I'm not sure if i have this right ? But if the rumoured takeover bid by Beeks and Co is true and they were succesful. Would they then decide if the club should buy back the training ground after the 5 year deadline,from themselves !!
Add the fact that Surinda Arora(Arora hotel owner) lease ran out on the Wycombe Air Park in 2014.And WDC appear to have gone silent on the matter. Many of the Units are now empty,and it appears to have gone quite over the verdict of his planning application for a hotel.
If the Council plan to develop some or all of the site,will that not make the training ground site a potential developers gold mine ?
"I'm not sure if i have this right ? But if the rumoured takeover bid by Beeks and Co is true and they were succesful. Would they then decide if the club should buy back the training ground after the 5 year deadline,from themselves !!"
Yes bit of a conflict of interest isn't it. Why wouldn't the Trust tell us who the investors were again? This is precisely why such information was needed at the time!
I can't comment on current matters as there is not enough information out there (which is a bad thing in itself) but we can all count ourselves damn lucky that the proposed summer investment never transpired, as Wycombe Wanderers would almost 99% certainly have ended up being liquidated by now - I don't think I'm the only one who has seen the photos of a certain Mr Tommy A and friends sitting in the main stand late last season.
I know Mr A of Hereford infamy, had connections with certain ex Swindon
individuals that were rumoured to have made the offer including a certain Mr Mccrory.
But surely these were not the group the Trust were trying to do a deal with ??
No wonder they never showed up to present their offer.
The trouble with anyone "owning" the share capital of WWFC is what happens when they die or get bored? At that point, the people who it seemed sensible to sell the club to (calm down, i'm making assumptions here!) are no longer the owners - but their sons/brothers-in-law/mates-down-the-building-club now have a big percentage of our football club and can do what they want.
IMHO, it is NEVER going to be a good idea to sell this club, and I'll want to hear the opinion of prospective Trust Board members at the AGM.
Nice to see that the prospective candidate DJWYC14 has such an open mind - nil vote from me. Sorry. I'm with Mr DevC's theories. As a trust member you have to do what is best for the club - and that might mean private ownership (dependent, of course, on current trust criteria)
@FrijidPink said:
Nice to see that the prospective candidate DJWYC14 has such an open mind - nil vote from me. Sorry. I'm with Mr DevC's theories. As a trust member you have to do what is best for the club - and that might mean private ownership (dependent, of course, on current trust criteria) Be very careful what you wish for
It can make no sense whatsoever to return the club to Beeks/Kane/Hayes surely the majority of our members would not agree to this. Is it too much to ask for our club to remove all the secrecy and become an honest transparent Supporters owned club which serves the supporter and not an individual with alternative agendas
surely the trust board have an obligation to examine any proposal with an open mind, assessing benefits and risks of the specific proposal against benefit and risks of the status quo. We elect them to do this on our behalf as there is simply not time nor possibility due to commercial confidentiality for each trust member to do this in detail.
i was rather reassured by DJ and his maturity for a relatively young man (hope that doesnt sould too patronising) in understanding this requirement. I think he makes a very strong candidate. Once they have examined any proposal in this way, they may very well conclude that they should reject it. That is their job. But reject it taking into account their assessment of the various real world shades of grey rather than black or white soundbites that tend to populate internet chat rooms.
"It can make no sense whatsoever to return the club to Beeks/Kane/Hayes surely the majority of our members would not agree to this. Is it too much to ask for our club to remove all the secrecy and become an honest transparent Supporters owned club which serves the supporter and not an individual with alternative agendas"
It has to depend on what the alternatives are but the only scenario where I would welcome this is if the alternative is total oblivion. Difficulty is though, establishing what is the genuine truth...
Most trust members ive spoke to are at their wits end,with the lack of information,
rumours,counter rumours and general secrecy that has dribbled out from the Trust in the last 12 months.
I'm glad to see the refreshing Mr Sumner standing again,and the vibrant Mr Jenkins,who
despite a young age,seems to understand the question of honesty and transparency to its members.
Come Friday morning, i dont think i will be alone in thinking that the Trust and the Wanderers will be in safer hands if Mr Sumner and Mr Jenkins are elected onto the board.
