Post by Dave on Jan 9, 2009 22:19:16 GMT
Firstly many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the forum this week, some really great threads and top class posts once again.
Its good to have a brand new winner as this weeks winner in The Poster Of The Week award. I remember so well his very first post on the forum and he was unsure about this forum being in existence. I know that he has seen what the forum really is about and what the real aim of the forum is and I hope all his fears have been put to bed.
If you make a post about the history of TUFC, make sure you have your facts correct, because this weeks winner really does know the history of TUFC better than anyone and he will soon put you right, should you post something that was not correct. ;D
This Weeks Winner Is
Jon, well done and fully deserved
Just one of the posts Jon has made this week.
It’s interesting how history tends to repeat itself and there are obvious parallels between the Boyce/Webb situation and the Bateson/Roberts one. But you could hardly get four more different characters if you tried!
Boyce and Bateson were both on the Board of Directors at TUFC before taking over as Chairman. Both had great success early on – achieving promotion in their first (Bateson) or second (Boyce) season at the helm. Both were in it for the long term. Both handed over to people that we all wish they hadn’t handed over to.
Webb and Roberts were both men with radical plans. Neither had any connection to TUFC and raised finance from sources with no connection to TUFC.
Boyce was a class act - a real people person, charming and cajoling people into helping the club. He was liked and respected by everyone who had dealings with him. He ran the club in a democratic and co-operative spirit. When the money ran out, he developed a method of surviving which got tougher and tougher to keep going. As a real TUFC fan, I expect he hated having to cut back on essentials – sacking Don Mills must have hurt - but he had to. By the end, he was desperate to get out because the sums just did not add up.
Bateson was the bluff hard-faced self-made millionaire who had the knack of getting people’s backs up and irritating and alienating them. He ran the club in an autocratic and dictatorial manner. But, like Boyce, he developed a method of surviving. It was probably a bit easier for him, because he cared less about tradition and community. He didn’t seem to mind making cuts to survive, but the abuse he suffered as he struggled to keep things going hurt him more than he liked to admit. By the end, he was desperate to get out.
Webb was from the tough school of life in the East End. He was a canny self-taught businessman. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Roberts was from a weird mixed-up middle-class intellectual background. He had read a book on business. He didn’t have a clue what he was doing.
Webb stayed around for two and a half years. Roberts was chased off much quicker. Why?
Firstly, Roberts’ plan was not sustainable. If he hadn’t been chased out when he was, the whole thing would have collapsed around his ears. Webb was canny enough to keep things ticking over.
Secondly, the computer age made it easy for people to dig and delve into Roberts and his backers, and made it easy for people to organise themselves and bring pressure to bear. This may have happened in the Webb period – I wasn’t around so I don’t know. If it did, it would have been far more difficult to do.
Thirdly, Roberts was not really a tough opponent. His backers were professional people with reputations to protect who were easy to scare away. Roberts was a nice enough, if mentally unstable, person. You could get “in his face” without fearing the consequences. I probably wouldn’t have dared to get “in Webb’s face” and I think I would have been far more scared of his backers than they would have been of me!
Its good to have a brand new winner as this weeks winner in The Poster Of The Week award. I remember so well his very first post on the forum and he was unsure about this forum being in existence. I know that he has seen what the forum really is about and what the real aim of the forum is and I hope all his fears have been put to bed.
If you make a post about the history of TUFC, make sure you have your facts correct, because this weeks winner really does know the history of TUFC better than anyone and he will soon put you right, should you post something that was not correct. ;D
This Weeks Winner Is
Jon, well done and fully deserved
Just one of the posts Jon has made this week.
It’s interesting how history tends to repeat itself and there are obvious parallels between the Boyce/Webb situation and the Bateson/Roberts one. But you could hardly get four more different characters if you tried!
Boyce and Bateson were both on the Board of Directors at TUFC before taking over as Chairman. Both had great success early on – achieving promotion in their first (Bateson) or second (Boyce) season at the helm. Both were in it for the long term. Both handed over to people that we all wish they hadn’t handed over to.
Webb and Roberts were both men with radical plans. Neither had any connection to TUFC and raised finance from sources with no connection to TUFC.
Boyce was a class act - a real people person, charming and cajoling people into helping the club. He was liked and respected by everyone who had dealings with him. He ran the club in a democratic and co-operative spirit. When the money ran out, he developed a method of surviving which got tougher and tougher to keep going. As a real TUFC fan, I expect he hated having to cut back on essentials – sacking Don Mills must have hurt - but he had to. By the end, he was desperate to get out because the sums just did not add up.
Bateson was the bluff hard-faced self-made millionaire who had the knack of getting people’s backs up and irritating and alienating them. He ran the club in an autocratic and dictatorial manner. But, like Boyce, he developed a method of surviving. It was probably a bit easier for him, because he cared less about tradition and community. He didn’t seem to mind making cuts to survive, but the abuse he suffered as he struggled to keep things going hurt him more than he liked to admit. By the end, he was desperate to get out.
Webb was from the tough school of life in the East End. He was a canny self-taught businessman. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Roberts was from a weird mixed-up middle-class intellectual background. He had read a book on business. He didn’t have a clue what he was doing.
Webb stayed around for two and a half years. Roberts was chased off much quicker. Why?
Firstly, Roberts’ plan was not sustainable. If he hadn’t been chased out when he was, the whole thing would have collapsed around his ears. Webb was canny enough to keep things ticking over.
Secondly, the computer age made it easy for people to dig and delve into Roberts and his backers, and made it easy for people to organise themselves and bring pressure to bear. This may have happened in the Webb period – I wasn’t around so I don’t know. If it did, it would have been far more difficult to do.
Thirdly, Roberts was not really a tough opponent. His backers were professional people with reputations to protect who were easy to scare away. Roberts was a nice enough, if mentally unstable, person. You could get “in his face” without fearing the consequences. I probably wouldn’t have dared to get “in Webb’s face” and I think I would have been far more scared of his backers than they would have been of me!