SIMON COHEN AND TOM SCOTT

[Traveller]

To suggest that Matt O'Connor is the 'one mistake' - is to take a very big all purpose eraser, to scrub clean the pages, and completely re-write history.

I'm not suggesting he was the only mistake they've made, I'm saying that believing him to be the long term coaching solution (and so the coaching team not requiring a big cash injection for some years) was the mistake in the investment strategy I outlined as what they might potentially have been following.

I think it's a big stretch to suggest, as you seem to be, that the board of directors of the biggest rugby club in the uk (in terms of fan base at least) has decided that rugby is no longer the thing the company that runs said club should do.

I am sorry if I misread your words, I thought you had written - 'is it possible that they identified the correct long term strategy with one mistake (Matt O'Connor if my memory serves)? -

I now understand that you wrote something different (if my memory serves)?

[Traveller]

Other than his £5.5m loan note conversion (for which he extracted c.£1.2m in interest payments first) he has not "put money" into the club, he has purchased shares from other shareholders. That is a very different thing. The club has also been announced for sale only about 18 months to two years after this conversion at roughly double the price he paid for it.

As for not being an executive director therefore not responsibile, 1) that is not how non-Executive directorships work, you are as responsible for the business as the executive directors legally, 2) he owns c.46% of the shares and given the large number of non-voting smaller shareholders de facto controls the company. So Peter Tom might be executive chairman but that is only at Tom Scott's behest.

First of all you say extracted £1.2m in interest which makes it sound like a bad thing. If you have £5.5m spare would you like to give it to me interest free for 6 years, and then at the end of the 6 years instead of paying you back convert it into shares where I will get no dividends or income from it?
Executive directors role is to run and manage the company on a day to day basis for the benefit of shareholders. The role of the non-executives is to try and ensure the executives act in the best interest of the shareholders. Unless you are suggesting that Tom Scott wants to let the executive directors ruin his investment. Ok things have gone pear-shaped especially last season and obviously with hindsight there have been mistakes made by the Board which likely will take about 5 seasons to put right. People on here complain that all Scott and the other shareholders want is to build a hotel and car park etc but they have invested heavily in bringing/keeping some top quality players such as Genge, Ford, May , Tuilagi etc so it seems absurd that people are suggesting we have not invested in the rugby side of things and only in commercial activities. For a club like ours, without a sugar-daddy the commercial activities are essential to the survival of the club.

For clarities sake. I don't criticise the shareholders for seeking a return on their investment. We can't have it both ways. This is a business. I don't criticise the board for investing in the hotel, car park proposal etc. It seems to me to be exactly the right thing to be doing and they would have been criticised if they had allowed some other party to take advantage of the opportunity. Secondly, without a 'sugar daddy', and for one club in particular apartheid era money (be judged by the friends you keep), Tigers are faced with a set of challenges to clubs such as Bristol, Bath, Salarycens et al. Thirdly, Tigers have invested in players. Now whether we have invested in the right players is a different issue, and personally I have felt for years that the failure to bring through academy players has been a major mistake. Manu Tuilagi being the last academy player to become a regular England international.

However on the personnel front specifically around our CEO Mr Simon 'not my area of responsibility' Cohen, Glynn, the coaching decisions (which then knock on to player recruitment) things have self evidently been shambolic. I know I have written the same thing before, but just because I have doesn't mean to write it again makes it any less illustrative. When a novice Head Coach is confirmed as Head Coach and explains that he has appointed a defence coach because "He is available (unemployed), knows the club, and lives locally" the alarm bells should have rung. When at the hour of our professional era nadir, of all the consultants in the world we could recruit to assess what is going wrong we bring in an ex Tiger - does everyone who ever gets a coaching job at Tigers have to be an ex Tiger. Even our Scrum Half coach has to be an ex Tiger. Are we so utterly myopic? Are there no other new ideas out there? It's a case of Skegness syndrome. Being so far from the sea, if your one and only experience of it is Skeggie and you keep on going back, you might never discover the French Riviera.

Therein lies the problem for me. It is not in the bricks and mortar investment. It is the sheer inward looking nature of the club. Once upon a time it bought us success. When we had a stadium and massive support we were ahead of the game.

[chewbacca]

I don't resent people making a profit and yes the hotel etc may be a good idea to provide revenue for the maintenance of the club however I would suggest that the primary focus has to be, and I feel has not been the rugby, the reputation and brand of which is expected to sell the hotel. If the current BoD is unable to address the rugby issues then by all means concentrate on the other business activities and hand running of the rugby to a competent team with minimal interference.

[Crofty]

To suggest that Matt O'Connor is the 'one mistake' - is to take a very big all purpose eraser, to scrub clean the pages, and completely re-write history.

