The only question I’ve asked on here today related to my comment that, whichever of the GA/AH duo deserved the most credit for signing some very good players, they have been a perfect fit.
I simply asked if there were any dissenters from that view. None yet.
I found your guestimate of Beechdean’s income from ice cream sales at the theatre both valid and interesting @DevC. You have persuaded me that, in the wider context, the Swan contract was indeed small beer. (Whoops, I feel another pun coming on.)
Not sure that ice cream supply arrangements are negotiated centrally for the whole group. If they are, that changes the picture quite substantially. I should perhaps mention that mrs micra and I ceased ushering last September after 22 years’ thoroughly enjoyable (voluntary) service.
It’s nothing to worry about as from chats with staff at the end of season awards i believe the club hasn’t relied on Susie Howard’s ( Andrews wife ) sponsorship in recent years as the previous ( now departed I believe ) commercial manager brought in a book of new companies. If you think about how our kit and major partner section of the website looks now compared to 2015 Beechdean is the only surviving sponsor . Cherry Red Records, Bmi healthcare , origin global , ms chiltern , utilita energy , O’Neill’s and Wycombe leisure centre are all the other major sponsors and all were attracted and delivered by the commercial manager so it stands to reason the club doesn’t need to keep selling valuable sponsorship spaces to beechdean perhaps under market value anymore . It’s good news.
@marlowchair Things have certainly changed for the better in the last few years. After our relegation to L2 last time round I remember most of the advertising hoardings being blank and a real feeling of commercial disinterest around the club. Totally different nowdays.
Most definitely Oxfordblue. I just hope we are not resting on that improvement. If beechdean are replaced by “new” money on the front of shirt that will be tremendous.if a current sponsor is just moved or relocated to the front in lieu of beechdean that wouldn’t be as positive.
I did wonder a year or two ago whether Beechdean were receiving sponsorship at below market rates in return for Andrew Howard putting in the hours as chairman. If that's the case @marlowchair it raises some very serious questions about conflict of interest.
Fortunately, as you say, those issues appear to be being resolved by him no longer being chairman and Beechdean no longer remaining our main shirt sponsors, though it would be useful to have the club confirm the Beechdean's sponsorship of the main stand is not at a below market rate.
As for the next sponsor, Utilita would, I imagine, be the favourite to take over - but I'd love it if it were Cherry Red Records.
It is a conflict of interest only if the sponsorship items MR Howard obtains for Beech dean are shopped around firstly, if no takers are found then him getting cheaper rates is good commercial practice rather than not selling at all,
In the absence of a commercial manager it does pose the question of how / who is shopping the north stand, training and travel kit around first to ensure transparency and market rate is being paid.
It is important given the club chairman also works for Beechdean as well as Mr Howard being the owner
You might not have an issue with discounted deals Oxfordblue however we have a charter than stipulates transparency and fairness . If mr Howard were to receive discounts in return for services rendered, why not every volunteer director , every volunteer , every trust member ?
I can see a problem "quantifying the going rate ". We are, like it or not, a pretty low level, (in global terms), attraction for sponsors. Let's be honest, not too many global brands rushing to the AP doors fanning their cheque books. So narrows the market to local companies hoping to attract the eye of the local supporter. With a rolling crowd of say 6000 supporters coming through the gates, does rather limit the view?
You would think so however cherry red records , bmi healthcare and utilita energy are not local companies and all have a national footprint. When we had a commercial manager for the last few years he was able to attract and sign deals with them.
We also have Bayo and a media presence that appears far greater than many championship clubs let alone league 1 & 2
On the bigger picture we must ask the question where does the increase in revenue come from
To stay afloat in league 1? A player wage increase conservatively of just 20% would see us need another £200-250k on this seasons spend.
There’s no indication of huge ST numbers increasing. We will have some big gates to help with Luton , Sunderland, Coventry , Portsmouth , Plymouth , Oxford , Bristol , Walsall and we will need to make every penny from those.
The draw will be hugely important for our finances
Disappointing to see above a poster insinuating laziness and personal interest, almost corruption, in Mr Howard. He has produced no evidence whatsoever to support such claims apart from insinuation. Insinuations on social media have a habit of becoming accepted "facts".
my own view watching from afar is that Andrew Howard has done a remarkable job in his time at WWFC and we have reason to be very grateful to him. Can we compete financially at lg1level - probably not. Will GA defy the financial realities yet again and deliver a reasonable outcome - maybe.
I agree. Lazy assumptions like this are one of the reasons why social media can be so dangerous.
I have absolutely no reason to doubt that AH has been anything other than a positive influence on the club and to suggest otherwise without any evidence to support the claim is irresponsible.
