you got a representative from each of the 92 clubs, very few would be content with the chairman or the board.

 

[markinkent]

I read the gaschat thread and a few mentioned that their owner was interested in gills but scally wanted to retain control. Could be pure speculation on their part but did anyone read anything on this.

It could be true scally is/was seeking investors. I've always thought that him wanting to keep control could be a stumbling block for any prospective investor. Scally really wants a sleeping partner and that seems unlikely.

 

[GillsBluenose]

I think what people are missing in this communication is that he's not just saying he will follow up with anyone that disagrees with him. That would indeed be 'wrong'.

I think his point is, as OSK has said, that actually a number of fans are actually slandering him and the club. They come out with comments like "he's stealing from the club" and comments of that ilk, many still post about dodgy accounting, going on holidays at the expense of the club, and many simply accuse him of lying whatever he says.

I don't see how he could "steal from the club", even if he was so inclined, as effectively he would be stealing from himself because he owns the vast majority of the share capital.

His problem, if he wants to avoid criticism, is that he has no one to hold him to account. There is no independent committee that decides what remuneration he takes from the club each year. The only person that decides the figure is him. Taking expenses, for holiday or otherwise, is his decision.

As for dodgy accounting, he would have someone to hold him to account in that eventuality - the taxman - and I do credit him with the intelligence not to go there.

It is no good whinging about the challenges of the pandemic, but never mentioning whether he is tightening his own belt by taking less.

That would be good PR, but he does not seem to understand it, even when so many others are suffering at the present time.

 

[OneSirKeefy]

I read the gaschat thread and a few mentioned that their owner was interested in gills but scally wanted to retain control. Could be pure speculation on their part but did anyone read anything on this.

It could be true scally is/was seeking investors. I've always thought that him wanting to keep control could be a stumbling block for any prospective investor. Scally really wants a sleeping partner and that seems unlikely.

That (Rovers owners previously interested in Gills) was bandied about on our forums back in pre-season. Don’t know if our fans picked it up off Rovers fans, or if they are now simply picking it out of our forums.

 

[OneSirKeefy]

It is no good whinging about the challenges of the pandemic, but never mentioning whether he is tightening his own belt by taking less.

That would be good PR, but he does not seem to understand it, even when so many others are suffering at the present time.

I thought the accounts showed that last year (before and at start of pandemic) he had quite a big reduction from around £300k to £160k? Didn’t imagine that did I?

Agree, in this letter, when he mentioned the furlough of staff, cutbacks, players taking cuts, etc he should have simply inserted a line saying he was doing the same. I’d imagine he is/will, and he should clarify it just for goodwill.

 

[markinkent]

I thought the accounts showed that last year (before and at start of pandemic) he had quite a big reduction from around £300k to £160k? Didn’t imagine that did I?

Agree, in this letter, when he mentioned the furlough of staff, cutbacks, players taking cuts, etc he should have simply inserted a line saying he was doing the same. I’d imagine he is/will, and he should clarify it just for goodwill.

That's how I remember it OSK

 

[alphabet_king]

I read the gaschat thread and a few mentioned that their owner was interested in gills but scally wanted to retain control. Could be pure speculation on their part but did anyone read anything on this.

It could be true scally is/was seeking investors. I've always thought that him wanting to keep control could be a stumbling block for any prospective investor. Scally really wants a sleeping partner and that seems unlikely.

It amazes me that so many misunderstand what the difference between an investment and a takeover are.

If someone wants to take over control of the club, they are no longer an investor in the sense of the word scallys looking for. They are a buyer and are taking over the club, not investing in it with scally. I think Scallys been clear he's not particularly looking to sell the club. Hes looking for an investor to work with him. By definition this means he'll retain control. When you watch dragons den, and the dragons invest 40% in the businesses, the dragons dont take over control of the business, nor are they interested in doing so.

As an investor, investors will only have very limited input to the decision making process. Theyll no doubt have shares/voting rights according to their investment. Cant see scally giving out more than 50% of any shares of gfc unless he's fully selling up and making a good profit.

 

[MedwayModernist]

Some worrying comments there regatding the possible banning of supporters who disagree with Scally.

He's right to defend himself and the club. But it's worrying to think that loyal supporters of the club could be banned for disagreeing with the Chairman.