I'm not suggesting he was the only mistake they've made, I'm saying that believing him to be the long term coaching solution (and so the coaching team not requiring a big cash injection for some years) was the mistake in the investment strategy I outlined as what they might potentially have been following.

I think it's a big stretch to suggest, as you seem to be, that the board of directors of the biggest rugby club in the uk (in terms of fan base at least) has decided that rugby is no longer the thing the company that runs said club should do.

I am sorry if I misread your words, I thought you had written - 'is it possible that they identified the correct long term strategy with one mistake (Matt O'Connor if my memory serves)? -

I now understand that you wrote something different (if my memory serves)?

Fair play, I didn't write that particularly clearly the first time on second reading.

[sk 88]

Other than his £5.5m loan note conversion (for which he extracted c.£1.2m in interest payments first) he has not "put money" into the club, he has purchased shares from other shareholders. That is a very different thing. The club has also been announced for sale only about 18 months to two years after this conversion at roughly double the price he paid for it.

As for not being an executive director therefore not responsibile, 1) that is not how non-Executive directorships work, you are as responsible for the business as the executive directors legally, 2) he owns c.46% of the shares and given the large number of non-voting smaller shareholders de facto controls the company. So Peter Tom might be executive chairman but that is only at Tom Scott's behest.

First of all you say extracted £1.2m in interest which makes it sound like a bad thing. If you have £5.5m spare would you like to give it to me interest free for 6 years, and then at the end of the 6 years instead of paying you back convert it into shares where I will get no dividends or income from it?
Executive directors role is to run and manage the company on a day to day basis for the benefit of shareholders. The role of the non-executives is to try and ensure the executives act in the best interest of the shareholders. Unless you are suggesting that Tom Scott wants to let the executive directors ruin his investment. Ok things have gone pear-shaped especially last season and obviously with hindsight there have been mistakes made by the Board which likely will take about 5 seasons to put right. People on here complain that all Scott and the other shareholders want is to build a hotel and car park etc but they have invested heavily in bringing/keeping some top quality players such as Genge, Ford, May , Tuilagi etc so it seems absurd that people are suggesting we have not invested in the rugby side of things and only in commercial activities. For a club like ours, without a sugar-daddy the commercial activities are essential to the survival of the club.

Well it is a bad thing for us.

The vast majority of owners in the Premiership and football do indeed give interest free loans, it is not unusual at all.

I don't care about the hotel, prefer it to be built.

We'd be better off with a sugar daddy. £1.2m better off at least!

I am suggesting that Mr.Scott wants his profit extracted and that is his main priority. I'm 100% sure he would prefer this to not affect the on field product. But it remains that his priority is turning a profit from the club for himself, otherwise his sale price would have been what he paid for the club not twice as much. Bully for him but spare me the bleeding heart for him. Its time for him to sell up so we can all move on.

[johnthegriff]

I think that people posting on this thread should be absolutely certain of their facts before posting, and state their sources, too often it seems that the source for facts is actually another persons post.
Our Board have made mistakes in the past, I doubt there is a Board of Directors anywhere in any business that does not regret some decisions, surely we in our own lives have instances when something that seemed a good idea at the time turned out to be a complete cock-up, the trick then is to remedy the situation not compound the error.
I believe our coaching set up has an opportunity to prove itself with the availability of our World Cup players, prior to this they were disadvantaged, the performance at Northampton was shambolic, they need to learn why and correct it before we play our next Premiership game. It is possible to play well and lose, as fans we should understand that but we must improve massively on the standards we showed at Franklin's Gardens.

[Redstripeman]

I think that people posting on this thread should be absolutely certain of their facts before posting, and state their sources, too often it seems that the source for facts is actually another persons post.
Our Board have made mistakes in the past, I doubt there is a Board of Directors anywhere in any business that does not regret some decisions, surely we in our own lives have instances when something that seemed a good idea at the time turned out to be a complete cock-up, the trick then is to remedy the situation not compound the error.
I believe our coaching set up has an opportunity to prove itself with the availability of our World Cup players, prior to this they were disadvantaged, the performance at Northampton was shambolic, they need to learn why and correct it before we play our next Premiership game. It is possible to play well and lose, as fans we should understand that but we must improve massively on the standards we showed at Franklin's Gardens.

.... why would you think, the same bunch of Internationals who only just managed to keep our Premiership status last season, be able to make any difference in the success of the club.
So many people looking for the England players to arrest this decline when it is clear that they are part of the malaise.
There is a high percentage of deluded supporters following the Tigers so misquided and prepared to accept whatever they are fed by our failing Bod.