|
|
| Thursday 21st February 2002 |
| 15.54 | Eagle | Graham Westley has this week made an official approach to Nick Hood to merge Kingstonian and Farnborough Town. |
| |
| Friday 22nd February 2002 |
| 23.55 | Graham Westley | Isn't it amazing that people who call themselves supporters should adopt a negative attitude to me, the person who has funded and managed the FTFC club back to life in the last 2.5 years, just because Kingstonian's administrator has announced that I have spoken to him. Let any person step forward and show that he has invested more time, money and effort in this club over the last 2.5 years.
'Only in it for the money'!!! Let that person step forward and own all the assets and liabilities at FTFC.
Stupid talk that.
And as for the 'fans' that plan to go and watch Southampton etc......FANS!!??
The scheme that is currently under discussion involves the Cherrywood Road ground being used as a Youth Academy and the Kingston ground being used as a first team HQ, whilst we continue to fight for a land exchange deal that would enable a new hotel/stadium complex to be constructed. That we could do then without the time pressure that has been created by the Conference edict that all Conference clubs must have League graded grounds.
Cherrywood Road is not a potential leisure site which will create the revenues necessary for footballing progress. And don't anybody kid themselves that I've been asked for any information that I haven't provided to Rushmoor. Not that I necessarily would give them confidential information.
Anyway, I'm off to concentrate on what really counts to me; beating Nuneaton.. |
| |
| Monday 25th February 2002 |
| 10.04 | Eagle | I understand that the Football Conference has rejected the idea of any team resulting from a Kingstonian/Farnborough merger playing in their league.
I'm told that there is "absolutely no way" the new team could start in the Conference and the Farnborough officials are "up in arms" at this news. |
| 10.28 | Chris Kelly | I can't speak for anyone else but as a shareholder only I certainly won't vote for the first offer that may save my own situation. I have been involved for 18 years good and bad and I certainly have no self preservation reason for looking after myself, I will do what I have always done wether people believe it or not and that is what is best for this club, not myself. |
| 20.58 | 007 | You may be pleased to know that the proposed merger will NOT happen.
Nick Hood has been advised that a majority of K's shareholders would REJECT Westley's bid.
And I can tell you why. They've had a better offer. |
| |
| Tuesday 26th February 2002 |
| 00.34 | Graham Westley | Back in the dark days when Farnborough Town bankrupted itself trying to survive in the Football Conference, the club was delighted to welcome somebody, with a small amount of finance and a burning ambition, to come in,take it over and save it. That somebody was me.
I promised that I was ambitious, that I loved football and I explained that there was no reason for me to invest the money that I had at Farnborough anymore than somewhere else. If the club was to accept me then it had to understand me; not complain about me when I acted as 'me'.
I do respect the support that I have had during my time at the club. I remember the efforts that went in from people to tidy and upgrade the ground. Particularly Geoff Wood. Unfortunately, I also remember the people that have posted on here to encourage visiting fans to spend their money at local pubs and not in our bar!
There are many occasions when I've called for support....what I wouldn't have given for banners and a supporters' march when trying to get Rushmoor to support the club in the creation of a new ground!! But there has been nothing. No real effort to help me to deliver 'football in Farnborough'. Only meetings to 'stop' progress.
Nigel Long has commented on 'embarrassing attempts at negotiation'. I wish to thank my various Directors who have invested many hours in dialogue with the council. I am proud of their 'embarrassing efforts'. Perhaps they got further than any previous efforts.
Somebody posted on here that it would 'only take 0.25 million' to upgrade Cherrywood....oh...is that all? Perhaps that person could find that 'little' bit of money for me!!! What naive talk.
Let's face a few facts;
1. Farnborough cannot afford to stay in the Conference without a major sponsor/investor. That has been organised by me since I arrived.
2. Farnborough has no means of funding the upgrade of Cherrywood to League standard, a new requirement of the Conference.