I'm still struggling to see why it would be such a bad thing if Beechdean got a discounted sponsorship rate? Howard has spent years toiling for this club in a position of serious responsibility, for little financial gain otherwise.
Oxford, it would be a bad thing if Andrew Howard awarded himself (through his company) a sweetheart deal on sponsorship without that deal being agreed by those who do not personally benefit. There is no problem at all if the independent board members agree the package.
The poster above has supplied no evidence for his insinuation a) that beechdean have a below market rate or b) if they do that that has not been properly approved by those who do not gain financially from it. Without such evidence, his insinuation is frankly disgraceful.
Dev, if you're referring to me, say it. Merely stating that 'a poster' has hurt your feelings is a very affected way of trying to take the high moral ground.
As to your wider point, well, the world is divided into those who choose to hold power to account, ask difficult questions, keep authority figures on their toes etc. And those who choose to look the other way because asking hard questions doesn't suit their agenda.
We know - indeed you yourself have documented - how this club has lost out financially in the past due to naive deals being struck (cf Matty Phillips transfer). I think most, if not all, of us were delighted when a businessman of Andrew Howard's calibre came on board. But if - if - there was a quid pro quo to that it should have been subject to scrutiny and approval. Isn't that what being a fan-owned club is about?
It strikes me that @marlowchair's second interesting morsel of information above hasn't yet had the pick-up it also deserves. I had no idea Trevor Stroud works for Andrew Howard at Beechdean. So here's another few questions which you're sure to disapprove of me posing. Did Mr Stroud, as then chair of the Trust, work for Mr Howard at the time Mr Howard was asked to become chairman of the club? Did Mr Stroud sign off on the sponsorship deal with Beechdean while at the same time working for Beechdean? Or did his employment at Beechdean start after Mr Howard became chairman of the club but before Mr Stroud succeeded him?
I draw absolutely no insinuations in any of this but I have no issue in asking the questions. Frankly, having Mr Stroud performing the role of both chairman of the club and chairman of the Trust which owns and oversees the club and scrutinises the activity of its board is not an ideal situation to be in.
A lot of people on here bemoan the decline in the Bucks Free Press's coverage of the team on the field. I am more concerned that what we lack is any coverage of what happens behind the scenes. You can see it in local papers across the country - a decline in resources means less original journalism and much less scrutiny. That's why we have the situation with Millwall potentially having their land sold from under them by Lewisham Council which could get away with it because - at the time - 98% of the councillors came from one party and there was very minimal coverage in local papers. If it wasn't for a few national newspaper journalists the story would have had no attention at all. (Coda to that though - that party now has 100% of councillors - I guess not every local resident reads The Guardian as avidly as they might.)
So, sorry for offending your sensibilities for asking questions, Dev. Marlowchair seems a lot more plugged into the club than me and if he reports that Beechdean is being sold sponsorship "perhaps under market value" it raises my eyebrows.
With the club board chaired by the same person chairing the board scrutinising it, and a moribund local press, there isn't much alternative to posting questions on fan forums, so that is what I've done.
If you don't wish to ask difficult questions, that's cool, no problem, the world takes all types. It's just I think a little differently to you.
Can't see the harm in asking awkward questions, as long as they are just that, without insinuation or accusation. The only people whom may be "offended" by that approach, (in my experience), are those with something to hide. Nothing to hide, questions can easily be answered and the topic can move on surely?
@aloysius there’s nothing wrong with saying the club both needs to avoid corruption and be transparent enough to avoid even the potential for corruption.
However, saying I did wonder a year or two ago whether Beechdean were receiving sponsorship at below market rates in return for Andrew Howard putting in the hours as chairman. If that's the case @marlowchair it raises some very serious questions about conflict of interest. is not the same at all. That isn’t asking difficult questions, or holding power to account. It’s simply taking a baseless rumour and repeating it.
@DevC said:
Oxford, it would be a bad thing if Andrew Howard awarded himself (through his company) a sweetheart deal on sponsorship without that deal being agreed by those who do not personally benefit. There is no problem at all if the independent board members agree the package.
The poster above has supplied no evidence for his insinuation a) that beechdean have a below market rate or b) if they do that that has not been properly approved by those who do not gain financially from it. Without such evidence, his insinuation is frankly disgraceful.
If Andrew Howard was making any major executive decision without consultation I'd be worried, especially if it was in regards to his company getting a discounted sponsorship rate.
However, I couldn't really envisage a situation in which he would cut himself a cut price deal without gaining consent, if he even did do that.
Comments
The only question I’ve asked on here today related to my comment that, whichever of the GA/AH duo deserved the most credit for signing some very good players, they have been a perfect fit.
I simply asked if there were any dissenters from that view. None yet.
I found your guestimate of Beechdean’s income from ice cream sales at the theatre both valid and interesting @DevC. You have persuaded me that, in the wider context, the Swan contract was indeed small beer. (Whoops, I feel another pun coming on.)
