Thursday 12th May, 2011last year, mid-May
Dave Baldwin outlines the challenges, and now we wait
The Byline
More Information
Sitting in the BBC Radio Leeds studio next to Dave Baldwin – the Bradford City Head of Operations telling listeners about the club’s latest position financially and on the rental talks over Valley Parade – offered a somewhat unique and surreal view of current matters. But above all else I personally took away stronger feelings of relief, encouragement and reassurance.
Baldwin took the time to honestly outline where Bradford City Football Club is at, ahead of a summer of huge uncertainty and unrest. Those explanations and reasoning may not be something we can all fully agree with, but compared to the majority of the messages we supporters have heard to date they were at least enlightening and detailed.
A huge part of the frustration in recent weeks – as City’s position dramatically shifted from trivial worries that the playing budget might be reduced a little next season, to full-blown fears over whether we’d even have a club to support – has been the drip-feeding and stop-start nature of the communications we’ve received. At times the club’s future has been painted in the bleakest of terms, leaving us to question how sincere these warnings were and – if they were entirely accurate – how the Board had allowed the financial position to become so bad.
Dave veered away from the hysterical, and instead calmly discussed the issues facing the Bantams and the solutions they are actively pursuing. These are difficult times for the club, that much was clear, but it’s not the end of the world we might envisage. There will at least be a Bradford City to support next season, and the Board is endeavouring to ensure it is a Bradford City playing at Valley Parade.
Once we’d finished the programme, Dave turned to myself and BBC Radio Leeds’ Derm Tanner and joked how he’d “wait and see how some supporters twist my words”. In the recent past words uttered by Mark Lawn and Baldwin have been presented in entirely different light by some fans, which Lawn admitted to BfB in January had caused him to rein back speaking publically. There is a growing sense of unrest from fans towards the Board at the moment, and those who want to garner further ammunition to throw at them can find – or already have found – bits that Baldwin said on Radio Leeds to use against them if they wish. But whatever your view of their strategy, it is better they communicate to us honestly than not at all.
The audio of the hour-long Radio Leeds programme can be found here (note: link content only available until Monday 16 May).
So now we wait. Rumours are flying around rapidly – some ludicrous, some seemingly credible, some shocking, some encouraging – and BfB won’t irresponsibly report on these. But what is obvious is that the outstanding issues that we take into the summer won’t be cleared up for some time. Baldwin is hopeful of a decision over the rent negotiations soon, but it may take weeks. In the meantime season tickets are on hold and the managerial vacancy is likely to remain unresolved.
One criticism to come out of the programme is the assertion by Baldwin that any agreed rent reduction would help the playing budget for next season. Certainly it would be irresponsible for the club to use all of any savings they are able to agree on the short-term objective of promotion. BfB understands, however, that interim manager Peter Jackson has been informed the playing budget for the manager next season could be extremely low, should the talks not go well and City remain at Valley Parade. To put it one way, the much-talked of £750k budget Dagenham were promoted with last season would seem luxurious in comparison.
Endlessly throwing resources only on the playing budget would be reckless; but without extra revenue or savings from somewhere City could once again struggle stay in the league next season.
Patience is the name of the game. As supporters we want a positive resolution to these talks, we want to be looking forward to kicking off the season at Valley Parade, and we want to be debating football matters like summer signings and pre-season friendlies.
But these talks with the landlords are not just about next season, but the future of Bradford City for years and decades to come. So we have to tolerate the delay, and hope it proves to be worth it for entirely the right reasons. As much as many supporters don’t trust the Board right now, we have to hope that they continue to share the best interests of every supporter and that they will take the correct decisions.
Having heard what Baldwin had to say, I’m more confident this will be the case. So long as they remember that it’s good to talk, and to keep us fans in the loop as much as possible.
The Byline
More Information
15 Comments
Comments Closed
- The article could be over fourteen days old and have had comment turned off automatically.
- We might have turned off comments on the article believing that it needs no more further discussion.
- We may have decided the article will not be subject to comments. Sometimes a statement is a start of a debate, sometime it is simply a statement.
