How Not to Run a Football Club - Official Discussion Thread

hertfordseasider said:
That's a typical reply from you Blood. "Haven't read it" "Probably won't", "Bullying my mate", "Respect Afro & Raggy!"

Maybe, just maybe, this was a day Foggy was incredibly proud of but also nervous, the day of release, loads of supporters who have ordered it and are looking forward to receiving it and an author who wants to know what people think. WTF is wrong with that. Foggy isn't going to be averse to criticism or some negative comments but what Phil has gone on and on and on and on about, is not about criticism, it's his usual mean spirited, look at me, why isn't it about me bullshit he is so good at. He's not been bullied. He's made a fool of himself, which is a common occurrence, it was actually predictable. I mean going back in time with his pathetic so called shouting match with Ian Holloway, no one gave a shit, no one gives a shit. People on here are just sick of his negative diatribe and his persistent whinging. All it's done has spoilt or tried to spoil the release of a story of our history and a very important part of our history. Phil can think what he wants, but surely, if he thinks he has been misrepresented then he should take that up with Foggy off board, but no, it's all on here and it's all been replied to by Foggy and many others.

For someone who's never bothered about anything Blood you don't half give an impression of someone who is really bothered. But then this is deep rooted over the past 50 years, before the Oyston's you would never understand.

It's a message board, Phil has put his head above the parapet and so have you so prepare for some swipes. Bullying my arse!!

I haven't read it yet, I had lots of stuff Foggy could have put in the book, words and pictures but he hasn't. No one needs to make it about them, it's about an event in our football clubs history. It's called How not to run a football club, not; How Phil has been so hard done by it was all me, me, me, was way way, even though that is a great name for a book!
Click to expand...
Wow that’s a great response that sums it all up 👏👏👏. Got my book today and if it doesn’t mention the fact l threw a brick at the shop window in the 77/78 season the night when we were relegated against all the odds, I'll be livid! Oh wait a minute lets wind on a few years………….
 
td53 said:
I think there's two things here. One is that the book covers so much ground that there is bound to be people and perspectives not included or things told from perspectives that are different from other perspectives that exist. You can't capture something as long running and emotive as what happens over the course of the book in it's entirety in 250 pages.

Two, it captures what is a hugely complex thing in a way that I think anyone could read, regardless of who they support.

I think it lives up to it's title. It conveys 'how not to run a football club' and it's a very good piece of writing. It manages to be crisp and concise as well as detailed. It could easily have gone under from the weight of minutiae but it doesn't.

I can't and never would claim to have done owt else other than stop going, chucked a few quid into crowd funding and stood about a bit outside the ground a few times, so I don't have the perspective that others do who were directly involved, but to me, the last 6 hours flew by as I read it.

It brought back the sense of what the club was like and told me some stuff I didn't know.

I thought it was excellent.
Click to expand...
This is a very very rewarding review to read. Thank you
 
Mine arrived today apparently. Unfortunately I'm halfway up a mountain in Costa Rica at the moment so it'll have to wait for a bit. Just been explaining the story of the protests to the mate I'm travelling with. He was amazed.

I think the book will make waves, so if a bit here or there doesn't chime with every player in the game"s recollection or perspective it's not a big deal in the scheme of things. The important thing is that we all played our part, large or small, and then someone had the patience and presence of mind to put it all on the record.
 
TangerineBayern said:
Wow that’s a great response that sums it all up 👏👏👏. Got my book today and if it doesn’t mention the fact l threw a brick at the shop window in the 77/78 season the night when we were relegated against all the odds, I'll be livid! Oh wait a minute lets wind on a few years………….
Click to expand...
I have the ignore function on Herts TB so don't see his posts. It will be some long winded aggressive piece no doubt zzzzzzzz.
 
Only about halfway through so far and largely enjoying it (I had to peel myself away from reading the whole thing) From a critical perspective it does seem to flit around in time and context a little, so I’m not sure… It’s obviously more OK if you’re already aware of the timeline of events, not sure how someone who was not involved would fare.