Indeed Chas they have a couple of quite large ones.
https://hqtheatres.com/venues
Not sure that ice cream supply arrangements are negotiated centrally for the whole group. If they are, that changes the picture quite substantially. I should perhaps mention that mrs micra and I ceased ushering last September after 22 years’ thoroughly enjoyable (voluntary) service.
4 "says", 2 "presume/assumes" 2 "I believes" and an "around". DevC at his scintillating best. It's gonna be a hell of a summer...
Most things are assumptions, @DevC is just more transparent than most in stating his.
How many logos did Beachdean want on the shirt?
.....hundreds and thousands
What a load of waffle...
It’s nothing to worry about as from chats with staff at the end of season awards i believe the club hasn’t relied on Susie Howard’s ( Andrews wife ) sponsorship in recent years as the previous ( now departed I believe ) commercial manager brought in a book of new companies. If you think about how our kit and major partner section of the website looks now compared to 2015 Beechdean is the only surviving sponsor . Cherry Red Records, Bmi healthcare , origin global , ms chiltern , utilita energy , O’Neill’s and Wycombe leisure centre are all the other major sponsors and all were attracted and delivered by the commercial manager so it stands to reason the club doesn’t need to keep selling valuable sponsorship spaces to beechdean perhaps under market value anymore . It’s good news.
@marlowchair Things have certainly changed for the better in the last few years. After our relegation to L2 last time round I remember most of the advertising hoardings being blank and a real feeling of commercial disinterest around the club. Totally different nowdays.
Most definitely Oxfordblue. I just hope we are not resting on that improvement. If beechdean are replaced by “new” money on the front of shirt that will be tremendous.if a current sponsor is just moved or relocated to the front in lieu of beechdean that wouldn’t be as positive.
I did wonder a year or two ago whether Beechdean were receiving sponsorship at below market rates in return for Andrew Howard putting in the hours as chairman. If that's the case @marlowchair it raises some very serious questions about conflict of interest.
Fortunately, as you say, those issues appear to be being resolved by him no longer being chairman and Beechdean no longer remaining our main shirt sponsors, though it would be useful to have the club confirm the Beechdean's sponsorship of the main stand is not at a below market rate.
As for the next sponsor, Utilita would, I imagine, be the favourite to take over - but I'd love it if it were Cherry Red Records.
I’d have no issue with beechdean getting discounted sponsorship in exchange for Howard’s expertise and consider it likely.
I'd like Specsavers as the sponsor, to make refs feel a little more sheepish about missing the endless tugs on Bayo's shirt.
It is a conflict of interest only if the sponsorship items MR Howard obtains for Beech dean are shopped around firstly, if no takers are found then him getting cheaper rates is good commercial practice rather than not selling at all,
In the absence of a commercial manager it does pose the question of how / who is shopping the north stand, training and travel kit around first to ensure transparency and market rate is being paid.
It is important given the club chairman also works for Beechdean as well as Mr Howard being the owner
You might not have an issue with discounted deals Oxfordblue however we have a charter than stipulates transparency and fairness . If mr Howard were to receive discounts in return for services rendered, why not every volunteer director , every volunteer , every trust member ?
It cannot happen.
I can see a problem "quantifying the going rate ". We are, like it or not, a pretty low level, (in global terms), attraction for sponsors. Let's be honest, not too many global brands rushing to the AP doors fanning their cheque books. So narrows the market to local companies hoping to attract the eye of the local supporter. With a rolling crowd of say 6000 supporters coming through the gates, does rather limit the view?
You would think so however cherry red records , bmi healthcare and utilita energy are not local companies and all have a national footprint. When we had a commercial manager for the last few years he was able to attract and sign deals with them.
We also have Bayo and a media presence that appears far greater than many championship clubs let alone league 1 & 2
On the bigger picture we must ask the question where does the increase in revenue come from
To stay afloat in league 1? A player wage increase conservatively of just 20% would see us need another £200-250k on this seasons spend.
There’s no indication of huge ST numbers increasing. We will have some big gates to help with Luton , Sunderland, Coventry , Portsmouth , Plymouth , Oxford , Bristol , Walsall and we will need to make every penny from those.
The draw will be hugely important for our finances
The draw? Do you mean the fixture list?
Big gates. Walsall. Same sentence.
Behave.
Both micra.the fixture release schedule incredibly important as will a first round FA and League cup draw.
Leedsblue geographically ,Walsall scheduled well can be decent .