3. There is no sensible logic that would encourage anyone to put the money in to Cherrywood Road when there is no prospect of creating the income streams for sustaining even Conference status, let alone league status.
4. Whoever said...'league status....we can wait....we're happy in the Conference....' needs to understand that there is no standing still. Farnborough generates enough income to avoid relegation from the Ryman Premier in today's market.
To every supporter who is objecting to the scheme which is being negotiated involving a merger I say this; Farnborough promised me support...I promised it progress. I bought that promise and I must now question whether it is being kept.
If the club does not do something radical then it will die. This time, I believe, that could be for good. It would suit many people you know; its previous situation should make that clear.
If I agree a scheme with Kingston, then I will be inviting the supporters' clubs of both Kingstonian and Farnborough to send along a fifteen person delegation to meet with me within days and discuss things. Both sets of fans will want to know how I see things evolving and I will tell them if something gets agreed.
Imagine if the new club ultimately built a new ground somewhere between Kingston and Farnborough, and developed both Cherrywood and Kingsmeadow into regional academies. Would that be a bad thing for either club?? Or would football, Kingston and Farnborough be the winners? Let's face facts, you can't grow a bigger club if you kill either can you? Max Griggs showed that.
Should the Conference have objected to the ground share? What is the gain of their decision, really? I shall certainly explain my view at the Conference Chairmans' meeting this Thursday.
And finally, for the record, my solicitor had written to John Moules and received a reply before comments were printed indicating that communication hadn't happened. |
| 01.05 | Graham Westley | If two football clubs unite, there must be good footballing reasons to do so and an understanding on both sides that nobody can have it all.
Whether any new club played initially in Kingston or initially in Farnborough, the other stadium would be kept alive.
Ultimately, I could see a situation in which we joined the football league at a stadium somewhere between the two, and used both Cherrywood Road and Kingsmeadow as development academies to feed the new entity.
The histories of both clubs needs to be preserved. Or else, any new club will have no support.
Neither club is big enough to succeed in the Conference on its own. Both have tried and nearly gone under in the process. Together, KFU can go to the next level.
If a deal is agreed, I will be inviting the supporters' clubs of both clubs to send 15 representatives to a meeting with me to discuss the whole thing, within days.
I ask you to contemplate the possibilities. KFU can create something that we can all be proud of. |
| |
| Wednesday 27th February 2002 |
| 00.24 | Graham Westley | Imagine. In five years time that KFU is a progressing football league club.
It owns two grounds. One in Kingston. One in the Farnborough area. Both are state of the art leisure facilities providing good incomes and serving as sporting centres of excellence. The club only has one first team; but it has 3000+ fans. The team alternates its fixtures between Farnborough and Kingston.
Plans are afoot for the club to construct one stadium which may?? be shared with other parties. Who knows?
Just imagine.
(See reply below at 16.52). |
| 00.27 | Graham Westley | Things that make me laugh.
1. That people think that I am in football to 'make money'; the thought of 'making money' is far away. I am in football because I am ambitious to succeed in football. To succeed, a club needs revenue though.
2. That I want to unite Farnborough and Kingston and damage either; I want to unite them and strengthen both.
3. That Kingsmeadow should become a 'supermarket'. A major sports and leisure complex YES.
And finally, Kingston people do not want to play at Farnborough. Farnborough people do not want to play at Kingston. Neither is immediately enthusiastic about Guildford.
Imagine a club with a new stadium in the Farnborough area and a developed stadium in the Kingston area. The United club using 2 homes; keeping football alive in both areas, but investing in one team to enable on field progress. Just imagine; that's all. |
| 13.45 | NLP/FTFC* | KINGSTONIAN ADMINISTRATOR EXPLORES MERGER OPTION - 27/02/2002
Proposals for a merger between Farnborough Town and Kingstonian have been put to Kingstonian's Administrator, Nick Hood of Begbies Traynor.