Also, an educated opinion, but I’d say KO’s assessment of DH (AFC Fylde) following their meeting back in the day, was pretty accurate.😂
 
A couple of other minor inaccuracies a) It wasn’t Tim, but rather Steve Smith who had secured the meeting with the Latvians and b) BST were certainly not “The driving force behind the NAPM campaign”

In fact much to my annoyance at the time the BST hierarchy came up with a very tenuous legal argument as to why they couldn’t or wouldn’t give their official support to the NAPM campaign. (I’ve got lengthy correspondence available between me Tim, Kevin etc for reference if it helps to support the facts).
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
A couple of other minor inaccuracies a) It wasn’t Tim, but rather Steve Smith who had secured the meeting with the Latvians and b) BST were certainly not “The driving force behind the NAPM campaign”

In fact much to my annoyance at the time the BST hierarchy came up with a very tenuous legal argument as to why they couldn’t or wouldn’t give their official support to the NAPM campaign. (I’ve got lengthy correspondence available between me Tim, Kevin etc for reference if it helps to support the facts).
Click to expand...
Steve emailed first you are right with a request to meet. He and Tim were working closely together and editorially I decided to focus on Tim for obvious reasons, without going into what SS did.

In my opinion, BST did become a driving force behind the NAPM campaign. They were picketing outside the ground every game, talking with sponsors to pull their funding, trying to help local businesses. I don't say it was their idea to begin with, but when it became part of their plan, I certainly think they played a great part in it.
 
I think the concern in the early days was that the Trust could be sued for ‘ unlawfully interfering with contractual relations ‘ as I was / had been sued
We didn’t want to give them further ammunition
Initially therefore it was styled ‘The Ethical Boycott’
As time went by and those risks faded the lines between that principle and the more focused NAPM approach blurred so as to be indistinguishable
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
I think the concern in the early days was that the Trust could be sued for ‘ unlawfully interfering with contractual relations ‘ as I was / had been sued
We didn’t want to give them further ammunition
Initially therefore it was styled ‘The Ethical Boycott’
As time went by and those risks faded the lines between that principle and the more focused NAPM approach blurred so as to be indistinguishable
Click to expand...
Yeah editorially it's grouped together a bit for simplicity. Tracking down who was the first person to start boycotting would be quite difficult, I would imagine Pete Wands was on that earlier than almost anyone though
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
I think the concern in the early days was that the Trust could be sued for ‘ unlawfully interfering with contractual relations ‘ as I was / had been sued
We didn’t want to give them further ammunition
Initially therefore it was styled ‘The Ethical Boycott’
As time went by and those risks faded the lines between that principle and the more focused NAPM approach blurred so as to be indistinguishable
Click to expand...
To describe BST as the driving force, when NAPM was an organic movement led initially by others is wholly inaccurate mate, particularly given the way BST distanced themselves at the outset.

Whatever the reasons, it was my view at the time and remains so today, that BST should have been much more actively supportive of NAPM. If it wasn’t for the strength of feeling within the rank and file BST’s reticence actually risked undermining the campaign.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
To describe BST as the driving force, when NAPM was an organic movement led initially by others is wholly inaccurate mate, particularly given the way BST distanced themselves at the outset.

Whatever the reasons, it was my view at the time and remains so today, that BST should have been much more actively supportive of NAPM. If it wasn’t for the strength of feeling within the rank and file BST’s reticence actually risked undermining the campaign.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we were ever reticent just cautious of not exposing anyone else on the committee to what I had to go through
In fact I recall a BST meeting where I addressed the membership on that specific point and it was agreed it didn’t need BST to formally adopt NAPM as everyone that would do was adhering anyway
The stance was labelled ‘ ethical boycott ‘ ie its the individuals choice
A subtle but potentially distinction if litigation followed
That was in 2015 as best I can recall though it could have been 2014 ( in which case I was still being sued )
NAPM had already taken hold and didn’t in my view ( and that of others on the committee ) need formal endorsement set against the risks
By 2016 the need to distinguish was no longer there and NAPM was the clear mantra
As Foggy says it was the BST committee and it’s support who picketed literally every game to reinforce what NAPM was all about for 4 years
A soul destroying task I’d add
100% agree BTW that the original idea was organic
Someone had to be there to explain it to the media / football authorities / Clifford Chance / etc etc
Generally that fell to BST hence I think Foggy’s description is a fair one
 
Last edited:
Lala said:
It was definitely Phil.
Click to expand...
In fairness to Phil LALA, the book (in parts) is very slanted in terms of how certain facts are recorded.

