Dennis Signy RSS Feed


Dennis Signy

Dennis Signy OBE was a former wartime cub reporter on the Hendon and Finchley Times at £4-a-week and became group editor for 17 years in the late Sixties. He was a national press football writer for five decades, is author of several football books and director of Barnet FC.

Much ado about nothing-nothing

By Dennis Signy »

A renowned football writer of my acquaintance many years ago drew breath at the final whistle of a dire goal-less match and penned what should have been an immortal intro on his report to his daily paper: "Much ado about nothing-nothing".

Superb stuff. Unfortunately, the sub-editor dealing with his copy - not so renowned - did not have a Shakespearean background and achieved some sort of journalistic notoriety by changing the words to "Much ado about nil-nil".

I guess that misguided fellow, confronted with the 96-page Pricewaterhouse Copper report on the £10,000 sale by Barnet Council of the freehold of the Underhill Stadium to Barnet FC in March 2002 might have written: "Much ado about nil-nil-nil-nil."

For this fourth investigation of the freehold sale, which is costing the Barnet council taxpayer a cool £1 million, evoked the succint comment from council leader Mike Freer: "We know nothing we didn't know."

I don't need to declare an interest as a leading light in Barnet FC as it was made clear by former council leader Victor Lyon many moons ago that the football club had done nothing wrong and that the complaints investigated concerned alleged wilful misconduct of named members and officers of the council. Alleged is the key word.

It is a matter of record that mathematics was not my forte at Finchley County School - headmaster Mr Chalk once famously told my class: "You are the worst I have encountered in more than 20 years" - but, looking at the values put on the land as listed in the report, they varied from the lowest at £10,000 to the highest at £100,000.

The council taxpayers of Barnet, already coughing up payments towards the 2012 Olympics (and beyond), needed a £1 million fourth investigation into the Underhill issue like a hole in the head.

Don't forget that at the time Barnet FC held an 86-year lease on the land, which was subject to a Green Belt restriction.

Was there a result to be found that justified £1 million in the days of soaring costs? David Miller, one of the complainants, is reported as saying that the cost was worth it if "heads roll".

Although Barnet FC was not the subject of any investigation, my feeling has always been that a cloud has hung over the club (alongside the council) as internal valuation was followed by an independent valuation,then an independent panel report, then the valuation of a chartered surveyor appointed by the High Court and now the latest PWC inquiry.

Mr Miller, it seems, is a guy who can't say 'No'. Enough is enough now David. It's time to draw a line under the issue.

There has been little to laugh about with the on-field activities at Barnet FC either - Dagenham and Redbridge 2, Barnet 0 once more evoked memories of comedian Rob Wilton's famous football sketch: - "Lost 2-0 ... and we were lucky to get nil!"

I did manage to raise a laugh at Gill Collier's quiz supper at the Conference Centre at St Marys at the Cross at Edgware at the weekend.

Our five-man (and women) team were joint leaders at the half way stage, but fell away spectacularly by the final hurdle to fifth place.

Confronted by a question about Britain's highest mountain, I whispered to my team mates: "Mount Batten".

Actually, it's not strictly a joke. The answer of the name of the distinguished Earl Mountbatten was given to the same question by a squaddie when we were questioned about our general knowledge when called up to serve King and Country in the latter stages of the war. Honest.

PS Attended the superb 'Kings of Swing' concert at Cadogan Hall on Sunday - the 70th anniversary of Benny Goodman at Carnegie Hall in 1938. For bread and butter devotees like me I thoroughly recommend the offering at the nearby Oriel restaurant in Sloane Square.


Comments(18)

Rog T says...
11:48am Mon 13 Oct 08

Dennis,

Barnet Council spent a million quid on an accountants report into the sale. Harrow Council spent £750,000 on training facilities for Barnet FC which is linked to a community project.

I know who I think got a better deal for the money.

East_Finchley_Helen says...
12:03pm Mon 13 Oct 08

"Mr Miller, it seems, is a guy who can't say 'No'. Enough is enough now David. It's time to draw a line under the issue. "

I quite agree Mr Signy, David Miller should accept the report and move on.


Rog T says...
1:08pm Mon 13 Oct 08

Helen,

With the tsunami of money that appears to be disappearing down the plughole in Barnet Council's coffers, there are a few people who should move on. Do you agree with that as well

David Miller says...
7:57pm Mon 13 Oct 08

Dennis

If you were walking down the road and saw someone breaking into a house would you (a) call the Police or (b) say “Well it’s not my house, so who cares?”

The bottom line is this. The sale of Underhill was illegal. The Courts said so. The Auditor said so. That doesn’t mean the club did anything wrong - and I have never suggested that they did. This investigation by the Auditor - which Mike Freer would like you to forget he voted for in June 2004 - was solely about the systemic failure of the council who were also found to have abused the democratic process.

