My concern is not necessarily about the lack consultation, but more on the lack of information on important matters.
The training ground is (or was) a major asset of the club. Consequently, losing the right to buy back the training ground as a result of not paying the monthly loan fee is a major event which the Board had a duty to immediately advise its members. If the Board don't consider this important, then what is?
@peterparrotface Fair enough, although i get the impression that some on here expect to be consulted on everything. If there is a happy medium between the two we haven't found it, although a warning over the training ground default would have been a good place to start.
I don't know, but i've always had the impression that we don't have enough people to invest the time and money to make it work differently. And the problem seems to be getting worse, when i do get to games i'm amazed at the number of people who used to go every week that have vanished.
Good stuff @DevC . Couldn't care less who you voted for although you did kind of give it away with you pre AGM posts. I was just interested in whether you voted via proxy as it sounded to me that you were coming around to finding an excuse.
Glad you didn't.
There seems to be a difference between the facts about the training ground as outlined at the AGM and the reporting of the issue here.This really disappoints me because in the room at the AGM after the election the unelected candidates appeared to agree to be helpful and positive with a view to improving their chances of election next time.
The negative misrepresentation of the meetings facts appears to show that Mark is really just interested in stirring up trouble-I am happy to have this perception corrected by Mark who I see on our fan Facebook page has made some very critical and unfounded criticisms of the club since the AGM.
My question to Mark is:- on the night of the AGM there were pleas for voluntary assistance for supporters of every skill and availability.there were tables set up to take names and discuss. Did you volunteer to assist?
I ask because one of your criticisms is marketing and promotion but perhaps your time ( and that if your small band of supporters ) which seems plentiful given the time you can apply to criticising things, could be better served and more productive for our trust owned club?
On the training ground, I agree that communication is king and it may have been done better, but the a true reflection of the facts as presented at the AGM must be aired here for those members who could not attend to be properly and fully informed rather than your rather selective version which a cynic might say was designed to rustle up panic in wake of your election failure?
The club was in arrears for 14 months to the tune of £45000
The landlords gave the club grace and understanding rather than call the default earlier.
When the default was called it meant the club lost its buy back right
The landlords subsequently agreed to Re-instate the buy back provision , write off the £45k debt,allow the club a 6 month notice period , AND agree to a percentage of any profits made should they ever sell the land would be donated to the club.
Those are the facts.
The motivations for such kindness you can debate forever and a day, as someone else stated mr beeks and Co are either angling for a property play or are simply club men with the means to help out by being generous-that's for each ember to decide , but the facts are above and you really should present them properly and fully when being critical.
@marlowchair - But that isn't all entirely true though, is it?
At what point at the meeting was it indicated that the buy-back clause and percentage of any profits from selling the land was anything other than in the process of being negotiated? If these had been negotiated, what are the terms of the buy-back clause the same as in the original contract? Also the top table at the meeting declared that no planning permission would be obtainable from there (which is a contentious statement, especially considering the considerable political pressures on Wycombe District Council to build new houses in their juristiction).
The truth is that there are still questions about how this was handled, why WWT members were not informed and help not sought from WWT members to help cover training ground rent before FALL defaulted.
As the training ground is of great strategic importance to WWFC, members of the society that owns the Club are right to be asking questions of the decisions taken and look for potential conflicts of interest that may have occurred that was against the best interests of the Football Club. As a member of WWT, I believe it is my duty to do so and stand up for those who face brickbats for doing so as well.
I never said you or anyone else can't or shouldn't ask questions.
I'm just of the view that the debate should be argued on facts between adults and fair and reasonable deference and respect be afforded other shareholders.
Of course you can do whatever you like but in the clubs best interests and in order to be productive rather than destructive , it's best in my view to perhaps take a more objective approach rather than always looking for the worst scenario.
The meeting made it clear that an agreement had been made to re-instate the buy back clause and to agree a percent of any profit attained should it be sold
You wish to make a big issue about those two points but it was clearly related as a gentlemanly agreement until full deed can be drawn up, perhaps hold your cynical view until the process is complete.
You conveniently ignore the huge concession of the landlords writing off 14 months rental arrears.
One other issue from the AGM is how the more senior of the "independent" candidates wound up and used the two younger bucks to be militant and say things he would never say. When he got up to speak he put his tail between his legs and backed down totally conceding things were now do much better since he stepped down!