This is our collective history and factual accuracy is important
TwelveAngryMen said:
I don’t think we were ever reticent just cautious of not exposing anyone else on the committee to what I had to go through
In fact I recall addressing a meeting where I addressed the membership on that specific point and it was agreed it didn’t need BST to formally adopt NAPM as everyone that would do was adhering anyway
The stance was labelled ‘ ethical boycott ‘ ie its the individuals choice
A subtle but potentially distinction of litigation followed
That was in 2015 as best I can recall though it could have been 2014 ( in which case I was still being sued )
NAPM had already taken hold
By 2016 the need to distinguish was no longer there and NAPM was the clear mantra
As Foggy says it was the BST committee and it’s support who picketed literally every game to reinforce what NAPM was all about for 4 years
A soul destroying task I’d add
Click to expand...
BST were scared stiff about litigation against the Trust itself. Senior members of the Trust were actively against NAPM or certainly questioned the validity of that approach.

At a critical time BST failed to grasp the nettle and let down their members and those who were “the driving force behind NAPM”.

I dare say that they subsequently became more involved. I suspect Christine’s no nonsense approach had a great deal to do with that, but they were a long way from being the driving force behind the campaign.

That shouldn’t be in there, it’s an insult to those who genuinely did drive the campaign IMHO.
 
TangerineBayern said:
Wow that’s a great response that sums it all up 👏👏👏. Got my book today and if it doesn’t mention the fact l threw a brick at the shop window in the 77/78 season the night when we were relegated against all the odds, I'll be livid! Oh wait a minute lets wind on a few years………….
Click to expand...
You've always been a wrong un Stu 🤣
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
In fairness to Phil LALA, the book (in parts) is very slanted in terms of how certain facts are recorded.

This is our collective history and factual accuracy is important

BST were scared stiff about litigation against the Trust itself. Senior members of the Trust were actively against NAPM or certainly questioned the validity of that approach.

At a critical time BST failed to grasp the nettle and let down their members and those who were “the driving force behind NAPM”.

I dare say that they subsequently became more involved. I suspect Christine’s no nonsense approach had a great deal to do with that, but they were a long way from being the driving force behind the campaign.

That shouldn’t be in there, it’s an insult to those who genuinely did drive the campaign IMHO.
Click to expand...
Not sure scared stiff is the right word to use towards individuals who stepped into my shoes at a critical time knowing they risked the same as what happened to me

I had no choice other than to stand down when I did albeit still 20k poorer

To put yourself into that role at that time knowing that was very brave I’d say particularly if you had assets - as that’s where Owen was initially focusing the litigation until Raggy and Afro got under his skin

Not many would do it

Not sure I’d have

Sniping at them based upon legitimate concerns in year one of a four year campaign that they clearly spearheaded is poor form in my view
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
In fairness to Phil LALA, the book (in parts) is very slanted in terms of how certain facts are recorded.

This is our collective history and factual accuracy is important

BST were scared stiff about litigation against the Trust itself. Senior members of the Trust were actively against NAPM or certainly questioned the validity of that approach.

At a critical time BST failed to grasp the nettle and let down their members and those who were “the driving force behind NAPM”.

I dare say that they subsequently became more involved. I suspect Christine’s no nonsense approach had a great deal to do with that, but they were a long way from being the driving force behind the campaign.

That shouldn’t be in there, it’s an insult to those who genuinely did drive the campaign IMHO.
Click to expand...
I think the Trust and the members of the committee had every reason to be worried that the Os would have gone after the organisation and them personally if they’d been given any opportunity at all (and an action for unlawful/lawful means conspiracy would’ve been just the “hook to hang their hat on” they’d have relished). Remember at the time they were firing off writs/letters before action like confetti.

Tam
Martonmosser
Frank Knight
Andy Grice
Paul Crashly
Raggy
Afroman
Steve Smith
Beds
Jez Smith
Numerous people after Huddersfield etc etc
(Apologies if I’ve missed anyone out).

So, as Tam says, a degree of caution was in order at least initially.

There’s no doubt though that BST became an enthusiastic supporter and the “face” of NAPM in the media.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
In fairness to Phil LALA, the book (in parts) is very slanted in terms of how certain facts are recorded.

This is our collective history and factual accuracy is important

BST were scared stiff about litigation against the Trust itself. Senior members of the Trust were actively against NAPM or certainly questioned the validity of that approach.