@ChasHarps Refreshing to hear some sense being spoken. I get the feeling we are already being held to ransom by the "new/old bidders" If the alleged info I have heard today is correct these people need to be kept well away from our club as they are twisting a knife.
Hi PPF. Maybe i have misunderstood posts above from Floyd, Wandering Jock and loakesparkslope which I took to mean that any approaches should on principle be rejected. End of story. They and others are entitled to their opinion of course but my view is that that is wrong and that any offer should be considered taking into account opportuntiies and threats of offer and the status quo. Conclusion may well be the same of course. Were i at the meeting tomorrow I would be looking to hear that from the candidates and that would influence my vote (and why i havent used my proxy vote). I suspect others may wish to hear something else.
As a side note rather an odd election in many ways, as i think few of the electorate and possibly few of the candadates actually understand what the job is that we are electing them too! If it primarily a fundraising and communication job that may suit a different candidate than if it involves regular involvement in hard business decisions (should a good player be sold, what should admission prices be set at etc). I confess i for one dont really understand.
final aside out of interest does anyone know who many people voted last year.
@M3G said:
ChasHarps Refreshing to hear some sense being spoken. I get the feeling we are already being held to ransom by the "new/old bidders" If the alleged info I have heard today is correct these people need to be kept well away from our club as they are twisting a knife.
So we're prepared for tomorrow's meeting, what is the alleged info you have heard?
@DevC: final aside out of interest does anyone know who many people voted last year.
Votes for last year's slate of nominees were
Alan Cecil ——– 204
David Cook —— 197
Garry Heath —– 193
James Sumner – 123
Colin Treacher — 237
Incidentally the vote is for members of the Trust board, not for the board of the football club. Technically (and these things are impotant) the Trust board doesn't run the club or make decisions about operational or football issues; its job is to preserve the club's heritage and to protect the Trust's assets, primarily the shares in FALL and WWFCL, and one of the ways it does so is by appointing the directors to the boards of those companies.
@DevC that's been a problem for years. There aren't many 'roles' as such on the Board so it's very difficult to assess whether someone has been a success. If say DJ were going for a role as sponsorship secretary then he would be able to get lots of active charity fundraisers and organise sponsored parachute jumps, walks, cycle rides whatever. He could then be judged on whether he has done that. That requires a completely different set of skills to yet another corporate accountant type. The Trust doesn't really know what it wants or expects its directors to do and when there is an election accordingly doesn't know what sort of person it needs to come on board.
@Tory_Goon But essentially they know exactly what is going on at the club and are always in a position to relate that information to the members, or have I misunderstood the role as elected members of the board/committee or what ever you want to call them?
thanks to Wig and Tory for interesting thoughts. Re m3G I think this is one of the great misunderstandings on all sides. While I am sure the Trust could have communicated better, you can nearly always say that about any organisation. however there will be a huge range of information known by the Trust that is commercially confidential( player manager contract lengths, salaries, transfer offers, club takeover offers , club financial situation etc etc) which simply cannot be bandied around in public. fan /trust ownership is not the same as the Ebsfleet/my football club model. We elect board members to know confidential information and make sound decisions on that information (or recommendations to the members where necessary). If you want to have that information you need to stand for the Board. It will be a difficult job to get this balance right on how much can be communicated. No doubt imporvements can be made but I suspect we will never be satisfied. Interestingly Exeter forum, who have been at this for far longer than WWFC has, still regularly moan about exactly the same issues.
@M3G: But essentially they know exactly what is going on at the club and are always in a position to relate that information to the members,..
But they absolutely aren't in that position. As DevC points out they will be privy to a lot of information which - in the interests of the club and the trust - simply can't be made public. Its very frustrating for members to feel that the board is being secretive but board members are in the position of trustees - they are elected because the members trust them to make the right decisions based on what they know and if the members decide they don't trust them then there is a mechanism to remove them and appoint others that they do trust. But even then the new appointees still wouldn't be able to disclose everything the get to discover.
Comments
I'm not sure if i have this right ? But if the rumoured takeover bid by Beeks and Co is true and they were succesful. Would they then decide if the club should buy back the training ground after the 5 year deadline,from themselves !!
Add the fact that Surinda Arora(Arora hotel owner) lease ran out on the Wycombe Air Park in 2014.And WDC appear to have gone silent on the matter. Many of the Units are now empty,and it appears to have gone quite over the verdict of his planning application for a hotel.