Nick Hood is advocating the acceptance of this merger by Kingstonian's creditors and shareholders. This would be a groundbreaking deal which provides both clubs with an exciting future.
Under the terms of the proposals, it is hoped that the merged club, Kingston & Farnborough United, will begin next season playing its football in the Nationwide Conference.
The intention is that the club will play at Kingstonian's ground at Kingsmeadow, while Farnborough's Cherrywood Road ground will be used as the merged club's youth academy.
The club will also use Farnborough's West London training ground and will play in a newly designed red and white blend of stripes and hoops, reflecting the matching colours of the two original clubs.
Farnborough's chairman/manager, Graham Westley, and Nick Hood have issued a joint statement: "We are working to bring together two clubs with different strengths but with one common thread. Kingstonian has invested in its stadium and brought it up to League standards, whilst Farnborough has invested in its team. Both have already succeeded against the odds and are determined to achieve the next goal of league football.
"We firmly believe that that success on and off the pitch will be made possible as a result of the proposed merger."
The proposal to come together follows months of difficulty for both clubs. Farnborough has struggled to get any support from its local council for its plans to develop a new League standard stadium, while Kingstonian has been forced into administration by the burden of its debts. A previous ground share scheme was turned down by the Nationwide Conference and the FA.
Both clubs' bosses are delighted with the possibilities opened up by the deal. Graham Westley has asked Alan Kingston to become his vice chairman, while Westley will take overall responsibility for the playing side of the merged club, as he does at Farnborough.
He says: "Alan is a great media and PR man who has built an incredible name for Kingstonian. I can't wait to start working with him."
Kingston is equally enthusiastic, saying: "Graham and I agree that winning is the only important thing. We share a passion for success. We both believe that this is going to be big."
The merger will need to be ratified by the FA, the Nationwide Conference and the Ryman League, but it is hoped that the precedent from the Dagenham and Redbridge merger will assist the authorities to reach a pragmatic decision that will facilitate the emergence of one stronger club, rather than a rejection that may well cause the closure of the two present clubs.
In its current form, certain aspects of the proposed merger will need the approval of Kingstonian's creditors and the overall structure of the deal will also need to be approved by Kingstonian's shareholders.
Nick Hood is urging both groups to support the deal. He is concerned that if it is rejected, the only other alternative may be a forced sale of the assets, which would lead to the end of Kingstonian after well over a hundred years, and of football at Kingsmeadow. This would be a disaster for both the fans and for the creditors.
Meanwhile, Graham Westley will hold a joint meeting with representatives of the two supporters clubs within the next few days. |
| | * This item was released as a story on the Non-League Paper's web site (under the byline Theresa Forrest) , but was also issued as a press release by Farnborough Town FC |
| 14.07 | Eagle | (In reply to the posting immediately above).
Kingston is equally enthusiastic, saying: "Graham and I agree that winning is the only important thing. We share a passion for success. We both believe that this is going to be big."
Well blow me - sounds like the unity of the Board has come unstuck somewhat. |
| 14.53 | 007 | (In reply to the posting immediately above).
Its my understanding that the whole article was written by Graham Westley, including the bits by Alan Kingston, and sent to the NLP despite Alans protests. |
| 16.20 | 008 | (In reply to the posting immediately above).
And written a good few weeks ago too, as I understand. |
| 16.25 | Graham Westley | Imagine if Manchester hadn't United all those years ago.
(See reply below at 16.58). |
| 16.50 | Eagle | When this potential merger was first announced it was supposedly going to result in one team playing at Kingsmeadow. The Farnborough fans were quite rightly upset over that decision, so a day or two later the plan became to play at Kingsmeadow whilst another site was developed.
That resulted in Kingstonian fans (also quite rightly) stating their opposition to the amended plan. So lo and behold a couple of days later the plan changes again. A team playing at two stadia whilst a third "might" be developed.