At a critical time BST failed to grasp the nettle and let down their members and those who were “the driving force behind NAPM”.

I dare say that they subsequently became more involved. I suspect Christine’s no nonsense approach had a great deal to do with that, but they were a long way from being the driving force behind the campaign.

That shouldn’t be in there, it’s an insult to those who genuinely did drive the campaign IMHO.
Click to expand...
I think the asking for a refund set the tone to be honest.

It was spiteful and there was no need. So the odd fun poke at Phil is more than acceptable for me.
 
My recollection of it and I wasn’t in the inner sanctum but certainly in a group of people who were in touch via email, including Tim and x3 that was probably going well before NAPM, correct me if I’m wrong guys.

The litigation against the supporters was the thing that galvanised everyone, there were plenty of us who had had enough long before that but we were in a minority. I thought it was a mix of groups and individuals who cobbled it together at the start, I have to say I don’t think BST were the original driving force but they soon became a big part of the campaign and Christine did a fantastic job of leading BST and working with the other groups, such as the Knights, who played a massive part, particularly organising all sorts of good things. I also think AVFTT played it’s part at the time, it reached across so many supporters and was a great platform for BST, the Knights and individuals to discuss how best to get our club back.

Than we have Raggy and Afroman, unlike no one else, completely hat stand and maverick, they also, in their own way, caused havoc for the Stains, and however barmy they were they risked a lot by what they did and it should be acknowledged.

Then there were the thousands who took a stance, incredible, apart from 1500 mushroooms, unprecedented in football on such a scale and heartbreaking for supporters of the club to not go to games, part of their lives that was so important to them.

I agree with Daz, this is an important book and it needs to be as accurate as possible, it’s a massive piece of history in our club, but here are always going to be different interpretations as people remember things differently. I’m sure Foggy can edit anything or add stuff in the future?
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I think the Trust and the members of the committee had every reason to be worried that the Os would have gone after the organisation and them personally if they’d been given any opportunity at all (and an action for unlawful/lawful means conspiracy would’ve been just the “hook to hang their hat on” they’d have relished). Remember at the time they were firing off writs/letters before action like confetti.

Tam
Martonmosser
Frank Knight
Andy Grice
Paul Crashly
Raggy
Afroman
Steve Smith
Beds
Jez Smith
Numerous people after Huddersfield etc etc
(Apologies if I’ve missed anyone out).

So, as Tam says, a degree of caution was in order at least initially.

There’s no doubt though that BST became an enthusiastic supporter and the “face” of NAPM in the media.
Click to expand...
Exactly


The last thing BST could ‘ afford ‘ was either the organisation or its committee being targeted for further litigation

In 2014/15 there was a conscious decision taken by the membership to protect it

It was an unanimous vote as I recall

That’s the only reason I and others didn’t go on the pitch at JD1

Pauline got threatened with legal action after her twin sister did !

Steve Smith was certainly threatened with legal action if not sued

Anyone they knew in BST / TKs and even on AVFTT was in the firing line

Many of the TKs maintained anonymity for that very reason

The BST chair and the committee couldn’t

There was even a spreadsheet of names on here cross-referenced against what they said and who they were ( most weren’t known by them )

It was a dangerous time to be a prominent protester
 
Last edited:
hertfordseasider said:
My recollection of it and I wasn’t in the inner sanctum but certainly in a group of people who were in touch via email, including Tim and x3 that was probably going well before NAPM, correct me if I’m wrong guys.

The litigation against the supporters was the thing that galvanised everyone, there were plenty of us who had had enough long before that but we were in a minority. I thought it was a mix of groups and individuals who cobbled it together at the start, I have to say I don’t think BST were the original driving force but they soon became a big part of the campaign and Christine did a fantastic job of leading BST and working with the other groups, such as the Knights, who played a massive part, particularly organising all sorts of good things. I also think AVFTT played it’s part at the time, it reached across so many supporters and was a great platform for BST, the Knights and individuals to discuss how best to get our club back.

Than we have Raggy and Afroman, unlike no one else, completely hat stand and maverick, they also, in their own way, caused havoc for the Stains, and however barmy they were they risked a lot by what they did and it should be acknowledged.