Think that he needs to give that a rethink. Quite right to protect the club and those associated with it from abuse but the fans' views are important and it's not right to try and silence those who have genuine concerns.

Hopefully he'll not ban me for these comments. Just in case: Paul Scally, I appreciate much you have done for our club!

Yeh Buddha, I don't think he's going to be banning anyone for fair comment. He'll be banning the utter morons on Facebook who routinely lie about the club and slag off anything and everything he does, which is fair enough imo.

 

[markinkent]

Iit amazes me that so many misunderstand what the difference between an investment and a takeover are.

If someone wants to take over control of the club, they are no longer an investor, they are a buyer and are taking iver the club, nit investing in it. I think Scallys been clear he's not specifically looking to sell the club. Hes looking for an investor. By definition thus means he'll retain control.

And as such, the investor will only have very limited input to the decision making process. Theyll no doubt have shares/voting rights according to their investment. Cant see scally giving out more than 50% of any shares of gfc unless he's fully selling up and making a good profit.

Therein lies the problem. Its not really an investment but a donation or loan then. The value of the investment is unlikely to go up as those shares can't be traded since we left the exchange we were on.

Would anyone really want to plough money in without a strong say in how the club is run.

It's why, in my view, after countless business trips to meet investors we still don't have one.

 

[alphabet_king]

Therein lies the problem. Its not really an investment but a donation or loan then. The value of the investment is unlikely to go up as those shares can't be traded since we left the exchange we were on.

Where do you get that from? The fact we were taken off the stock exhange? That does not stop shares from being traded. They can absolutely be traded.
They just can't be traded on an open exchange.

If the shares can't be traded, then it means Scally can't sell his own shares either. Of course that is not the case.

Would anyone really want to plough money in without a strong say in how the club is run.

Investors invest in companies all over the world without a say as to how the company is run. It's literally how the investment/pension market works. There's a programme (Dragons Den) about investors doing exactly that!

That said, I would not expect a serious investor to have 'no say' at all. I dont think Scally expects that either. I would imagine that the investment would have various conditions attached which would need to be met by GFC/Scally. I would imagine Scally would fully understand this. However this doesn't mean he has to give up more than 50% of his shares to do so nor would any 'investor' expect him to. As soon as he gives up more than 50%, it becomes a takeover, rather than an 'investment' in the sense we're talking about here.

 

[markinkent]

Where do you get that from? The fact we were taken off the stock exhange? That does not stop shares from being traded. They can absolutely be traded.
They just can't be traded on an open exchange.

If the shares can't be traded, then it means Scally can't sell his own shares either. Of course that is not the case.



Investors invest in companies all over the world without a say as to how the company is run. It's literally how the investment/pension market works. There's a programme (Dragons Den) about investors doing exactly that!

That said, I would not expect a serious investor to have 'no say' at all. I dont think Scally expects that either. I would imagine that the investment would have various conditions attached which would need to be met by GFC/Scally. I would imagine Scally would fully understand this. However this doesn't mean he has to give up more than 50% of his shares to do so nor would any 'investor' expect him to. As soon as he gives up more than 50%, it becomes a takeover, rather than an 'investment' in the sense we're talking about here.

I'd love to see scally on dragons den !!! That would be fantastic telly.

By definition an investment is in anticipation of a financial return. How many football clubs provide profit let alone a decent return.

People buy football clubs for various reasons, I doubt making money is one of them.

You are right the share could be bought privately.

I'm not sure any serious "investor" is going to let scally invest their money without a major say in the club. That's probably why we haven't got one in the 10 years or so that he's been looking.

Our best bet is a seriously rich gills fan prepared to bankroll the club. If they were going to I suspect they would have stepped forward by now.

 

[Trev_GFC]

Mark Anderson.

 

[alphabet_king]

I'd love to see scally on dragons den !!! That would be fantastic telly.

Haha indeed it would for us as fans. Although I suspect he's been in so many similar investment meetings before. I suspect we might be surprised about how well he's received actually.

People buy football clubs for various reasons, I doubt making money is one of them.