But nobody has been held to account and that is simply unacceptable. Maybe the majority of people in the Borough don’t care whether their council breaks the law or not, but perhaps they will change their mind next year when their council tax goes through the roof as a consequence of the £28 million negligently invested in Iceland by the same people responsible for selling publicly owned land for a fraction of its value.

MichaelH says...
9:16am Tue 14 Oct 08

So David, who are you suggesting is "breaking into a house" in this case?

What's that proverb about judging a man by the company he keeps? You may say that the club did not do anything wrong David, but your two co-objectors have both played hard and fast with the facts over the years. I have witnessed this at numerous Barnet area forums and meetings during this time. Let's hear them come out and say that the club did not do anything wrong.

Dennis Signy says...
10:12am Tue 14 Oct 08

Seemingly Mr Miller does not wish to draw a line under this and still wants "heads to roll".

I would take issue with his suggestion that the freehold was sold for "a fraction of its value" —two valuations over the years supported the figure of £10,000; two more said £100,000; and another said 'between £60,000-70,000'.

At worst case scenario (or is it best case?) the difference was £90,000.

David Miller says...
12:48pm Tue 14 Oct 08

Michael

Let’s be clear about something. At the High Court the Judge said that the club must have realised that they were getting a bargain. I accept that it was not their job to tell Barnet Council that they had completely messed up with the contract. The Judge said, quite correctly, that the Council had had ample opportunities to review and correct the contract before it was signed. They didn’t do so, and the taxpayer lost out as a result. The people responsible, who are named in the PwC report and also the earlier Harbord report, are still in their posts (apart from one officer who left voluntarily). PwC say that one officer was disciplined. That was Mr Stephens who was given a written warning. But PwC also provided documents showing that one month later, Mr Stephens was promoted and given a wage rise. That taught him a lesson! None of the people who had the opportunity to prevent the sale taking place on unlawful terms have been disciplined - or even apologised. This just proves the arrogance and contempt that the Council has for the people it is supposed to serve.

Phil Crowther says...
3:05pm Tue 14 Oct 08

While I appreciate that the numerous reports, debates, and investigations into the sale of Underhill have generated some strong feelings, I would remind all those making comments on related news stories or blogs that they are responsible in law for what they write, and more immediately that this forum is not the right one in which to repeat and debate allegations that have already been considered by the official investigations.

Phil Crowther,
Editor.

danhope says...
1:29am Wed 15 Oct 08

Mr Crowther,

You sure have some cohones to allow Mr Signy, a well placed Barnet FC insider, to write such a one sided piece including an attack on a member of the public under your Brand.

It seems that you think it 'boosts your brand' to publish contraversial and aggressive pieces in support of the current Council administration or BFC Holdings. Woe betide anyone who dares to question the powers that be (who authorise enormous expenditure of public funds on adverts in your paper).

What is the justification for the complete absence from the website news home page of any reporting of the massive loss of millions of pounds of Council Taxpayers money in Iceland?

Hopefully some stiff competition or some management changes from Newsquest can shake up this lagging paper which is a shadow of it's former self.

Daniel Hope

David Miller says...
1:44am Wed 15 Oct 08

It is a sad day for democracy and free speech that the editor has removed an article from this blog following a complaint, without establishing whether the claims made in my posting could be verified. Had Mr Crowther bothered to contact me, I would have been able to produce conclusive documentary evidence to prove the point I had raised.

It seems it is quite acceptable for people to post comments on this site criticising me, but a comment which was embarrassing to the club has been removed.

It has been clear for some time that this newspaper does not respect the public’s inalienable right to hold an alternative point of view where Barnet Football Club or Barnet Council are concerned. The Times Group failed to report the news of the offensive video posted by the council on YouTube and removed Rog T’s blog when he wrote about it.

The newspaper’s coverage of the Underhill report completely failed to mention that the council had acted unlawfully. The potential loss of £28million of taxpayers money in Icelandic banks by an incompetent council lasted but a short period on the web site front page, despite being perhaps the most important local news item in the council’s history.

This newspaper used to print the statement: “The Times owes no allegiance to any political party.” It is not printed any longer.

Mr Crowther, if you remove this message, I shall report you and your paper to the PCC.

Rog T says...
10:15am Wed 15 Oct 08

David, Whilst I fundamentally disagree with you on the subject of Underhill and take a view rather similar to Dennis about the whole issue, your comments cannot help but remind me of several converstaions I had with Phil about my blog. He was always very quick to stress that as it was published under the Times banner, any views expressed are likely to be taken as the editorial view of the Times. He was always keen to stress that if I wrote anything "off the end of the pier" he was ultimately responsible and had editorial control of the blog. Hope this helps clarify the situation.