- On rare occasions we are not able to respond and approve comments owing to time pressures and we may have turned comments off for a period of time.
Thanks for the link to the programme, Jason. It makes a change to have some measured, well-informed discussion which goes a long way to clarify the current situation. And interesting news about the training facilities at Woodhouse Grove, which doesn’t seem to have been widely reported.I recommend a listen if you haven’t done so already.
Jason, I listened to the programme live on Tuesday evening and even text in a few questions myself. Some were answered, others not.
What disappointed me the most was your lack of participation. When I heard you were in the studio with Dave, I was convinced you would ask the big-hitting questions. Instead, you kept repeating that you were happy with the responses given by Mr B. In fact, I think Derm asked more questions than you.
- City fans have wanted to know how we can break a lease without going into administration. QUESTION UNANSWERED.
- If we are to go into administration, how does that happen, as Mr Baldwin continually claims we are not in debt and have no creditors, other than Lawn’s loan? Without owing money to creditors, we can’t enter a CVA, so how do we go into administration? QUESTION UNANSWERED.
- If we do go to play at Odsal, what implications will be imposed by the Football League? We were recently informed that we are in regular dialogue with them, so what is their position regarding a non-all seater stadia being used? Didn’t the Taylor Report enforce all clubs in the top 2 divisions to become all-seater? We were in the top two divisions at the time, so where do we stand? QUESTION UNANSWERED.
- If we are allowed to play in a non-all seater stadia and then (eventually) gained promotion to the Championship, where would that leave us? We wouldn’t be able to go back to Valley Parade and surely it would cost too much to build a new stadium or make Odsal all-seater. QUESTION UNANSWERED.
Why were you just playing lip service and not asking the questions our fans wanted answering? You were our representative and let yourself (and us) down badly…!
Waynus thanks for your comments. I don’t really appreciate the personal attacks but thanks for the feedback.
I was asked to particpate on the show as a supporter (but I was not representing anyone and never would claim to), and when asked questions I did my best to answer them. However the star guest of the evening was Dave Baldwin. This was a rare chance to hear – for a good length of time – a member of City’s Board. You may not agree with their views and their intentions, but at least you had the chance to hear them.
I think it was far more important for listeners like yourself to hear his views rather than mine, so it was not for me to attempt to dominate the airwaves. Also it was not down to myself to set the questions, but to contribute. Derm Tanner is head of BBC Radio Leeds sport and is an experienced interviewer of many years, so of course he asked more questions than me. This was the third time I’ve appeared on live radio in my life. I was happy with the responses Dave gave because at least he was telling us all the club’s views. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but it was surely more important to let him air them than for me to start an argument and waste time.
Clearly you’re unhappy with the Board. I myself am less than happy with the Board on a lot of aspects. However I think it is slightly misguided on your part to believe that I will share your views and so want to ask the same questions that you wanted. It’s not my fault that your questions weren’t asked on air.
As for your questions “unanswered”:
Dave outlined that City would need to go into a CVA agreement, rather than full on administration, in order to break the lease. So to me this question was answered. I was going to ask him about administration, but given he answered before I did I felt there was no need to. To me Dave answered your first two questions with this answer. The club has not got to the point of breaking the lease yet, and there are a lot of reasons to believe they can agree the rental reduction. I’m sorry but I’m a half-full type of person, and I want to believe we will get there.
I don’t understand your third question. Yes the Taylor report recommended all seater stadia in the top two divisions – after three seasons at these levels – but we are in League Two where this doesn’t apply. In fact there has been a lot of talk about returning to some form of terracing at Valley Parade. Your question about “at the time” makes no sense to me.
I think the fourth question is answered above. If City were to get promoted to the Championship we would need to be in an all-seater stadium in three years. This is a long way down the hill, and frankly wasn’t something on my mind at the time of the interview and hasn’t been since you mentioned – so I have no problems not challenging Dave on that.
I was not paying lip service to anyone, but the fact of the matter is it wasn’t the Jason McKeown show and it’s far better for listeners to hear what David has to say than for me to start an argument for no reason. I’m sorry if that means I’ve let you down badly, to be honest I found the idea of going on the radio entrirely nerve-wracking and out of my comfort zone, and to be even more honest reading your attack has left me shaking a bit. I stuck to doing what I was asked to do by Radio Leeds.