Any cynicism that exists might have something do with the decision-making and behaviour of Mr Beeks during the previous 30 years. The same Mr Beeks who was still Chairman when WWFC was minutes away from administration / liquidation on June 29, 2012. The same Mr Beeks who is a director of the company (WWFC) which now leases the training ground which he also part owns.
@marlowchair Great post: perfectly sums up my recollection of what was said at the AGM.
A number of people on this forum have moaned about not being informed concerning the default on the training ground lease payments and, somewhat disingenuously, talked of the Trust Board asking the supporters (who, after all, own the club do they not?) for some help in meeting said payments. I wonder how many of these moaners would actually be prepared to put their money where their mouths are; especially considering, as @micra has already pointed out, a pathetically small number (some 200 odd only, out of a trust membership of 1066 and an average home gate of 3000 odd) have been magnanimous enough to stump up any money thus far.
My point is that it would appear that many on here are far more interested in moaning than helping. Given that - what point would there have really been in asking?
In response to both of you - yes it would appear some like to moan, some like to stay silent. But not being a 'moaner' is not a prerequisite in helping out.
Most 'moaners' prefer to not have a reason to moan so if offered the chance to be productive may just help out, either by sticking their hands in their pockets themselves, if able, or by rallying together with a few raffles/car washes etc. More than enough to cover the initial £2500.
@micra It would appear they let it stack up over that period. While asking for £45000 in a lump sum would be much less hopeful, asking for £2500 the very first month would likely have been more fruitful, giving all involved another 30 days to organise where the next payment was coming from.
Thanks for the postings @marlowchair . I heard a very different view of the meeting on here than I did when I spoke to people who were at the meeting at the weekend. Your comments match those I heard rather than those I read.
Still lots of suspicious and sometimes bitter fans though. How can the club and the Trust turn this around or is it accepted that some are simply never going to get over some of the events in the past. For me whilst you should learn and appreciate history you can't live your life in it.
@marlowchair - I was referring to what you had stated as fact when, as you concede, they are informal 'gentlemen's agreements'. These are subject to change or be reneged upon, therefore I think it's only right that it is assumed that these are not in place until confirmed otherwise.
If anything can be taken from following the off-the-field fortunes of WWFC over the past 20 years, blue-sky thinking and hoping for the best is a dangerous thing.
Also your point regarding the three 'independent' (or 'militant' if you're feeling like starting a witchunt) candidates being in cahoots, as one of them I can assure you I had zero communication with either of the other two prior to that evening. That we all came to similar conclusions independently is a good indication of how many WWT members feel about how the Trust has operated over the past year. Is there anything in particular that causes you to doubt my, or the other candidates' sincerity?
@Right_in_the_Middle I didn't say consulted on basic issues, I said that the issues the Trust have agreed to consult on are things that every Football League club would consult its fans/season ticket holders on.
Apologies read marginalista if that is the case, perception was that at least mark and mr Roberton were very tight.
How did mr robertons backflip make you feel out of interest ?
Did you speak to any sitting directors or club staff at the meeting that may have quelled some of your concerns or were you outcast? Genuinely interested to know
Reading this thread is like reading a Kafka novel. All hints, half truths, rabbit holes and diversionary tactics.
Seeing as one of the big issues here is that of transparency, or lack there of, perhaps posters who are Trust directors of have stood for election could do the rest of us the courtesy of declaring an interest and naming yourselves when posting on this topic? So far the only person to have done so is the unelected candidate Mark, though others appear to include ReadingMarginalista, MarlowChair, ChickenHead and maybe one or two others.
It would really help the rest of us identify what vendettas and factions are at play here, as, for example, when MarlowChair, rather absurdly, describes those who differ in view from himself as "militants".
For the record I am not a member of the Trust and have no intention of joining such a shitshow.
I am a trust member.not a director nor a candidate at any stage.
I attended the AGM as an impartial member with no affiliation or relationship to any trust directors part or present or candidates .
Sorry if it blows your conspiracy theory out of the water but my view of the meeting is based on an objective , open minded member watching and listening to proceedings.
Marlowchair. Great post, and no doubt you were probably expecting me to come back fighting. You are not alone in thinking I can be overly critical, though I have said on many occasions I applaud the current and past regimes for their hard work so far. Without them there may very possibly be no football club.
