Tom Gorringe - The Business of Sport

[magicdaps10]

Are you sure he was talking about Montague? I thought he was talking about Coleman instead which would be correct.

I would have to re watch, I thought he meant Montague.

 

[Smurph]

So you can't answer it!
Just trying to be silly with a deflective response?

I'm filling you in the drawer with one or 2 others with the title
"Think they know, don't have a clue and laugh at posts to make themselves feel better"

I could answer it, would only fly over the top of your head like it already has.

 

[magicdaps10]

I could answer it, would only fly over the top of your head like it already has.

Well at least try?
I always feel tidy people will always give an answer, it's the decent thing to do unless the question is ridiculous which it isn't in this case.

 

[tardylum]

Are you sure he was talking about Montague? I thought he was talking about Coleman instead which would be correct.

I think he answered it in a slightly confusing way. "Rich was recruited under the previous ownership and the club model had changed through that period of transition. The chairman left and the way we operated changed significantly at that time."

He seemed to be linking Coleman and Montague so maybe he was trying to say that Coleman was a holdover who left and whatever he had approved and put in place was seen as something that they wanted to move on from.

The Smurph and MagicDaps back and forth is making this thread hard to read now. I can not tell what they are even arguing about.

 

[Smurph]

Well at least try?
I always feel tidy people will always give an answer, it's the decent thing to do unless the question is ridiculous which it isn't in this case.

I'd rather bath my nan

 

[Smurph]

I think he answered it in a slightly confusing way. "Rich was recruited under the previous ownership and the club model had changed through that period of transition. The chairman left and the way we operated changed significantly at that time."

He seemed to be linking Coleman and Montague so maybe he was trying to say that Coleman was a holdover who left and whatever he had approved and put in place was seen as something that they wanted to move on from.

The Smurph and MagicDaps back and forth is making this thread hard to read now. I can not tell what they are even arguing about.

No arguing my end, I've stated exactly what you've just done.

He doesn't like it when I'm right.

 

[magicdaps10]

I think he answered it in a slightly confusing way. "Rich was recruited under the previous ownership and the club model had changed through that period of transition. The chairman left and the way we operated changed significantly at that time."

He seemed to be linking Coleman and Montague so maybe he was trying to say that Coleman was a holdover who left and whatever he had approved and put in place was seen as something that they wanted to move on from.

The Smurph and MagicDaps back and forth is making this thread hard to read now. I can not tell what they are even arguing about.

Yeah, I took it as he indicated that Montague was taken on under the previous ownership which you have clarified.
It seems that Gorringe got it wrong but may have been alluding to Coleman appointing him as suggested.

My apologies in regards to my conversation with Smurph. I was trying to highlight that Gorringe had said what you have clarified and it seems that Smurph then claimed the role was no longer required after restructure and went off towards Lands End from there

Coleman brought him in after the January window, I think it was already in place but it was maybe sped up after the disaster that happened in that winter window that Dimi was involved in.
Looking back, you can now see that it was a car crash waiting to happen given the people and their directions and it was inevitable that Montague would eventually go once Coleman left.

 

[Swansea93]

Speaking of Montague didn’t realise he’s back at Notts County.

 

[tardylum]

Speaking of Montague didn’t realise he’s back at Notts County.

Only 34/1 that we are playing against them next season...

 

[Longlostjack]

Infrastructure investments aren't counted towards PSR so yes, potentially we wouldn't have to make "rent" payments to the council any more.

Having the ground not owned by the club does offer us a certain protection however and the prospect of that no longer being the case should be treated with caution. There have been several cases of clubs having problems with their home stadium being sold or manipulated out from under them.

I’d prefer the protection. Owners come and owners go.

 

[magicdaps10]

Well that little podcast went well