I felt slightly more optimistic after listening to the programme. Mr Baldwin came across very well, and I certainly didn’t feel there were unanswered questions.
It was also interesting to find out the reasons for the continued cheap season tickets – something I thought needed to end. Quite simply the extra bums on seats increases the clubs marketability to sponsors, even if 4000 people paying £300 is the same as 8000 paying £150.
As for Waynus, I think he’s misunderstood the stadium recommendations. The need for a stadium to be all seater only applies to the top two divisions. And even then only after being in that division for 3 years. Seeing as we are currently in the 4th division and don’t look to be leaving too soon it’s not an issue which is immediately relevant.
Attacking you for not having asked someone elses questions Jason is strange; but as far as I can make out the core of the questions are not answered in the interview, so at least they are worth asking.
City have been in administration 3 times in my memory, and I think a CVA was the means of escape the last two. During the negotiating for them there were too many questions not answered, and even not allowed, and City have suffered for it.
From the little I understand of a Company Voluntary Arrangement I cannot see how one could be used to deal with just a disputed landlord-tenant relationship, without the rest of the debtors being involved. I not saying it cannot be done (what do I know) but wonder why City have not already done it if it were that easy?
I have less of a problem with City moving than most, but clear indication that the issues have been thought through (by stating Is Odsal fit for league football for instance) would make the threat to move much more valid.
I would not want to speculate on the CVA matter, but there’s no doubt that a CVA agreement would include all of City’s creditors not just Gibb. However it’s worth noting (because I think it has been completely missed by many people) that the next stage for City, if talks on a rental reduction don’t go well, is that City have an option to buy the lease. Lawn told this site that much in January. At the time they don’t know what Gibb would want for it (they may do now). Adminstration or a CVA is a worse case scenario and may very well happen, but the club is not at that stage yet and there is a long way to go.
As for Odsal. BfB understands City have had full talks with the Football League about what they might have to do, which have been broadly approved. A ten point penalty may apply, but Odsal (or wherever they move to if they have to move) has been put to the Football League for their approval.
Jason, first off, great job going on the radio. Anyone who thinks it is just sitting there and talking clearly has never done anything remotely similar so really shouldn’t be criticising you.
From reading some of the comments from Waynus on the T&A website, it is quite easy to be a know it all!
Waynus – Please can you answer this question directly? – Will you phone David Baldwin at City and ask the UNANSWERED (as you put it) questions? If not why not?
Thank you.
Time to rally round our own boys from brazil…
One of the things that irks me about this wonderful world of Society 2.0 is that anyone with a keyboard can vent their ire at anyone else, all normal rules of social conduct forgotten.
This website has been a remarkable rock for many City fans over the last ten or more years and frankly adds immeasurably to my enjoyment [sic] of being a Bradford City supporter.
The time and effort both Jason and Michael put into this site deserves far more credit and appreciation than it currently enjoys, and far more respect than shown by an ill-considered comment that makes a broadcasted discussion about the future of our club into a personal attack.
Having heard the interview, and having been required to do plenty of media work in my job (something I still feel uneasy about), I’m delighted BfB was represented by Jason and – as others have said – I am grateful to Mr Baldwin for taking the time to give us some perspective on these uncertain times. Questions still remain, for sure, but I agree with Jason that we ought to have some cause for optimism (seldom a sentiment we are used to, I know). Yesterday’s acquisition of Ross Hannah is seemingly a step in the right direction.
I recall the short hiatus in BfB’s existence and was delighted when it returned to our laptops a few years ago, as it had been sorely missed. So chin up Jason and keep up the consistently first class work, because there are a great many of us loyal City fans who are very thankful that you take the time to do so.
Ben, I have spoken to David Baldwin previously, at length, but sorry, no, I don’t have his phone number (he called me). I can confirm though, that I am awaiting a reply to my email, which DOES ask clarification on the points made above.
When I have the answers, unless Mr Baldwin asks me not to, I will only be too happy to share them with our fans.