To answer your question, I have offered my help previously and have been ignored (perhaps they don't like me, I can understand that). However, it is my intention to invest some time and assistance if it is wanted, and as per Trevor Stroud's final statement, they intend to use all three candidates wherever possible. Look, as per my previous post, I never expected for one moment that I would be elected, however, I wanted to stand and voice my opinion, an opinion shared with a fifth of the room, and no doubt more outside of it. I am not a yes man, and I'm not gong to stand and say what I think people wish to hear just to keep the sensitive folk happy. I maintain that the transparency is poor. I agree, there are things we don't need to know, but there are things we do, and the loss of an asset worth the best part of half a million falls into the latter. As I said on the night, everyone will have their own opinion as to why less than a third are Trust members, and only a quarter of those invest, but whatever way you look at it, it is not even close to enough, and unless there is a rapid uptake how long will it be before we hear the words "The Share scheme has become unviable". What then? We've already lost the training ground, what else do we lose? Consider me a trouble maker by all means, but my feelings are more born of frustration, and ultimately I'm no different to anyone else on this feed in that we all want what is best for our football club. Finally, David Roberton was a whisker away from being reelected. Had the training ground issue been forthcoming even just a week earlier, thus giving everyone ample opportunity to ask questions, then the vote may well have been very, very different. Personally I think he would have been straight back in. Or is that me just making trouble?
thank you for posting. Its good to see new posters debating issues intelligently.
Could you advise where you get the valuation of " the best part of half a million pounds" from.
Is this your understanding of the total value or the value in excess of the £350k proceeds received for its sale OR in excess of the price the club would have had to pay in agreed buy back price plus legal fees to buy it back?
@AlgernonFudgebucket when the Trust board first took over the club and asked members to contribute towards unexpected legal costs, they were amazed at the response. I think the phrase was 'never ceases to amaze.' Given that, why do you not think it would have been worth asking? Maybe beacause the amazement would have persisted despite this precedent?
DevC, "best part of half a million" was a bit off key to be fair, but based on it being purchased for £350k (I'm assuming that would have been in or around market value at the time of purchase), then it's a significant chunk. Then begs the question, if (and I say if) planning could ever be granted, then that figure will sky rocket. The point I was making is that the training ground was a huge asset, and I feel will would have been pertinent to talk to supporters and at least afford them the opportunity to try raise the capital in order to keep said asset in our name. Is it likely we would have raised the cash needed? That's debatable to say the least, but had that opportunity been afforded then I doubt we'd be having this debate, albeit a very good debate with some great points made by all.
Finally, for the record, up until last Thursday I had never spoken to either Will or David, nor was I aware of the contents of their election speech. I'd therefore suggest that if there are any conspiracy theories and you wish to suggest so, then please explain how these were founded, other than that we all seemed to share the same opinion. I mean really, three people with the same opinion, how is that even possible?
@marlowchair - My feeling was that the information provided was a good start and a step in the right direction in terms of providing more information on the workings and dealing of WWT, and I'll be more than happy to help maintaining and developing this conversation between WWT's directors and members.
The information given at the meeting about the training ground has thrown up subsequent questions that were not thought of at the AGM. Some of those questions might be uncomfortable for some, but it is important that they are answered truthfully and openly.
It's truly honourable that two of the candidates who missed out are responding and debating matters and much respect for that .
But can we look at where this leaves things?
You've raised your concerns at the meeting and here and on Facebook.
Eventually it appears a true reflection of the meetings training ground discussion has been presented
You offered to help the club in the past but your offer was either not taken up or ignored
The club in present time has made a concerted effort to attract volunteers and put a formal structure around the volunteer scheme including having sign up desks at the AGM you stood for election at
You are a businessman , local. You claim to know better than the club about marketing and promotion.
Do you sponsor the club?
Do you advertise with the club ?
Have you offered to volunteer your time recently in any capacity?
What,respectfully, have you done to improve and assist with the improvement of the many things your vast experience and talents identify as being done wrong at the club other than stand for election on the platform of being supporters eyes and ears who will agitate for supporter rights, yet not offer any skill set to actually perform a role or any hard work?
Rather than sling mud why not try and help clean some up?
Comments
My concern is not necessarily about the lack consultation, but more on the lack of information on important matters.
The training ground is (or was) a major asset of the club. Consequently, losing the right to buy back the training ground as a result of not paying the monthly loan fee is a major event which the Board had a duty to immediately advise its members. If the Board don't consider this important, then what is?