It's no wonder Rushmoor Borough Council didn't like your previous business plan Graham - it was probably hugely out of date by the time it got delivered because you'd changed your mind.
(See reply below at 00.47). |
| 16.52 | Bill F | (In reply to the posting above at 00.24).
So are you going to give us a clue as to what "which may?? be shared with other parties" means and who it might be? You see if you make thought provoking comments like that, don't be surprised if we take it into account when making up our mind if its "give and take" or just "take". You see all the fans want to retain their identity as far as they can, this raises doubts on how "far" that might be.
(See reply below at 00.44). |
| 16.58 | Taz | (In reply to the posting above at 16.25).
A slightly flawed example sir. Manchester didn't actually 'Unite' with anyone that I'm aware of. They were Newton Heath from the 1880's to 1902 when they simply changed their name due to the fact that they'd moved around so much and no longer played in the area the original name came from. |
| |
| Thursday 28th February 2002 |
| 00.12 | Eagle | Dear Nick Hood,
I know you see this forum, so could you perhaps answer a few questions for me?
1 Have there been any serious declarations of interest other than Mr Westley's?
2 If so, do you still think that "the only other alternative may be a forced sale of the assets"?
3 If not, why has an EGM not been called?
4 Does the fact that practically every Farnborough fan and practically every Kingstonian fan is against the proposed merger worry you?
5 Does the fact that Mr Westley's plan seemingly changes every day worry you?
Thanks for your time,
Gary.
(See replies below at 00.25 and 09.35). |
| 00.14 | Nigel L | Graham Westley is on record, and I quote, as saying "The scheme that is currently under discussion involves the Cherrywood Road ground being used as a Youth Academy and the Kingston ground being used as a first team HQ, whilst we continue to fight for a land exchange deal that would enable a new hotel/stadium complex to be constructed."
If you're happy with that statement then that's fine. But do not delude yourselves that this is crypto-speak for "I want Kingsmeadow to be the permanent home for the merged club." In nearly three years of working alongside Graham I've never known him put into words anything that he doesn't mean. |
| 00.22 | Graham Westley | (In reply to the posting immediately above).
Two things Nigel.
1. I appreciate you saying that I have never said anything that I don't mean. I think that is fair.
2. I intend to give the fans of both Kingston and Farnborough a team that they can be proud of, and a club situation that they can......with some compromise.....both be proud of. |
| 00.25 | Graham Westley | (In reply to the posting above at 00.12).
Please do not misinterpret my willingness to listen and to attempt to deal with 'genuine' concerns as a 'change' of plans. It makes sense to address proper concerns and to solve them where possible. The basic principle that two merged clubs can be stronger than either on its own remains unaffected. |
| 00.37 | Graham Westley | Kingston has a League standard ground; Farnborough has a piece of land that can realistically be sold for housing; the MOD have land pockets that could be used for a League stadium in the Farnborough region; the fans of both clubs may be prepared to support a 'mobile' club (alternating) in their masses; a 'middle ground' stadium may be a sensible answer. |
| 00.44 | Graham Westley | (In reply to the posting above at 16.52).
Give and take is not ambiguous...is it? In a football dressing room things are pretty black and white. You play well or you don't. You get a shirt or you don't. You win or you don't.
If I say give and take then that's what I mean. Got it. |
| 00.47 | Graham Westley | (In reply to the posting above at 16.50).
Change in the detail of a plan can reflect the willingness of a person to tailor the detail in light of feedback. It doesn't indicate that the fundamentals change. Set the plan in stone too soon and you will fail....in my opinion. |
| 10.26 | Bill F | GW told us that the Conference board met YESTERDAY (wed), he's NOT seeing them in person, just submitted report, and expects ruling tomorrow (fri) at the earliest ... YES to Merger, NO to Kingsmeadow as base. |
| 11.25 | Shark Eye | A question for Graham though,would playing in the Ryman premier or a conference division 1 affect your merger plans?