Okay?
Administration as a legal concept did not arrive until the mid-1980s. The 1983 situation was the legal process which proceeded that which may have been liquidation (someone correct me if I am wrong) but certainly worked in a different way.
Jason, I’m sorry if I caused you offence. Until the last paragraph, I feel my comment was valid, but having read it again, the “lip service” and “letting us down” comments were out of order. I am sorry.
I was just hoping, when they introduced you on the programme, you would ask some of your own questions if Derm and/or the presenter had not done so. I’m under no illusion that you was merely there as a supporter, a representative, but Derm did turn to you for an opinion and I felt you had the perfect opportunity to follow up an answer with another question. Nobody is saying you should have taken over the programme or turned it into an argument, but you still could have asked a question or two.
Finally, my understanding (and perhaps Lawn’s too after his comment about taking the seats with us) is that we still have to play at an all-seater stadia, as we have previously been in the top-two divisions.
I also still don’t understand how we can ask to go into administration, if, as the board keep claiming, we have no debts or creditors. I’m sure we can’t go into administration just because one or two landlords refuse to renegotiate rent. Perhaps you could answer this one for me.
As I said at the start of this comment, I was frustrated that ‘we’ (the fans) had an opportunity to get some answers and, despite Dave being very honest, there were still too many questions unanswered. That said, my criticism of you was unfair and I really do apologise.
No problems Waynus – let’s forget it and move on (until our next argument ;-))
I take your points about my interview performance. I can remember the point you’re talking about when I was asked by Derm (I’ve not listened back to the show) and all I will say is I wasn’t expecting it so didn’t ask as good a question as I should have. In my head I had certain questions stored up that were answered as Dave spoke, but I should have been better at reacting and getting in a better question. It’s a learning curve and, the next time I am on or if I’m in that situation again, I will aim to do much better.
In terms of your question on the seating top two divisions. I was completely unaware there was an issue with this until I saw the T&A piece on Saturday, so I certainly won’t feel bad for not asking the question on Tuesday! Lawn’s answer on this was pretty unconvincing in my opinion.
The administration question you pose is a fair one, but to me having 17 years of rent obligations to meet would class as a debt in my opinion and so City could go into administration claiming they can’t pay it. We are also £3 million in debt to Lawn. I sincerely hope there are no other debts, because the idea of not paying what we owe to local companies and community causes again would leave me – and no doubt everyone else – feeling shameful. But let’s hope that a positive solution can be reached that means we don’t have to resort to administration or anything else.
Finally, to reiterate my earlier point. City have an option to purchase the lease from the landlords (that is to pay for the right to exit the lease). If talks don’t go well over a rent reduction, this would be the next step rather than administration. It is possible, as I understand it, for City to leave Valley Parade and not go into administration. Though it’s not clear how much the landlords would want for the lease.
But let’s hope that it doesn’t come to that and we stay at VP!
I really think it is wrong to attack Jason personally, as I particularly enjoy and appreciate his informed and intelligent contributions. But I wonder, Jason, why nobody turns the stadium question round and suggests that Bulls come to Valley Parade, with , possibly, the Council buying it, and selling Odsal , and enlarging the pitch at VP.
Can you tell me, Jason or someone else, why no one ever suggests this. Am I wrong, and, if so , why?
It is a question that we put to Mark Lawn back in January and he asked us not to disclose his answer. There is a good reason, and it lies with the Bulls not City (so trust me Lawn is not hiding anything). That’s all I can say, sorry to be vague.
Well done Jason on your BBC appearance. I agree with you, it’s most important to let Derm get the info out of Dave and certainly not your responsibility to ask Waynus’ questions. I just hope you didn’t go for a couple of beers after the interview…
What irks me regarding this issue is that when the Odsal Sporting Village plans fell apart it was because the council revealed that they only had a fraction of the proposed £80million required and were hoping to raise the rest from private investment. From memory, they had about £7 million which would comfortably buy Valley Parade.
The fact that they spent more than half that on consultants for OSV which any sane person knew would never happen is bizarre.
Why so much support for Rugby, yet none for Football?