If the Council plan to develop some or all of the site,will that not make the training ground site a potential developers gold mine ?
"I'm not sure if i have this right ? But if the rumoured takeover bid by Beeks and Co is true and they were succesful. Would they then decide if the club should buy back the training ground after the 5 year deadline,from themselves !!"
Yes bit of a conflict of interest isn't it. Why wouldn't the Trust tell us who the investors were again? This is precisely why such information was needed at the time!
I can't comment on current matters as there is not enough information out there (which is a bad thing in itself) but we can all count ourselves damn lucky that the proposed summer investment never transpired, as Wycombe Wanderers would almost 99% certainly have ended up being liquidated by now - I don't think I'm the only one who has seen the photos of a certain Mr Tommy A and friends sitting in the main stand late last season.
What rumoured takeover, 1st i have heard...i wont be there on thursday but will be voting....
Bloody hell Mr AttitudeEra,
I know Mr A of Hereford infamy, had connections with certain ex Swindon
individuals that were rumoured to have made the offer including a certain Mr Mccrory.
But surely these were not the group the Trust were trying to do a deal with ??
No wonder they never showed up to present their offer.
The trouble with anyone "owning" the share capital of WWFC is what happens when they die or get bored? At that point, the people who it seemed sensible to sell the club to (calm down, i'm making assumptions here!) are no longer the owners - but their sons/brothers-in-law/mates-down-the-building-club now have a big percentage of our football club and can do what they want.
IMHO, it is NEVER going to be a good idea to sell this club, and I'll want to hear the opinion of prospective Trust Board members at the AGM.
@DJWYC14 or anyone else - Is it possible to submit a proxy vote via email or does it have to be via post?
@Croider signed, scanned proxy forms can be submitted via email. I think the deadline is Tuesday 24th.
Nice to see that the prospective candidate DJWYC14 has such an open mind - nil vote from me. Sorry. I'm with Mr DevC's theories. As a trust member you have to do what is best for the club - and that might mean private ownership (dependent, of course, on current trust criteria)
It blows my mind that there are still Wycombe fans who'd contemplate private ownership.
What's best for Wycombe Wanderers is to be owned by the fans and run for the fans, whatever division that means we find ourselves.
It can make no sense whatsoever to return the club to Beeks/Kane/Hayes surely the majority of our members would not agree to this. Is it too much to ask for our club to remove all the secrecy and become an honest transparent Supporters owned club which serves the supporter and not an individual with alternative agendas
@LoakesParkSlope I'm on the same page as you.
@LoakesParkSlope 100% agree. The trust needs to be a lot more up front with information. I thought we were all in it together.
surely the trust board have an obligation to examine any proposal with an open mind, assessing benefits and risks of the specific proposal against benefit and risks of the status quo. We elect them to do this on our behalf as there is simply not time nor possibility due to commercial confidentiality for each trust member to do this in detail.
i was rather reassured by DJ and his maturity for a relatively young man (hope that doesnt sould too patronising) in understanding this requirement. I think he makes a very strong candidate. Once they have examined any proposal in this way, they may very well conclude that they should reject it. That is their job. But reject it taking into account their assessment of the various real world shades of grey rather than black or white soundbites that tend to populate internet chat rooms.
"It can make no sense whatsoever to return the club to Beeks/Kane/Hayes surely the majority of our members would not agree to this. Is it too much to ask for our club to remove all the secrecy and become an honest transparent Supporters owned club which serves the supporter and not an individual with alternative agendas"
It has to depend on what the alternatives are but the only scenario where I would welcome this is if the alternative is total oblivion. Difficulty is though, establishing what is the genuine truth...
Most trust members ive spoke to are at their wits end,with the lack of information,
rumours,counter rumours and general secrecy that has dribbled out from the Trust in the last 12 months.
I'm glad to see the refreshing Mr Sumner standing again,and the vibrant Mr Jenkins,who
despite a young age,seems to understand the question of honesty and transparency to its members.
Come Friday morning, i dont think i will be alone in thinking that the Trust and the Wanderers will be in safer hands if Mr Sumner and Mr Jenkins are elected onto the board.
@DevC I'm sure people will consider all the facts at their disposal before making a decision on anything.