Just surprised that Walsall make your 'big gate' list but Charlton don't
Disappointing to see above a poster insinuating laziness and personal interest, almost corruption, in Mr Howard. He has produced no evidence whatsoever to support such claims apart from insinuation. Insinuations on social media have a habit of becoming accepted "facts".
my own view watching from afar is that Andrew Howard has done a remarkable job in his time at WWFC and we have reason to be very grateful to him. Can we compete financially at lg1level - probably not. Will GA defy the financial realities yet again and deliver a reasonable outcome - maybe.
I agree. Lazy assumptions like this are one of the reasons why social media can be so dangerous.
I have absolutely no reason to doubt that AH has been anything other than a positive influence on the club and to suggest otherwise without any evidence to support the claim is irresponsible.
I'm still struggling to see why it would be such a bad thing if Beechdean got a discounted sponsorship rate? Howard has spent years toiling for this club in a position of serious responsibility, for little financial gain otherwise.
What @OxfordBlue said.
Oxford, it would be a bad thing if Andrew Howard awarded himself (through his company) a sweetheart deal on sponsorship without that deal being agreed by those who do not personally benefit. There is no problem at all if the independent board members agree the package.
The poster above has supplied no evidence for his insinuation a) that beechdean have a below market rate or b) if they do that that has not been properly approved by those who do not gain financially from it. Without such evidence, his insinuation is frankly disgraceful.
Dev, if you're referring to me, say it. Merely stating that 'a poster' has hurt your feelings is a very affected way of trying to take the high moral ground.
As to your wider point, well, the world is divided into those who choose to hold power to account, ask difficult questions, keep authority figures on their toes etc. And those who choose to look the other way because asking hard questions doesn't suit their agenda.
We know - indeed you yourself have documented - how this club has lost out financially in the past due to naive deals being struck (cf Matty Phillips transfer). I think most, if not all, of us were delighted when a businessman of Andrew Howard's calibre came on board. But if - if - there was a quid pro quo to that it should have been subject to scrutiny and approval. Isn't that what being a fan-owned club is about?
It strikes me that @marlowchair's second interesting morsel of information above hasn't yet had the pick-up it also deserves. I had no idea Trevor Stroud works for Andrew Howard at Beechdean. So here's another few questions which you're sure to disapprove of me posing. Did Mr Stroud, as then chair of the Trust, work for Mr Howard at the time Mr Howard was asked to become chairman of the club? Did Mr Stroud sign off on the sponsorship deal with Beechdean while at the same time working for Beechdean? Or did his employment at Beechdean start after Mr Howard became chairman of the club but before Mr Stroud succeeded him?
I draw absolutely no insinuations in any of this but I have no issue in asking the questions. Frankly, having Mr Stroud performing the role of both chairman of the club and chairman of the Trust which owns and oversees the club and scrutinises the activity of its board is not an ideal situation to be in.
A lot of people on here bemoan the decline in the Bucks Free Press's coverage of the team on the field. I am more concerned that what we lack is any coverage of what happens behind the scenes. You can see it in local papers across the country - a decline in resources means less original journalism and much less scrutiny. That's why we have the situation with Millwall potentially having their land sold from under them by Lewisham Council which could get away with it because - at the time - 98% of the councillors came from one party and there was very minimal coverage in local papers. If it wasn't for a few national newspaper journalists the story would have had no attention at all. (Coda to that though - that party now has 100% of councillors - I guess not every local resident reads The Guardian as avidly as they might.)
So, sorry for offending your sensibilities for asking questions, Dev. Marlowchair seems a lot more plugged into the club than me and if he reports that Beechdean is being sold sponsorship "perhaps under market value" it raises my eyebrows.
With the club board chaired by the same person chairing the board scrutinising it, and a moribund local press, there isn't much alternative to posting questions on fan forums, so that is what I've done.
If you don't wish to ask difficult questions, that's cool, no problem, the world takes all types. It's just I think a little differently to you.
Can't see the harm in asking awkward questions, as long as they are just that, without insinuation or accusation. The only people whom may be "offended" by that approach, (in my experience), are those with something to hide. Nothing to hide, questions can easily be answered and the topic can move on surely?
@aloysius there’s nothing wrong with saying the club both needs to avoid corruption and be transparent enough to avoid even the potential for corruption.
However, saying I did wonder a year or two ago whether Beechdean were receiving sponsorship at below market rates in return for Andrew Howard putting in the hours as chairman. If that's the case @marlowchair it raises some very serious questions about conflict of interest. is not the same at all. That isn’t asking difficult questions, or holding power to account. It’s simply taking a baseless rumour and repeating it.
If Andrew Howard was making any major executive decision without consultation I'd be worried, especially if it was in regards to his company getting a discounted sponsorship rate.
However, I couldn't really envisage a situation in which he would cut himself a cut price deal without gaining consent, if he even did do that.
After reading @aloysius's post, I had a Fighting Talk-style halleluja chorus burst out in my head