@peterparrotface Fair enough, although i get the impression that some on here expect to be consulted on everything. If there is a happy medium between the two we haven't found it, although a warning over the training ground default would have been a good place to start.
I don't know, but i've always had the impression that we don't have enough people to invest the time and money to make it work differently. And the problem seems to be getting worse, when i do get to games i'm amazed at the number of people who used to go every week that have vanished.
Righty. Not sure if it is any of your business whether I voted or not and if so who for.
But as it happens for what its worth, I sent proxy forms so presumably "yes"
Good stuff @DevC . Couldn't care less who you voted for although you did kind of give it away with you pre AGM posts. I was just interested in whether you voted via proxy as it sounded to me that you were coming around to finding an excuse.
Glad you didn't.
There seems to be a difference between the facts about the training ground as outlined at the AGM and the reporting of the issue here.This really disappoints me because in the room at the AGM after the election the unelected candidates appeared to agree to be helpful and positive with a view to improving their chances of election next time.
The negative misrepresentation of the meetings facts appears to show that Mark is really just interested in stirring up trouble-I am happy to have this perception corrected by Mark who I see on our fan Facebook page has made some very critical and unfounded criticisms of the club since the AGM.
My question to Mark is:- on the night of the AGM there were pleas for voluntary assistance for supporters of every skill and availability.there were tables set up to take names and discuss. Did you volunteer to assist?
I ask because one of your criticisms is marketing and promotion but perhaps your time ( and that if your small band of supporters ) which seems plentiful given the time you can apply to criticising things, could be better served and more productive for our trust owned club?
On the training ground, I agree that communication is king and it may have been done better, but the a true reflection of the facts as presented at the AGM must be aired here for those members who could not attend to be properly and fully informed rather than your rather selective version which a cynic might say was designed to rustle up panic in wake of your election failure?
The club was in arrears for 14 months to the tune of £45000
The landlords gave the club grace and understanding rather than call the default earlier.
When the default was called it meant the club lost its buy back right
The landlords subsequently agreed to Re-instate the buy back provision , write off the £45k debt,allow the club a 6 month notice period , AND agree to a percentage of any profits made should they ever sell the land would be donated to the club.
Those are the facts.
The motivations for such kindness you can debate forever and a day, as someone else stated mr beeks and Co are either angling for a property play or are simply club men with the means to help out by being generous-that's for each ember to decide , but the facts are above and you really should present them properly and fully when being critical.
@marlowchair - excellent post.
I sense a stitch up. A fan owned club? Give me a break when issues like this is being hidden from supporters.
@marlowchair. Great post. I couldn't agree more.
@marlowchair - But that isn't all entirely true though, is it?
At what point at the meeting was it indicated that the buy-back clause and percentage of any profits from selling the land was anything other than in the process of being negotiated? If these had been negotiated, what are the terms of the buy-back clause the same as in the original contract? Also the top table at the meeting declared that no planning permission would be obtainable from there (which is a contentious statement, especially considering the considerable political pressures on Wycombe District Council to build new houses in their juristiction).
The truth is that there are still questions about how this was handled, why WWT members were not informed and help not sought from WWT members to help cover training ground rent before FALL defaulted.
As the training ground is of great strategic importance to WWFC, members of the society that owns the Club are right to be asking questions of the decisions taken and look for potential conflicts of interest that may have occurred that was against the best interests of the Football Club. As a member of WWT, I believe it is my duty to do so and stand up for those who face brickbats for doing so as well.
I never said you or anyone else can't or shouldn't ask questions.
I'm just of the view that the debate should be argued on facts between adults and fair and reasonable deference and respect be afforded other shareholders.
Of course you can do whatever you like but in the clubs best interests and in order to be productive rather than destructive , it's best in my view to perhaps take a more objective approach rather than always looking for the worst scenario.
The meeting made it clear that an agreement had been made to re-instate the buy back clause and to agree a percent of any profit attained should it be sold
You wish to make a big issue about those two points but it was clearly related as a gentlemanly agreement until full deed can be drawn up, perhaps hold your cynical view until the process is complete.
You conveniently ignore the huge concession of the landlords writing off 14 months rental arrears.
One other issue from the AGM is how the more senior of the "independent" candidates wound up and used the two younger bucks to be militant and say things he would never say. When he got up to speak he put his tail between his legs and backed down totally conceding things were now do much better since he stepped down!
