Call me naïve but we had this 5 year plan to get into Div 1,which we achieved but the trust board are now suggesting now we are here we cannot afford to be here unless we change things? The directors went on record stating that if we went up the last time when we were in the play offs we could not have afforded it and could have gone bust. Last season the goal was to get promotion and surely the board knew the impact on player wages by going up? The away crowds this season in terms of tickets sales, drinks etc must be helping with higher player wages costs plus larger numbers of home fans. We have suddenly decided to run a higher number of squad players and even spent money (£100k I heard) on a player. I just don't get if things are so bad why we have done this, why have we decided to change our approach to the way we run the club? why have we gambled with this approach? yes we want to stay in league 1 but not at the risk of the clubs survival.
@Blue_since_1990 said: @DevC , please do not make this a personal battle between you and @marlowchair. The issue is far too big for petty points scoring.
This was the same tactic DevC used when continually backing Sharky Hayes and his attempted Stadium grab. For someone who attends no games,no meetings, puts diddly squat in terms of money into the coffers of our beloved Wanderers, you must question why he spends so much time on here ??
Surely someone who spends as much time on this site, would feel impassioned to make the 4 hour journey once in a while ??
@Blue_since_1990 said: @DevC , please do not make this a personal battle between you and @marlowchair. The issue is far too big for petty points scoring.
We do need some light entertainment along the way...
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
I thought the presentation last night was pretty good if a little unbalanced by the contribution by the very biased finance guy. I felt a bit railroaded by him and fiund myself fighting against it. This was especially the case during his uncomfortable exchange with Don Woodward.
Can anyone who was there last night give a little more information on this exchange for those who weren't, please?
Also, what were the voting rules when we flogged the club to Hayes before? Was it 75% of Legacy members then, or is that a newer arrangement?
If Marlow has evidence for his accusations or positive suggestions of alternative ways to address the issues, I'd be very happy to listen to them. If instead its just insinuation and slagging people off with no evidence by him and his mates, then I think he should be called out for that.
Sadly made up accusations in social media land very quickly become social media fact. The club deserves better IMHO.
Just leave it there @DevC, you are starting to get up everyone’s back now. How on earth do you know that what @marlowchair is pointing out is NOT fact? As @ChasHarps pointed out above, you don’t seem to attend any games or contribute but just come on here targeting people who don’t adopt your ideas. Maybe you are a Plymouth A fan just trolling our site?
According to @marlowchair a non elected Director has deemed that an approach for the Club from XYZ Investor was not fit to proceed in any form of detail because of personal grounds.
It is not and I repeat not in the whim of any unelected Director to determine the future of Wycombe Wanderers.
I assume that the XYZ Investor Group is the third level of interest that was spoken about last night.
It is up to the Chairman of the Trust to direct the Trust and put forward a proposal(s) that he believes is in the best interest of the Club and not any unelected third party.
@Blue_since_1990 said:
Just leave it there @DevC, you are starting to get up everyone’s back now. How on earth do you know that what @marlowchair is pointing out is NOT fact? As @ChasHarps pointed out above, you don’t seem to attend any games or contribute but just come on here targeting people who don’t adopt your ideas. Maybe you are a Plymouth A fan just trolling our site?
I vaguely remember he was originally a Watford fan?
According to @marlowchair a non elected Director has deemed that an approach for the Club from XYZ Investor was not fit to proceed in any form of detail because of personal grounds.
It is not and I repeat not in the whim of any unelected Director to determine the future of Wycombe Wanderers.
I assume that the XYZ Investor Group is the third level of interest that was spoken about last night.
It is up to the Chairman of the Trust to direct the Trust and put forward a proposal(s) that he believes is in the best interest of the Club and not any unelected third party.
@ChasHarps said:
This was the same tactic DevC used when continually backing Sharky Hayes and his attempted Stadium grab. For someone who attends no games,no meetings, puts diddly squat in terms of money into the coffers of our beloved Wanderers, you must question why he spends so much time on here ??
Surely someone who spends as much time on this site, would feel impassioned to make the 4 hour journey once in a while ??
It is pretty inexplicable in fairness.
I have always wondered about the "expertise" tone Dev uses, despite the above.
Marlow wants you to believe that the reason for WWFC financial issues is either that those running the club are corrupt, self serving or incompetent. your choice whether to believe that without any evidence whatsoever.
Meanwhile I see we are heading back to the old gasroom days of him and his mates personally abusing those who don't buy his evidence less accusations. I think that's a bit sad.
Ignoring the personal abuse and lets concentrate on the issues.
The suggestion from Marlow and his cronies is that the trust has received a bid from a party which apparently resolves many of those financial issues. One director, presumably ivor beeks, allegedly doesn't like the "bidder". The accusation is that the rest of the board, including Trevor Stroud our elected representative, including Andrew Howard, a very successful businessman in his own right, and others have all agreed to reject the bid against the best interests of WWFC so as not to hurt the feelings of Mr Beeks.
Does that really have the ring of truth? Is there any evidence to support such an accusation?
I confess that I assumed the unnamed non-exec was Beeks. he is a convenient bogeyman after all.
The non-exec directors are beeks, Burrell, Cook and Stroud. Who are you suggesting has put his own interests ahead of the club AND all the other directors have chosen the director concerned's feelings over the best interests of the club.