(See reply below at 02.14). |
| 13.24 | Anthony | Nick (and his firm) has been employed to find a buyer for the club at the best possible return for the creditors taking the secured creditors first (i.e. Barclays). Clearly he will be under pressure to resolve a way forward here as I also assume, Barclays are providing the necessary funds to keep us afloat at this present time.
In the absence of any commentary from Nick on other offers. I suggest this means they do not actually exist or, Nick is unable to provide any details under confidentiality agreements. This would appear a red herring to me. |
| 14.24 | Eagle | (In reply to the posting immediately above).
Sorry Anthony, but I've heard from two completely separate sources that other offers DO exist. With this knowledge (which I believe to be completely true) one has to wonder why things have suddenly started moving so fast.
If Graham Westley's offer were the only one on the table, with the only alternative being the end of Kingstonian, then of course I would support it. But at the moment there is still a very good possibility that money can be invested into the club, leaving a team playing in red and white hoops under the name Kingstonian in the Ryman Premier League next season. If that possibility exists then it surely has to be given the same chance of success as any other.
For Nick Hood to be quoted in a national newspaper saying that the only alternative to Westley's offer is a sale of assets is, in my opinion, completely wrong. It is NOT the only alternative and I don't think it's right for somebody in Mr Hood's position to say that it is. |
| 20.41 | Alan Symes | Why do you want to do this? It beats me! The hassle is surely not worth it!
I agree that every town should have their own club to follow. You want to 'unite' two town's clubs....WHY? In the end why mess around with these two towns clubs. Why not just buy a bit of land, build your sports club with a league standard stadium?
Surely that would be cheaper than baling out Ks and hanging on the FTFC...and the floating fans out there will be bound to flock to the wonderful ground and see top class league footy! Won't they!!
(See reply below at 01.20). |
| |
| Friday 1st March 2002 |
| 01.20 | Graham Westley | (In reply to the posting above at 20.41).
Suppose that I am proud of what we have built at Farnborough. Suppose I really enjoyed my time at Kingston. Suppose I can see that the best of both could create something more special than either on its own.
And let's be frank, the two clubs are in closely located, growing towns.....i.e. the same conurbation. I played for both clubs, so did David Leworthy, so did David Harlow, so did John Power, so did Richard Parkin, so did....... There are many connections if you choose to see them. |
| 01.41 | Graham Westley | Several things:
1. I can tell you that the Conference have confirmed that the two clubs can merge, retain conference status and play in Farnborough.
2. Agreement for the merged club to play in Kingston requires a further application and more will be known next week. I remain hopeful on this.
3. There are no plans to alienate the fans of either Farnborough or Kingston. I hope that the merged club can become attractive to the majority of the existing fan base; inevitably some will choose otherwise.
4. There are many negative postings about myself on this board. Presumably, the contributors(few of whom give their name) are different people, and are representative; I am personally unconvinced that the footballing masses spend their time on the net.
However, there is no reference to the fact that I have many rights too. As the person who organised for the football club to survive, I am probably the reason that Cherrywood Road is still a football ground and not a housing estate. If it were a housing estate now, following club bankruptcy, then there would be no club to merge.
5. I will happily conduct an on line Q&A next week; Thursday 5-6pm. I'll only deal with questions from persons properly identifying themselves. |
| 02.14 | Graham Westley | (In reply to the posting above at 11.25).
The Conference has confirmed that the clubs can merge and play at Farnborough. I will now be applying for the merged club to play at Kingston(league graded ground). For both sets of fans to feel good, and that is the best scenario, we need to develop good club facilities in both regions. As the two towns grow, as Farnborough airport expand and as the Southern Counties region comes closer together, the two bases will open up all sorts of possibilities. The more I think about it, the more I could see the club having two grounds(remember that the biggest cost to both clubs is not its ground but its team). More fans paying to support just one team offers the chance for better football to be created.