Not sure what you've read to make you think otherwise.
@ChasHarps Refreshing to hear some sense being spoken. I get the feeling we are already being held to ransom by the "new/old bidders" If the alleged info I have heard today is correct these people need to be kept well away from our club as they are twisting a knife.
Hi PPF. Maybe i have misunderstood posts above from Floyd, Wandering Jock and loakesparkslope which I took to mean that any approaches should on principle be rejected. End of story. They and others are entitled to their opinion of course but my view is that that is wrong and that any offer should be considered taking into account opportuntiies and threats of offer and the status quo. Conclusion may well be the same of course. Were i at the meeting tomorrow I would be looking to hear that from the candidates and that would influence my vote (and why i havent used my proxy vote). I suspect others may wish to hear something else.
As a side note rather an odd election in many ways, as i think few of the electorate and possibly few of the candadates actually understand what the job is that we are electing them too! If it primarily a fundraising and communication job that may suit a different candidate than if it involves regular involvement in hard business decisions (should a good player be sold, what should admission prices be set at etc). I confess i for one dont really understand.
final aside out of interest does anyone know who many people voted last year.
So we're prepared for tomorrow's meeting, what is the alleged info you have heard?
@DevC: final aside out of interest does anyone know who many people voted last year.
Votes for last year's slate of nominees were
Alan Cecil ——– 204
David Cook —— 197
Garry Heath —– 193
James Sumner – 123
Colin Treacher — 237
Incidentally the vote is for members of the Trust board, not for the board of the football club. Technically (and these things are impotant) the Trust board doesn't run the club or make decisions about operational or football issues; its job is to preserve the club's heritage and to protect the Trust's assets, primarily the shares in FALL and WWFCL, and one of the ways it does so is by appointing the directors to the boards of those companies.
@DevC that's been a problem for years. There aren't many 'roles' as such on the Board so it's very difficult to assess whether someone has been a success. If say DJ were going for a role as sponsorship secretary then he would be able to get lots of active charity fundraisers and organise sponsored parachute jumps, walks, cycle rides whatever. He could then be judged on whether he has done that. That requires a completely different set of skills to yet another corporate accountant type. The Trust doesn't really know what it wants or expects its directors to do and when there is an election accordingly doesn't know what sort of person it needs to come on board.
@Tory_Goon But essentially they know exactly what is going on at the club and are always in a position to relate that information to the members, or have I misunderstood the role as elected members of the board/committee or what ever you want to call them?
thanks to Wig and Tory for interesting thoughts. Re m3G I think this is one of the great misunderstandings on all sides. While I am sure the Trust could have communicated better, you can nearly always say that about any organisation. however there will be a huge range of information known by the Trust that is commercially confidential( player manager contract lengths, salaries, transfer offers, club takeover offers , club financial situation etc etc) which simply cannot be bandied around in public. fan /trust ownership is not the same as the Ebsfleet/my football club model. We elect board members to know confidential information and make sound decisions on that information (or recommendations to the members where necessary). If you want to have that information you need to stand for the Board. It will be a difficult job to get this balance right on how much can be communicated. No doubt imporvements can be made but I suspect we will never be satisfied. Interestingly Exeter forum, who have been at this for far longer than WWFC has, still regularly moan about exactly the same issues.
@DevC That is your opinion. But you might be surprised with what surfaces in the next couple of weeks. Don't patronise about this, Its all very clear.
@M3G but surely not everyone can do that? What do others do?
@Tory_Goon To be honest I don't know. But this doesn't really work.
I have noticed that your support of the trust has wavered in the past year, any particular reason for that? Not just kick off times I take it?
@M3G: But essentially they know exactly what is going on at the club and are always in a position to relate that information to the members,..
But they absolutely aren't in that position. As DevC points out they will be privy to a lot of information which - in the interests of the club and the trust - simply can't be made public. Its very frustrating for members to feel that the board is being secretive but board members are in the position of trustees - they are elected because the members trust them to make the right decisions based on what they know and if the members decide they don't trust them then there is a mechanism to remove them and appoint others that they do trust. But even then the new appointees still wouldn't be able to disclose everything the get to discover.
Nope. That's why new blood is needed to freshen up what is going on and to restructure the Trust activities