Rock solid that man
Any cynicism that exists might have something do with the decision-making and behaviour of Mr Beeks during the previous 30 years. The same Mr Beeks who was still Chairman when WWFC was minutes away from administration / liquidation on June 29, 2012. The same Mr Beeks who is a director of the company (WWFC) which now leases the training ground which he also part owns.
@marlowchair Great post: perfectly sums up my recollection of what was said at the AGM.
A number of people on this forum have moaned about not being informed concerning the default on the training ground lease payments and, somewhat disingenuously, talked of the Trust Board asking the supporters (who, after all, own the club do they not?) for some help in meeting said payments. I wonder how many of these moaners would actually be prepared to put their money where their mouths are; especially considering, as @micra has already pointed out, a pathetically small number (some 200 odd only, out of a trust membership of 1066 and an average home gate of 3000 odd) have been magnanimous enough to stump up any money thus far.
@marlowchair did anyone say if the request for volunteers will be emailed to all Trust members?
@AlgernonFudgebucket Looks like we'll never know as the question wasn't asked.
Serious question - what's the worst that could have happened by asking?
My point is that it would appear that many on here are far more interested in moaning than helping. Given that - what point would there have really been in asking?
A tiny point (and I may have got it wrong) but I think the rent default was over a period of 18 months (£2500 X 18 = £45000).
In response to both of you - yes it would appear some like to moan, some like to stay silent. But not being a 'moaner' is not a prerequisite in helping out.
Most 'moaners' prefer to not have a reason to moan so if offered the chance to be productive may just help out, either by sticking their hands in their pockets themselves, if able, or by rallying together with a few raffles/car washes etc. More than enough to cover the initial £2500.
@micra It would appear they let it stack up over that period. While asking for £45000 in a lump sum would be much less hopeful, asking for £2500 the very first month would likely have been more fruitful, giving all involved another 30 days to organise where the next payment was coming from.
Thanks for the postings @marlowchair . I heard a very different view of the meeting on here than I did when I spoke to people who were at the meeting at the weekend. Your comments match those I heard rather than those I read.
Still lots of suspicious and sometimes bitter fans though. How can the club and the Trust turn this around or is it accepted that some are simply never going to get over some of the events in the past. For me whilst you should learn and appreciate history you can't live your life in it.
@marlowchair - I was referring to what you had stated as fact when, as you concede, they are informal 'gentlemen's agreements'. These are subject to change or be reneged upon, therefore I think it's only right that it is assumed that these are not in place until confirmed otherwise.
If anything can be taken from following the off-the-field fortunes of WWFC over the past 20 years, blue-sky thinking and hoping for the best is a dangerous thing.
Also your point regarding the three 'independent' (or 'militant' if you're feeling like starting a witchunt) candidates being in cahoots, as one of them I can assure you I had zero communication with either of the other two prior to that evening. That we all came to similar conclusions independently is a good indication of how many WWT members feel about how the Trust has operated over the past year. Is there anything in particular that causes you to doubt my, or the other candidates' sincerity?
@Right_in_the_Middle I didn't say consulted on basic issues, I said that the issues the Trust have agreed to consult on are things that every Football League club would consult its fans/season ticket holders on.
Apologies read marginalista if that is the case, perception was that at least mark and mr Roberton were very tight.
How did mr robertons backflip make you feel out of interest ?
Did you speak to any sitting directors or club staff at the meeting that may have quelled some of your concerns or were you outcast? Genuinely interested to know
Reading this thread is like reading a Kafka novel. All hints, half truths, rabbit holes and diversionary tactics.
Seeing as one of the big issues here is that of transparency, or lack there of, perhaps posters who are Trust directors of have stood for election could do the rest of us the courtesy of declaring an interest and naming yourselves when posting on this topic? So far the only person to have done so is the unelected candidate Mark, though others appear to include ReadingMarginalista, MarlowChair, ChickenHead and maybe one or two others.
It would really help the rest of us identify what vendettas and factions are at play here, as, for example, when MarlowChair, rather absurdly, describes those who differ in view from himself as "militants".
For the record I am not a member of the Trust and have no intention of joining such a shitshow.
I am a trust member.not a director nor a candidate at any stage.
I attended the AGM as an impartial member with no affiliation or relationship to any trust directors part or present or candidates .
Sorry if it blows your conspiracy theory out of the water but my view of the meeting is based on an objective , open minded member watching and listening to proceedings.