There will have to be give and take. Some now, some later. But we should plan for all to be able to win. Together. |
| 09.35 | Eagle | Nick Hood has sent the following response to my questions from a couple of days ago:
Have there been any serious declarations of interest other than Mr Westley's?
Yes, there have been other serious expressions of interest. I have seen one of the interested parties this morning at Kingsmeadow and provided them with more information. I expect them to come back to me in he next few days. There is also another interested party and I expect to see them early next week and find out if they are serious and if they have the resources to do a deal at a level I can consider. You will appreciate that I cannot reveal who these people are, but I can assure you that both of them are "football" people and neither are property speculators.
However, you will understand that I have to progress Mr Westley's interest since it is to no one's benefit for me to ignore what is clearly a serious offer. As I explain in response to one of your later questions, I am afraid that I have to act in the interests of the creditors, which may mean considering offers that upset the fans.
If so, do you still think that "the only other alternative may be a forced sale of the assets"?
Following my meeting this morning, no I don't think that this is necessarily the only alternative. However, I don't have a firm offer from anyone else and talk is cheap. My experience tells me not to count chickens until they hatch.
If not, why has an EGM not been called?
The EGM is being called as soon as I can get the paperwork out of my office, which with a bit of luck will be tomorrow (Friday) or Monday.
Does the fact that practically every Farnborough fan and practically every Kingstonian fan is against the proposed merger worry you?
Of course I am concerned if it is the case that practically every fan of the two clubs is against the merger, but unfortunately as Kingstonian's administrator, I am an officer of the Court first and a football enthusiast second. I have a statutory duty to act in the interests of the creditors, to try to obtain the best possible outcome for them as a whole. I apologise if this sounds unemotional, but it is my job. You must remember that it not my fault, any more than it is yours or the rest of the supporters, that Kingstonian is grossly insolvent. But the fact that it is insolvent means that the Court has ultimate control, through me, of what happens to the Club and the creditors' interests over-ride everyone else's.
Does the fact that Mr Westley's plan seemingly changes every day worry you?
I hear what you say about Mr Westley's plans, but in my experience over many years that is absolutely normal. People who dig insolvent businesses out of ?1m holes tend to negotiate in a fairly fluid way. I am not phased by it, but no matter what happens what I do is to keep focussing on the implications for the creditors first and then, if they are compatible, the interests of the fans. |
| 23.00 | Graham Westley | The Conference has not put any 'provisos' in place. I asked it first if the clubs could merge. And then if the merged club can play at Kingston. The answers were yes and 'subject to further discussion after information is provided'. |
| 23.26 | Graham Westley | I think that one thing needs to be made absolutely clear. Kingsmeadow is at the heart of all this. Your League graded ground is fit for the Conference and beyond. I do not see a situation whereby football is not played at Kingsmeadow.
But neither do I see a situation in which Farnborough loses football either. This isn't clever nonsense; as the situation develops so the precise answer will become clear. We must all be open minded.....me included.
Someone suggested elsewhere that a reserve team may be allowed to play in a competitive league. Yeovil was quoted.
Don't mistrust my intentions. You don't need to. |
| |
| Saturday 2nd March 2002 |
| 23.55 | Graham Westley | I understand from my media team that Nick Hood announced today on the radio that he has not agreed a deal with me and that he is in discussions with two other parties.
It was my belief that I had agreed a deal and that we were in the process of gaining the various approvals. I have no interest in being involved in a game and accordingly I have decided to withdraw my interest.
KFU is dead. |
Please note: Neither K's Web nor Kingstonian FC can accept any responsibility for the validity or truthfulness of any information contained within this page.
It does not necessarily reflect any or all of the views held by any party involved in this situation. It has been produced in good faith to allow people who do not have time to trawl through pages and pages of articles on various forums to find out some of what has been said.
In general, only articles where new (or additional) information has come to light have been included. Some may have been missed. Some might not be true. Don't blame us - we just copied and pasted...