Hmm i think you're wrong here. I think many people buy clubs in the belief they will make money from it. Whether they are deluded or not, and whether that's realistic is another matter. Certainly, look at the likes of Mike Ashley, or John Henry, or the Glaziers. All have or are likely to make incredible money from the clubs they bought. Clearly massive clubs so maybe not as applicable to the discussion at GFC, but I don't follow the finances/ownerships of other smaller clubs so I dont have any examples to hand. I am sure there's other success stories amongst smaller clubs there too. Of course, there's plenty of failures too, and plenty of chairmen who do just end up ploughing money into the clubs and then mismanaging them.

By definition an investment is in anticipation of a financial return. How many football clubs provide profit let alone a decent return.

I think you're still missing the point. You're still talking about buying a football club. Scally is not looking to sell the club. I'm sure he would if an amazing offer came up, but i think the point is that when he talks about investment it's nothing to do with a sale. Nor is he looking for someone to plough a few million into our playing squad - as you say, little return there. What he is quite clearly trying to do is looking for a partner to build a new stadium with. There's a very tangible business case and return for any investor here. I am not saying it stacks up financially (i am not a millionnaire investor) - i dont have a clue, but the principles of the proposal are clear to me at least. A company has literally just tried this at Grays Athletic for example (unfortunately their planning application was actually rejected). This model has occurred a number of times over the country already.

The deal seems simple to me - housing company wants to develop a new estate, but will probably struggle to get planning permission with Medway Council. Scally's proposal is that the company works with GFC (a local community asset) and pays for our stadium to be built, and as a result of a joint planning application along with a community asset the developer all of a sudden can get that planning approval they require in order to build the houses and make vast profit they are after (even after paying for our new stadium). I have no doubt this is his strategy, particularly given the charm offensive with the local council over the past few years. Opening up Priestfield to COVID tests for example will just be another example of him trying to increase the club's profile and importance to the community.

 

[markinkent]

Mark Anderson.

That was a relatively small sum though, not really an investor who will change our direction as a club.

However you are correct he did invest and is\was one of the three directors Ltd. who the club owes money to I believe.

 

[markinkent]

Haha indeed it would for us as fans. Although I suspect he's been in so many similar investment meetings before. I suspect we might be surprised about how well he's received actually.



Hmm i think you're wrong here. I think many people buy clubs in the belief they will make money from it. Whether they are deluded or not, and whether that's realistic is another matter. Certainly, look at the likes of Mike Ashley, or John Henry, or the Glaziers. All have or are likely to make incredible money from the clubs they bought. Clearly massive clubs so maybe not as applicable to the discussion at GFC, but I don't follow the finances/ownerships of other smaller clubs so I dont have any examples to hand. I am sure there's other success stories amongst smaller clubs there too. Of course, there's plenty of failures too, and plenty of chairmen who do just end up ploughing money into the clubs and then mismanaging them.



I think you're still missing the point. You're still talking about buying a football club. Scally is not looking to sell the club. I'm sure he would if an amazing offer came up, but i think the point is that when he talks about investment it's nothing to do with a sale. Nor is he looking for someone to plough a few million into our playing squad - as you say, little return there. What he is quite clearly trying to do is looking for a partner to build a new stadium with. There's a very tangible business case and return for any investor here. I am not saying it stacks up financially (i am not a millionnaire investor) - i dont have a clue, but the principles of the proposal are clear to me at least. A company has literally just tried this at Grays Athletic for example (unfortunately their planning application was actually rejected). This model has occurred a number of times over the country already.

The deal seems simple to me - housing company wants to develop a new estate, but will probably struggle to get planning permission with Medway Council. Scally's proposal is that the company works with GFC (a local community asset) and pays for our stadium to be built, and as a result of a joint planning application along with a community asset the developer all of a sudden can get that planning approval they require in order to build the houses and make vast profit they are after (even after paying for our new stadium). I have no doubt this is his strategy, particularly given the charm offensive with the local council over the past few years. Opening up Priestfield to COVID tests for example will just be another example of him trying to increase the club's profile and importance to the community.

1. We can't compare premier league to league one. Whole different ball game financially speaking.

2. Im not missing the point between a takeover and investor. I fully understand your point. The stadium building scenario is a realistic one but without an investment in the playing squad we don't need a new stadium. He actually needs both. A partner to fund the stadium and an investor to take the club forward to help fill it.

I'd be shocked to see either happen