Then there were the thousands who took a stance, incredible, apart from 1500 mushroooms, unprecedented in football on such a scale and heartbreaking for supporters of the club to not go to games, part of their lives that was so important to them.

I agree with Daz, this is an important book and it needs to be as accurate as possible, it’s a massive piece of history in our club, but here are always going to be different interpretations as people remember things differently. I’m sure Foggy can edit anything or add stuff in the future?
Click to expand...
There are reprints so I could edit stuff I think. As of yet the only real objective 'inaccuracy' pointed out is that Smith got the meeting in Latvia, not Tim...but I didn't really want Smith to be a character in the book. I didn't say BST started NAPM just that they became a driving force, which I stand by. No problem if others disagree, that's just my opinion.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Not sure scared stiff is the right word to use towards individuals who stepped into my shoes at a critical time knowing they risked the same as what happened to me

I had no choice other than to stand down when I did albeit still 20k poorer

To put yourself into that role at that time knowing that was very brave I’d say particularly if you had assets - as that’s where Owen was initially focusing the litigation until Raggy and Afro got under his skin

Not many would do it

Not sure I’d have

Sniping at them based in legitimate concerns in year one of a four year campaign that they clearly spearheaded is poor form in my view
Click to expand...
Scared stiff is precisely how I would describe it (whether that was legitimate or not is a moot point). The Trust was being asked to simply give their official backing to a perfectly legitimate protest campaign at the time and instead they were scraping the bottom of the legal barrel to find any excuse to justify inaction.

Plenty of supporters (at the time) did stand up and put their heads above the parapet to actively engage with and back the NAPM campaign, whilst BST had retreated behind the legals.

That's not 'sniping. Tim, it's a clear and accurate reflection of what actually happened.


I won't deny that BST subsequent became an enthusiastic backer of the campaign, but that was after others had blazed a trail ahead of them and shouldered the risk and responsibility that they were not prepared to.


The only Poor form, is people trying to take credit where they ought to be giving it....👎
 
foggy said:
There are reprints so I could edit stuff I think. As of yet the only real objective 'inaccuracy' pointed out is that Smith got the meeting in Latvia, not Tim...but I didn't really want Smith to be a character in the book. I didn't say BST started NAPM just that they became a driving force, which I stand by. No problem if others disagree, that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
It’s your book. Nobody else’s. Others could have written their view but couldn’t be arsed. Don’t edit a word. Unless it’s to acknowledge I started NAPM.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Scared stiff is precisely how I would describe it (whether that was legitimate or not is a moot point). The Trust was being asked to simply give their official backing to a perfectly legitimate protest campaign at the time and instead they were scraping the bottom of the legal barrel to find any excuse to justify inaction.

Plenty of supporters (at the time) did stand up and put their heads above the parapet to actively engage with and back the NAPM campaign, whilst BST had retreated behind the legals.

That's not 'sniping. Tim, it's a clear and accurate reflection of what actually happened.


I won't deny that BST subsequent became an enthusiastic backer of the campaign, but that was after others had blazed a trail ahead of them and shouldered the risk and responsibility that they were not prepared to.


The only Poor form, is people trying to take credit where they ought to be giving it....👎
Click to expand...
No one is taking credit

At no point does anyone from the BST committee claim that they came up with the campaign - it was organic

As someone on the centre of it all for a long time I couldn’t even tell you who did - Athers maybe was the first I recall vocalising it on here

If anything the Oystons were the most important component as the suing is what cemented it

You are challenging Foggy’s assessment that they were the driving force - and for most of that campaign they were as they were the public face of what we are all doing
 
For those still waiting , last night my delivery was still 29/3 , this morning I have a despatch notice and it is being delivered today ;)
 
straightatthewall said:
It’s your book. Nobody else’s. Others could have written their view but couldn’t be arsed. Don’t edit a word. Unless it’s to acknowledge I started NAPM.
Click to expand...
Me, my 2 lads and my dad stopped going a full season before the official NAPM movement started because when Harrison McGahey, Dom Telford and Mark Waddington were all offered peanuts to stay we knew we were screwed. We started NAPM😉
 
foggy said:
There are reprints so I could edit stuff I think. As of yet the only real objective 'inaccuracy' pointed out is that Smith got the meeting in Latvia, not Tim...but I didn't really want Smith to be a character in the book. I didn't say BST started NAPM just that they became a driving force, which I stand by. No problem if others disagree, that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
not the best of threads really. I'll add one comment. Everyone seems to assume BST means the committee. I'm not sure it does. BST at the time meant a big group of well over a thousand people coming together to air their voice. And it was that that was the driving force. A big group of individuals expressing their anger.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
No one is taking credit