Phil Crowther says...
6:12pm Wed 15 Oct 08

Thanks, Roger.

If I might add a couple of lines in response to other points raised above.

Mr Hope suggests the Times is geared in favour of "aggressive pieces in support of the current Council administration". I've simply lost count of the number of news stories we have run in recent months which have not been so welcome to Barnet Council.

Mr. Hope alleges the "complete absence from the website news home page of any reporting of the massive loss of millions of pounds of Council Taxpayers money in Iceland?" This is simply not true, indeed our first coverage (leading our home page) appeared at 11.30am on the morning the Icelandic banking story broke. We did the same on our Haringey Independent online edition. Coincidentally, we put our Opinion page to bed yesterday for tomorrow's edition, and it includes what can only be described as an anti-Council letter on the subject and (guess what) a screen shot of the Icelandic bank story leading our online edition on October 9th.

"Lagging paper", Mr Hope? Sorry it took us four hours to get out the Barnet angle on the Icelandic bank story.

Mr. Miller... "this newspaper does not respect the public’s inalienable right to hold an alternative point of view..."? While Roger T and I have had a disagreement over the direction of his blog, I would hardly have asked him to write it in the first place if I was intent on muzzling criticism of Barnet Council.

A sad day for democracy? I might add that I also asked the Labour and Liberal democrat groups to write additional blogs which they did, although unfortunately neither lasted long. I would happily relaunch both.

I did consider adding a line to our Underhill story reflecting the original finding of unlawful activity; but as our story was otherwise exclusively about the finding of no wilful misconduct among individuals, and as the original finding of unlawful activity had been reported extensively by this paper years ago (and nothing was added by the latest findings), I did not feel the old news angle was worth repeating.

As for your last point, why should I remove your last posting? It is directed at me, which is fine, and it is not teetering on the edge of allegations that cannot be re-debated either safely or fairly in our Comment columns.

Phil Crowther,
Editor.

Roger Tichborne says...
8:59pm Wed 15 Oct 08

Phil,

I am really upset that the my blog & the circumstances of it's inception and demise have been used here as part of a defence of the Times editorial policy. I posted the above comment in good faith, to try and explain your logic in regard to my blog (and presumably Dennis's & it's comments). I would hope that all parties could recognise my comment as fair and even handed, given that reference had been made to it.

In our telephone conversation earlier today I expressed my view that it would be better for both of us to move on from our disagreement.

I was of the understanding that there was tacit agreement on both our parts, that this was the case.

I now find myself and my former blog in the middle of an argument about the editorial policy of the Times. As I have said many times, you are the editor and you set the policy, but I am very upset that what happened has been used to defend a decision that, whilst I understand your reasoning, I fundamentally disagreed with. I don't want to air dirty washing here, but feel sorely provoked by this comment.

I am not going to indulge in a public slanging match, or start using this forum to criticise your editorship, but I cannot possibly let what happened be used as an example in the way you have above.

I would expect that with suitable reflection you take appropriate action.

DuncanMacdonald says...
10:14pm Wed 15 Oct 08

Phil

It was my understanding that Monroe Palmers blog was pulled by the Times when he ceased to be leader of the Lib Dem group. I am sure he would be happy to restart it.

Regards

Duncan Macdonald

Phil Crowther says...
8:03am Thu 16 Oct 08

Duncan,

That's not quite right. It wasn't 'pulled'. We agreed with the Lib Dem group that someone else taking over when Monroe handed over the leadership would be the logical thing; but unfortunately it didn't progress.

Phil.

Phil Crowther says...
8:11am Thu 16 Oct 08

My apologies, Roger,

David alleged not only that Times has a strong pro-Council editorial policy, but specifically that your blog was closed because of the YouTube video matter; I merely wished to say this wasn't the case.

Phil.

MichaelH says...
12:54pm Thu 16 Oct 08

If Messrs Miller and Hope are really so concerned about a perceived lack of balanced reporting in local papers, perhaps they could ask that joke rag the "Barnet" Press* to be more balanced in its coverage of BFC than it has been for the past few years.

Strangely enough, I won't be holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

*Published in Enfield.

David Miller says...
12:05am Sat 18 Oct 08

Michael

Newspapers do not have to be balanced. I take the Daily Telegraph because of its right of centre stance (and because Simon Heffer has the measure of Dave!) The Barnet Times can support whoever and whatever it wants. No problem with that. What I take exception to is when a paper claims to be impartial when it isn’t.

The raison d’etre of a newspaper blog must surely be to encourage vigorous debate. If the editor is going to remove comments which can be substantiated with documentary evidence, then frankly there are far better places to go to for a topical discussion - as you know from the messages you kindly post on my blog barnetcouncilwatch.o
rg.uk


Our Bloggers

RSS