Cod Almighty | Diary

Diary - Monday 7 March 2011

7 March 2011

Mardy Diary writes: So 100-odd fans turned up in the Blundell Park car park to protest at - well, just the generally shitty way the club has been run, I suppose. I think we can all empathise with that, and that turn-out is not bad for a last-minute ad-hoc protest, whatever your current level of cynicism may lead you to believe. And far from achieving nothing, as some predicted, the car park attendants (arf!) did manage to get more information out of the club than the Telegraph has achieved in the seven years since Ambulancegate. And they were told that the recent boardroom squabble was over the fact that Fenty and Parker wanted Furneaux to step down from the board with immediate effect, but that he refused and said he would go at the end of the season. Which he'd planned to do all along anyway.

Why one of the board members couldn't have just mentioned this in their bloody press releases is beyond me. It's not some super-secretive, high-level communique that's likely to get released by fucking Wikileaks is it? No, it was just a petty boardroom squabble that if we'd have been told about it originally we'd have read it and probably, I dunno, shrugged I expect. And why just tell 100 people in a car park, off the record (this wasn't an official communication, after all)? Why not release a statement on the club's website, or through the malleable Telegraph, or swallow your pride for two minutes and speak to Burns or Tondeur on the radio (but without the hissy fit this time, eh)?

So where are we then? Ah yes, Furneaux is planning to step down from the board at the end of the season as he'd been planning since - er, I don't know, 1978? We can just guess. Why Furneaux felt he couldn't let this be public knowledge is anyone's guess. I don't think the club can fall apart any further, even if it is rocked to the core of its shaky foundations by the news that its longest-serving non-investing director is about to clear off. In a bit, anyway. I think we'd all have coped with the news. Still, all credit to Furneaux for surviving as a board member since the club was formed in 1878. We thank him for his contribution in that time including that time he, er, well there was that thing when, er, well, er, he invested some money didn't he? Yeah - and what have you done in that time, except continue to buy a season ticket, programme, stuff from the shop and kiosks, Grand National tickets, sponsor players, donate to crisis funds etc. The club would not confirm or deny that there would be an immediate saving in formaldehyde costs from the beginning of next season. Mainly because nobody asked them.

So with Parker gone (temporarily) and Furneaux going, what about the others? Well, we already heard from John Elsom didn't we? Elsom - a man of great football experience, having overseen Leicester's relegation and subsequent £30million debt. It's that sort of experience that has helped our fine club get where it is today - what a CV this man now has. But let us not be unfair. Elsom told us that he's committed to the club, and that he's definitely, honestly, still, despite all this, honest guv'nor, going to invest in the club. And he has already invested in the club, of course - there was that £50k which bought him a place on the board (and an invite to the FA), and there was that, er... no, it was just that. But still, he says he is planning to invest further and will give us another £25k (or rather, buy that many shares). Ah wonderful.

Not that the club doesn't need every penny it can get, but don't bloody patronise us John, eh? We're millions in debt (albeit to Fenty and Parker) - that £25k won't even pay for the outstanding hairdressing bill Peter Sweeney left behind. It's like an elderly relative giving you 20p to "go out and buy one of those modern video games". OK, it's better than a kick in the teeth, yet strangely, after all this time, it still feels like a kick in the teeth. When he joined the board he said he'd bring us "knowledge of the Football League". Not really much use now is it?

Then we have 'Silent' Mike Chapman, glue factory magnate extraordinaire. A man who, on joining, pronounced that "survival of the club and staying in the first division are essential". Whoops! Bit of a fail, Mike. He's not had much to say since then, and that's perhaps best if that's all he's got to offer. What he brings to the board we can only guess - camaradarie? Joie de vivre? Derring-do? If I was being fair I'd say that the only experience he's brought to the club is how to flog a dead horse. If I was being unfair I'd say something a lot worse. And probably more sweary. The performance of the team at the weekend has lightened my mood somewhat, so he should thank them for that.

Of course, the focus on the 'terrible trio' sort of lets Fenty and Parker off the hook doesn't it? Not here. Let us not forget that in the ten years of boardroom failure we have endured, Fenty has been the man with the financial clout. The man whose platforms sway form secure to unstable in a matter of 24 hours. The man who swings from undoubted support for his manager to firing him the next day, over and over and over again. The man who repeatedly fills his mouth with well-worn clownshoes. It may be one man one vote in the boardroom, but do you really think the non-investing three would be overruling Fenty on a regular basis, if at all? Highly unlikely, and as such Fenty must still be held responsible for the decline of the club. Furneaux is merely the fall guy here, the sacrificial lamb to take the heat off the decision makers. You want his head on a platter? You got it, but what about the orange?

But that's not all we've been 'told', is it? No. Due to the ad-hoc nature of Fenty's communication strategy, we believe that he's allegedly told some people in a car park that there'll be a "two-tier boardroom". Here we go again with the over-egged management speak. Words of little meaning. And the thing is, if he's going to use phrases like this with little explanation of what it entails ("I'll leave it to you, Dave") then the only option we have is to interpret these vague statements as we choose. To me, a "two-tier boardroom" creates a vision of a large gold-encrusted throne with Fenty draped across it, his feet resting on the shoulders of Elsom and Chapman who sit on rickety wooden stools below. Utter nonsense of course, but such vagueness will only lead to speculation.

Yes, OK, we may get to hear the details of how this will work soon, even today perhaps. But how will we hear this? Should I go and wait in a car park on the off-chance Fenty stops by to let me know the details? It's this cack-handed approach to communication (along with the long list of poor decisions, of course) that is the undoing of Fenty. For all his attempts to show how much he cares for the club, how he's a true fan, one of us, he's still the one with the power. He's still the one who's made the decisions. He's still the one that reacts and blurts off at the media because they play 'Happy Talk' or throws the press out because they make some offhand remark about ambulances, or accuses the BBC of some sort of conspiracy against him. He still insists on statement after statement after statement filled with rafts, platforms, mindsets, buildings while all the time telling us nothing. He speaks often - too often - but he never really communicates.

And Parker isn't blame-free here, either. Let us not presume he's some golden saviour waiting in the wings. He may have honourable intentions for all we know, but the current boardroom wrangles just put the word 'Huxford' in my mind. And he was also part of the board that saw us drop out of the League and clearly had some influence in decision-making at board level since he joined. Further to this, his own decision-making can be questionable: Whatever game he is currently playing - and there is a game here - surely making the move he has done in the week we were about to appoint a manager is a calamitous gaffe. There's a time and a place for that sort of action, and this clearly wasn't it. It doesn't really fill you with confidence that his decision-making skills are any better than Fenty's, even if his media appearances are a bit more polished. Additionally, if Parker did want Furneaux off sooner, this man has, what, 40 per cent of the shares? He can call an EGM and get the shareholders to vote Furneaux off if he wishes. So can Fenty for that matter - and if they both wanted rid of the old codger, like they seem to have said they do, then why not just take this route?

So what has been the result of these games, along with years of management instability and general club fuck-ups? Well, the net result this week, to add to the spiralling debt and despair, is that two managers at different clubs, clubs that may not even exist next season, have chosen to turn down job offers at GTFC, preferring the job security of low-waged, short-term contracts at clubs on the brink of extinction. What an embarrassment for all involved.

Whatever decision Fenty, Parker, Chapman, Elsom and Furneaux make next, they better make absolutely bloody sure it's the right one. Personally, I'm at the stage where I wish they'd all just bugger off. What would we do without their money, though? Who knows? Where would we be without their decision making? Again, we don't know but we can safely hypothesise that we would still be a well-established Football League club with all the revenue that entails. Something has to change.