At no point does anyone from the BST committee claim that they came up with the campaign - it was organic

As someone on the centre of it all for a long time I couldn’t even tell you who did - Athers maybe was the first I recall vocalising it on here

If anything the Oystons were the most important component as the suing is what cemented it

You are challenging Foggy’s assessment that they were the driving force - and for most of that campaign they were as they were the public face of what we are all doing
Click to expand...
He was.
 
straightatthewall said:
Is there a line about WHUSC turning up to court on the 'big' day and getting to the front of the photos, like a John Terry full kit wanker?
Click to expand...
Not sure, I cancelled my order as it was due in September and couldn’t be bothered waiting.
Shame the signing at the Armfield is cancelled as I’d have got one there today.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
I don’t think we were ever reticent just cautious of not exposing anyone else on the committee to what I had to go through
In fact I recall a BST meeting where I addressed the membership on that specific point and it was agreed it didn’t need BST to formally adopt NAPM as everyone that would do was adhering anyway
The stance was labelled ‘ ethical boycott ‘ ie its the individuals choice
A subtle but potentially distinction if litigation followed
That was in 2015 as best I can recall though it could have been 2014 ( in which case I was still being sued )
NAPM had already taken hold and didn’t in my view ( and that of others on the committee ) need formal endorsement set against the risks
By 2016 the need to distinguish was no longer there and NAPM was the clear mantra
As Foggy says it was the BST committee and it’s support who picketed literally every game to reinforce what NAPM was all about for 4 years
A soul destroying task I’d add
100% agree BTW that the original idea was organic
Someone had to be there to explain it to the media / football authorities / Clifford Chance / etc etc
Generally that fell to BST hence I think Foggy’s description is a fair one
Click to expand...

It was late January / Early February of 2016 when we had the BST Meeting and the ongoing email 'discussion' surrounding BST's lack of willingness to stand behind an ethical boycott. So quite some time after your legal issue. The matter of Ethical Boycott and NAPM had been ongoing for many Months and possibly over 12 Months prior.

TwelveAngryMen said:
No one is taking credit

At no point does anyone from the BST committee claim that they came up with the campaign - it was organic

As someone on the centre of it all for a long time I couldn’t even tell you who did - Athers maybe was the first I recall vocalising it on here

If anything the Oystons were the most important component as the suing is what cemented it

You are challenging Foggy’s assessment that they were the driving force - and for most of that campaign they were as they were the public face of what we are all doing
Click to expand...
I'm sorry mate, but I disagree.... This book has been proof read and there has been an opportunity for the facts to be corrected where appropriate.

BST may have spoken to the press, but the driving force being NAPM was very much a grassroots fan led thing. It was there before BST became involved, it erupted despite BST's unwillingness to properly endorse the campaign and essentially BST were dragged along with the tide of the fans as opposed to it being the other way around. Essentially NAPM became too big for BST to ignore.

The book says "BST were a diving force behind NAPM, encouraging fans to carry out an ethical boycott" when the reality is that BST flatly refused to encourage fans to carry out an ethical boycott and encouraged their members to vote against doing so, citing the dodgy legal justification.

Anyway.... It is what it is.... I appreciate it's difficult for one or two individuals to recall all the facts and that inconvenient facts tend to be 'forgotten' , whilst heroics are embellished.... clearly there are some areas where some wider research would have perhaps benefitted.
 
Just ordered my copy - apparently it will be delivered on 2nd April, really looking forward to it.
In the meantime I will keep reading this thread 😃
 
TickerM1967 said:
Me, my 2 lads and my dad stopped going a full season before the official NAPM movement started because when Harrison McGahey, Dom Telford and Mark Waddington were all offered peanuts to stay we knew we were screwed. We started NAPM😉
Click to expand...
Yep agree with this, loads had stopped going way before any NAPM campaign as it was clear there was no money being spent on the team etc…
Not got the book, is there a chapter on the bst bid for the club? The one where they wanted it for free and a load of cash(was it £2m?)to run it…?still makes me laugh now…😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top