Glover

Quote: Rumour13 "I’d have to agree with some of the Glover defenders on here. I don’t think the argument is as simple as has been polarised by some and feel that Glover can be defended to an extent without being accused of rose tinted glasses or naivety. He saved the club albeit temporarily when nobody else was coming in to our rescue. He’d thrown the club a few quid before through sponsorship of match days etc and I think came with the best intentions only to receive poor advice and get in way over his head.

Their seems an attitude in some circles that Ted’s era was a Halcion period ruined by the evil double glazing salesman and his henchmen. I recall the Richardson years ending in administration, a desperate plea for fans to donate thousands, a firesale of talent and ‘complications’ involving an Irish owned bank, the stadium ownership and an off-shore account none of which were ever explained to me. Déjà vu anyone ?

So essentially, we have had two complete meltdowns – neither one seems to have covered the club in glory. Both are as ‘bad’ as one another – But just as continuing in the Glover vein would be foolish, just as ridiculous would be a return to the management style that came before.

There are far more who claim to be ‘in the know’ than I would ever profess. I can only judge the club on my interaction with them. For me, my experiences have improved in the last two years ‘on my level’ ; I can buy things online with a certainty they’ll arrive, I can contact the club and speak to a person rather than a post-it and I now stand in the dry under a covering with a fantastic atmosphere. Thus, for me, as a common or garden fan who goes to the games ,buys the shirts, programmes, raffle ticket etc,( but isn’t a businessman, doesn’t know how to run a business and frankly, leaves that to better people ) the Glover years have been an improvement.
If this is all sheen and underneath we have paid a heavy price for the above, I will bow to those with greater knowledge than myself.

Richardson clearly loved the club enough to put his money in but never seemed to do anything with it. I always felt we lacked initiative, drifting from one season to the next. Glover has ended up with the same result as his predecessor – ie failure, through biting off more than he can chew. Ultimately, it seems a very British negativity to judge the second failure as worse than the first, because ‘ he got our hopes up’ rather than getting hopes up at all. The net result of both is that we are in the mire. Does it really matter the style in which we got there ?

The bottom line is they were both unable to maintain the club - but could either of them done so anyway ?

I have no axe to grind with the either regime and don’t consider myself on either ‘side’– I feel for both Richardson and Glover who made mistakes but not because they were corrupt or looking to profit at our expense. They are both hampered by a city that aside from a core of 5000 ( ? ) die hards, has a casual fan base who never get round to attending a game, or businesses that haven’t invested in what should be a historic institution that puts Wakefield on the map.

I don’t think Richardson is worth ‘3 Andrew Glovers’ or vice versa. Holding up either man as a messiah or saviour solves no problems. But both men deserve more credit than they’ve been given from their critics for actually stumping up in the first place.

Mr Carter has apparently put his house on saving the club. If he fails, will his personal sacrifice by ignored by those looking to rubbish another Wakefield collapse ? Or will fans actually remember that he tried to help in the first place ?'"