Marlowchair. Great post, and no doubt you were probably expecting me to come back fighting. You are not alone in thinking I can be overly critical, though I have said on many occasions I applaud the current and past regimes for their hard work so far. Without them there may very possibly be no football club.
To answer your question, I have offered my help previously and have been ignored (perhaps they don't like me, I can understand that). However, it is my intention to invest some time and assistance if it is wanted, and as per Trevor Stroud's final statement, they intend to use all three candidates wherever possible. Look, as per my previous post, I never expected for one moment that I would be elected, however, I wanted to stand and voice my opinion, an opinion shared with a fifth of the room, and no doubt more outside of it. I am not a yes man, and I'm not gong to stand and say what I think people wish to hear just to keep the sensitive folk happy. I maintain that the transparency is poor. I agree, there are things we don't need to know, but there are things we do, and the loss of an asset worth the best part of half a million falls into the latter. As I said on the night, everyone will have their own opinion as to why less than a third are Trust members, and only a quarter of those invest, but whatever way you look at it, it is not even close to enough, and unless there is a rapid uptake how long will it be before we hear the words "The Share scheme has become unviable". What then? We've already lost the training ground, what else do we lose? Consider me a trouble maker by all means, but my feelings are more born of frustration, and ultimately I'm no different to anyone else on this feed in that we all want what is best for our football club. Finally, David Roberton was a whisker away from being reelected. Had the training ground issue been forthcoming even just a week earlier, thus giving everyone ample opportunity to ask questions, then the vote may well have been very, very different. Personally I think he would have been straight back in. Or is that me just making trouble?
thank you for posting. Its good to see new posters debating issues intelligently.
Could you advise where you get the valuation of " the best part of half a million pounds" from.
Is this your understanding of the total value or the value in excess of the £350k proceeds received for its sale OR in excess of the price the club would have had to pay in agreed buy back price plus legal fees to buy it back?
@AlgernonFudgebucket when the Trust board first took over the club and asked members to contribute towards unexpected legal costs, they were amazed at the response. I think the phrase was 'never ceases to amaze.' Given that, why do you not think it would have been worth asking? Maybe beacause the amazement would have persisted despite this precedent?
DevC, "best part of half a million" was a bit off key to be fair, but based on it being purchased for £350k (I'm assuming that would have been in or around market value at the time of purchase), then it's a significant chunk. Then begs the question, if (and I say if) planning could ever be granted, then that figure will sky rocket. The point I was making is that the training ground was a huge asset, and I feel will would have been pertinent to talk to supporters and at least afford them the opportunity to try raise the capital in order to keep said asset in our name. Is it likely we would have raised the cash needed? That's debatable to say the least, but had that opportunity been afforded then I doubt we'd be having this debate, albeit a very good debate with some great points made by all.
Finally, for the record, up until last Thursday I had never spoken to either Will or David, nor was I aware of the contents of their election speech. I'd therefore suggest that if there are any conspiracy theories and you wish to suggest so, then please explain how these were founded, other than that we all seemed to share the same opinion. I mean really, three people with the same opinion, how is that even possible?
@marlowchair - My feeling was that the information provided was a good start and a step in the right direction in terms of providing more information on the workings and dealing of WWT, and I'll be more than happy to help maintaining and developing this conversation between WWT's directors and members.
The information given at the meeting about the training ground has thrown up subsequent questions that were not thought of at the AGM. Some of those questions might be uncomfortable for some, but it is important that they are answered truthfully and openly.
It's truly honourable that two of the candidates who missed out are responding and debating matters and much respect for that .
But can we look at where this leaves things?
You've raised your concerns at the meeting and here and on Facebook.
Eventually it appears a true reflection of the meetings training ground discussion has been presented
You offered to help the club in the past but your offer was either not taken up or ignored
The club in present time has made a concerted effort to attract volunteers and put a formal structure around the volunteer scheme including having sign up desks at the AGM you stood for election at
You are a businessman , local. You claim to know better than the club about marketing and promotion.
Do you sponsor the club?
Do you advertise with the club ?
Have you offered to volunteer your time recently in any capacity?
What,respectfully, have you done to improve and assist with the improvement of the many things your vast experience and talents identify as being done wrong at the club other than stand for election on the platform of being supporters eyes and ears who will agitate for supporter rights, yet not offer any skill set to actually perform a role or any hard work?
Rather than sling mud why not try and help clean some up?