Comments
Call me naïve but we had this 5 year plan to get into Div 1,which we achieved but the trust board are now suggesting now we are here we cannot afford to be here unless we change things? The directors went on record stating that if we went up the last time when we were in the play offs we could not have afforded it and could have gone bust. Last season the goal was to get promotion and surely the board knew the impact on player wages by going up? The away crowds this season in terms of tickets sales, drinks etc must be helping with higher player wages costs plus larger numbers of home fans. We have suddenly decided to run a higher number of squad players and even spent money (£100k I heard) on a player. I just don't get if things are so bad why we have done this, why have we decided to change our approach to the way we run the club? why have we gambled with this approach? yes we want to stay in league 1 but not at the risk of the clubs survival.
Don't forget - this is the Gasroom.
I know and don’t forget this is a serious matter and we need to hear a balanced argument not just sniping.
This was the same tactic DevC used when continually backing Sharky Hayes and his attempted Stadium grab. For someone who attends no games,no meetings, puts diddly squat in terms of money into the coffers of our beloved Wanderers, you must question why he spends so much time on here ??
Surely someone who spends as much time on this site, would feel impassioned to make the 4 hour journey once in a while ??
We do need some light entertainment along the way...
(Although you are right)
Can anyone who was there last night give a little more information on this exchange for those who weren't, please?
Also, what were the voting rules when we flogged the club to Hayes before? Was it 75% of Legacy members then, or is that a newer arrangement?
On the bright side...I'm getting a lift to and back from the game on Saturday so I can drink heavily.
If Marlow has evidence for his accusations or positive suggestions of alternative ways to address the issues, I'd be very happy to listen to them. If instead its just insinuation and slagging people off with no evidence by him and his mates, then I think he should be called out for that.
Sadly made up accusations in social media land very quickly become social media fact. The club deserves better IMHO.
Just leave it there @DevC, you are starting to get up everyone’s back now. How on earth do you know that what @marlowchair is pointing out is NOT fact? As @ChasHarps pointed out above, you don’t seem to attend any games or contribute but just come on here targeting people who don’t adopt your ideas. Maybe you are a Plymouth A fan just trolling our site?
Hang on. Let me get this right.
According to @marlowchair a non elected Director has deemed that an approach for the Club from XYZ Investor was not fit to proceed in any form of detail because of personal grounds.
It is not and I repeat not in the whim of any unelected Director to determine the future of Wycombe Wanderers.
I assume that the XYZ Investor Group is the third level of interest that was spoken about last night.
It is up to the Chairman of the Trust to direct the Trust and put forward a proposal(s) that he believes is in the best interest of the Club and not any unelected third party.
I vaguely remember he was originally a Watford fan?
Who does the chairman of the Trust work for ????????
Yep i think that's what is being said..
It is pretty inexplicable in fairness.
I have always wondered about the "expertise" tone Dev uses, despite the above.
Marlow wants you to believe that the reason for WWFC financial issues is either that those running the club are corrupt, self serving or incompetent. your choice whether to believe that without any evidence whatsoever.
Meanwhile I see we are heading back to the old gasroom days of him and his mates personally abusing those who don't buy his evidence less accusations. I think that's a bit sad.
Pot Kettle Black Dev...I seem to remember you slagging off Woodward and others in the past...
Where's the personal abuse Mr DevC ?
Just exposing your previous, is hardly abuse, you sensitive old soul.
Dev was merciless when the Matt Phillips sell on clause was sold back, but it's difficult to imagine a poster whose opinion matters less on anything
Best ignored
@marlowchair still dodging?
Ignoring the personal abuse and lets concentrate on the issues.
The suggestion from Marlow and his cronies is that the trust has received a bid from a party which apparently resolves many of those financial issues. One director, presumably ivor beeks, allegedly doesn't like the "bidder". The accusation is that the rest of the board, including Trevor Stroud our elected representative, including Andrew Howard, a very successful businessman in his own right, and others have all agreed to reject the bid against the best interests of WWFC so as not to hurt the feelings of Mr Beeks.
Does that really have the ring of truth? Is there any evidence to support such an accusation?
@DevC - Can you identify who you consider to be Marlow's "cronies" please.
Only you have mentioned Mr Beeks !!
LOL....
I confess that I assumed the unnamed non-exec was Beeks. he is a convenient bogeyman after all.
The non-exec directors are beeks, Burrell, Cook and Stroud. Who are you suggesting has put his own interests ahead of the club AND all the other directors have chosen the director concerned's feelings over the best interests of the club.
Have you got a season ticket @DevC ? Are you a legacy member? Are you a member of the 500 club? When did you last come to AP?
edit - I've deleted this post - aloysius
It could also be a consortium involving Graham Westley, CEO Aimita Corporation.
I could understand the Board not wanting to work with him.
So just to summarise the suggestion Aloysius.
Stroud has blocked a proposed investment into WWFC, not with regard to the best interests of WWFC , but for his own personal financial interest.
Howard has ordered Stroud to act in this way, not in the best interests of WWFC, but out of personal antipathy.
The other directors of club and trust have acquiesced in this breach of fiduciary duty, perhaps in the hope of a free ice cream.
Now lets summarise the evidence presented for this accusation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That's all folks.
Dev you're not summarising the suggestion, you're extrapolating and doing so in a defamatory way. I would advise you to delete your post.
Though I do agree with your assessment that there's no evidence for any of this.
This board is almost unbearable these days