Latest Opinion

I popped along to this last night. I didn't ask any questions as I was trying to focus on David Gold's answers, but it's inevitable that in such a forum (I reckon about 120 were in attendance) there would be some repetition.

Firstly, credit to the Chairman for attending and taking questions on a range of topics. Disappointment was expressed at Sam Allardyce's absence, but DG described him as a 'real fans' man'. The questions were broadly split/ variations on the following areas:

1. The proposed stadium move
2. Raking over the Avram coals
4. The club's ownership
5. The club's debt
6. The recent transfer window
7. Players - Cole and Upson
8. Karren Brady's column in a national newspaper

The proposed stadium move

DG repeated a few times that he did not want to leave the Boleyn but deemed it essential for the club's revenue-earning potential. He expressed a view that a fan is a fan forever, but a coporate sale is essentially a floating voter. Namely, if we didn't move to Stratford then Tottenham would - and they would grab all the corporate revenue from the City.

He was asked how much greater the potential was for developing that side of the club compared with the Boleyn and expressed it as 'several fold'.

The issue of the track was the real bone of contention from several questioners, and his comments included looking at 'retractable seating' and a 'Lego style' option where the seats are moved into place by a giant fork lift truck for eight months of the year and removed for cricket and athletics in the summer.

Quite how much knowledge he really had on either option I would have doubts over, but to my ears the in-and-out (Lego) seating sounded the more viable. In terms of timeline regarding when we would know if the club have been awarded the Olympic Stadium, he replied "in a couple of months".

Naming rights were discussed and Gold stated that "50 big companies" would be interested in the naming rights and as an example - and I stress this point - for illustrative purposes he mentioned Sony as a global brand, unlike "Reebok which isn't". I'm sure the executives at Reebok will be delighted their marketing is deemed to be crap.

It's clear though the stadium rights will be up for grabs. He said they would like the word Olympic in there somewhere - and that that was subject to negotiation (you have no chance DG). The club name would not 'under any circumstances' change, nor would the crest.

I think it's fair to say he is keen on the stadium and said we are "99.99 per cent sure to get it". In terms of views, he said very clearly there will be seats that are not very good and they would be the ones sold cheaply, but "if you have a good seat now, you would have a good seat at Stratford".

Avram , we had an Avram, we had an Avram Grant

DG said in his career he had hired, in his various businesses, about 120 managers - and on this ocassion he simply got it wrong. He said the list of potential candidates was relatively few (nobody asked the obvious question "well who's fault was that then?" - David Sullivan's comments about Zola coming home to roost) that but Grant was easily the best and he interviewed exceptionally well.

He made the point that had any of us been in the room we too would have hired Grant on the basis of his answers.

He admitted that during January they were being nice to AG whilst trying to get another man in place - Martin O'Neill, but he"vacillated and vacillated" and in the end never actually quite said yes, he would come. The club was then in the position of needing to have Grant continue as "once the transfer window had shut, no other Manager would take the job".

The club's ownership

DG gave a broad outline of his and DS's ownership - two thirds, the rest being owned by the banks. They would welcome a third partner who was willing to buy the final third of the business for around £30million (he was talking fast and loose at this point and said it wasn't the actual number they had each paid for their third) and that any such investor, in addition to buying the shares for that amount, would also need to put in matching equity into the club as he and DS have.

The debt

He described the debt as around £75million (down from £110million). He made no mention of any recent equity injections by either himself or DS or any injection of £2.5-£3million per month, as per KB's programme notes last week. I don't think he was telling fibs or misleading people by any such omission, I just don't think it worries him that much other than the lack of control in terms of having to talk to the banks.

He was asked if the sale of the Boleyn would help pay off the debt and he candidly said it would make a difference , but as "negotiations were ongoing" he couldn't quote any numbers. In fairness, he and his partner effectively underwrite the whole club - a point he made when asked about if there was a kitty for players in January to which he said "me and David Sullivan, we're the kitty".

He then commented that the potential third partner was in fact the Premier League - promotion! Making the point they are quite happy to trade the business out of debt by the revenue boost.

In terms of succession planning in the event of his death, he stressed his personal affairs are in good order and that the club's interests would be taken care of appropriately - there is no chance of people wanting their money back if he passes away (he spoke about his two daughters for sometime, for so long in fact I thought he was about to ask for any eligible bachelors to step forward).

The transfer window

Gold received a big round of applause from the audience for the club's dealings, with a few questions on Parker and why we dealt with Spurs when the phone hacking scandle was still going on and with them being awkward over Startford.

He was very clear in stating the board would always act in the best interests of the club and that business was business: in the absence of the player wanting to move to any other bidding clubs, what choice did we have?

Later on, when discussing the outstanding Diamanti debt (Brescia still owe us), he expressed a view that it would be much better if all deals were done on a 100 per cent 'cash on delivery' basis - which would reduce fees and ensure payment. He said we had recently sold a player where such a clause was included as part of the deal, but he declined to name the player - most would assume it to be Parker to Tottenham.

On Henri Lansbury, Arsenal wouldn't agree an 'option to buy' clause but he said the player just wanted to play football and would have more chance at West Ham than the Emirates.

Carlton Cole and Matthew Upson

DG expressed disappointment at MU's comments since leaving us, but didn't slate him - he handled it well. As for Carlton, he said he did want PL football "but not at any price" - and I didn't take that to mean wages, more about the whole package (where he lives etc). He spoke glowingly about Carlton and said he was the player who impressed him most when they came to the Boleyn. He stated they were happy Cole has stayed.

Karren Brady's tabloid column

Gold took a couple of questions from fans who expressed the view she had criticised the club in her column (prior to joining us), but DG made the point that whilst he knows she's not perfect, Brady is dynamic and we are lucky to have her. In fairness, one fan spoke up in favour of her column. DG knows it isn't the most popular thing in the world - but Karren likes doing it and we should all "lighten up".

One question was asked about whether the club would entertain the prospect of any shares being sold to the fans, making the point that he had been forced to sell his shares when the Icelandics took over. DG expressed to have no knowledge of that but could, in a heartbeat, remember the 92 per cent threshold at which it becomes obligatory (DG - if you are reading this you are a sharp cookie, but you dropped your guard at that point). He said he would mention it at a board meeting.

In summary, nothing earth-shattering (or even new) but the Chairman answered what was asked of him and did so for three hours. Oh - and the sarnies were ok, but the coffee a bit weak.

* Like to share your thoughts on this article? Please visit the KUMB Forum to leave a comment.

* Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the highlighted author/s and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy or position of KUMB.com.