I really don't want to turn this into a personal battle, marlow. So just to be clear.
I have absolutely no issue with clear evidence based criticism of anyone. that is entirely healthy.
I do have an issue with hints and rumours and implications without substance. That is the farage method. With respect I think you have slipped into that method in the past.
but lets draw a line under the past and start again.
If I understand your position correctly, you are arguing that there is significant weaknesses between (I am presuming) some or all of Howard, Burrell, Stroud and the day to day general manager whose name I have forgotten.
If I understand your position correctly, you believe that with better people in place, the cash gap could be closed and that therefore League status could likely be retained within the current structure.
If that is not your position, I apologise. Could you explain what exactly you are saying if I have misunderstood.
Then could you go on to outline clearly your evidence to support that view.
I share your suspicions and cynicism Wendoverman but let’s just wait and find out more information before condemning the Trust board for trying to find a solution to the club’s financial problems.
Bucks Free Press have ignored this week's meeting untl today with back page GREEN LIGHT FOR TAKEOVER TALKS and how an anonymous member of the trust (bad word in a wycombe context) told the BFP how a millionaire consortium was looking to buy 75% and how this was a very "positive" move for the club. Clearly th guys in charge Beeks and Howard favour a 75% majority with Burell/Stroud telling us our players budget is only a bit bigger than Havant and Waterlooville...scary tactics like Hayes saying back me or I'll put it in receivership. As Trust board directors it's imprtant that we have an independent chairman, one chairman of the trust board and one for the football club board. we need an independent chairman which Stroud cannot be if he is on the payroll of Beechdean.
Can one of the directors please state whether Stroud is paid for by Beechdean or not?
So what alternative way would you have used to judge the mood of those who attended? Surely if only a few people had raised their hands that would have been a strong indication that there was no appetite to continue the talks?
@eric_plant said:
I think what he means is that they require no mandate as such to hold talks, as they have been doing so already.
I take your point Eric but it’s harsh to describe the show of hands as ‘pointless’ and ‘maybe pathetic’. I thought it gave a good indication that the majority of people in the room accepted that there is a problem and one that won’t go away by just ignoring it.
@glasshalffull said:
So what alternative way would you have used to judge the mood of those who attended? Surely if only a few people had raised their hands that would have been a strong indication that there was no appetite to continue the talks?
What was the show of hands as a rough percentage? I was listening to the stream so couldn’t see.
On the fundamentally moot point about motivation (and I agree that the “wanting to have fun on the journey” or words to that effect was hardly persuasive), I wonder if, with the GA five year contract, the three year deal for Jason McCarthy, other shrewd squad reinforcements and a growing fan base, thoughts may be harboured of a flirtation (however brief) with the Championship. Yeovil, Burton and probably others that I have forgotten have managed it so why not us?
@glasshalffull said:
So what alternative way would you have used to judge the mood of those who attended? Surely if only a few people had raised their hands that would have been a strong indication that there was no appetite to continue the talks?
What was the show of hands as a rough percentage? I was listening to the stream so couldn’t see.
@glasshalffull I'm willing to believe everyone is working for the best of the club...just retain the right to be dubious. Devon's statement that the ground is worth nothing so there's no need to worry our silly little heads about the nasty men in suits just got my goat.
Forgive my ignorance but does any Director, board member, shareholder, legacy member and so forth stand to gain financially if new minority or majority shareholders come in? I mean gain in a way that is already known about and above board, for example, if the financial position of the club is above X at year end then Mr/Ms Y will receive a bonus or somesuch.
In deciding if and when I am asked to vote on anything I will want to know not just what any investor gets from any stake but also what anyone already involved in the club and ground may gain (or lose) financially and in other less tangible areas.
@micra said:
On the fundamentally moot point about motivation (and I agree that the “wanting to have fun on the journey” or words to that effect was hardly persuasive), I wonder if, with the GA five year contract, the three year deal for Jason McCarthy, other shrewd squad reinforcements and a growing fan base, thoughts may be harboured of a flirtation (however brief) with the Championship. Yeovil, Burton and probably others that I have forgotten have managed it so why not us?
My biggest fear is that majority ownership will be sold to a person or group who think they can get Wycombe into the Championship simply by putting some money in. What happens if that success doesn't happen or, as in the cases of Yeovil and Burton to which you refer, doesn't last long? Will they still want to keep putting money in when they realise it isn't quite as simple (or cheap) to buy success as they first thought? What if that pursuit of success just leaves us back where we are in League One, or possibly in League Two, with bigger debts and less sustainable costs? If they decide they want away at that stage it would be entirely up to them who they sold the club on to and the fans would have no power to stop them, even if we all felt the next owner to be highly undesirable and disastrous for the future of the club.
The only thing we would potentially be able to do, if ownership of Adams Park is retained by the Trust via FALL, would be to make some kind of statement by refusing to let the new owner's team play there, but why would we really want to do that? That would just leave us with an unused, rapidly depreciating asset that would cost more to maintain than it generates in income.
I would much rather be Daedelus, still flapping my wings for years to come in League One or Two or, yes, even in the National League or National League South, than I would be Icarus, having briefly skimmed the heights of the Championship only to crash and burn out of existence, waiting for that other mythical footballing creature, the Phoenix Club, to hatch at whatever lower level it is permitted to start life in.
@glasshalffull said:
This may have changed but the land around Adams Park was once designated AOB (area of natural beauty) solely for sporting use and therefore not suitable for domestic or commercial development.
For the record, and to @Wendoverman's point, WDC have a history of granting planning permission for building on greenfield, conservation and AONB. Here's a report they produced, which some might read as laying out the case for AONB development.
@drcongo I am shocked and stunned by the idea WDC would behave that way. @mooneyman agree....if someone has the cash, no hidden agenda and just wants the challenge and fun of efficiently running a yo-yo club that will do for me.
@DevC As the ground has no worth and cannot be developed did you think Hayes was so keen to move us because he was going to build a park for underprivileged donkeys or a bird sanctuary/conservation park on the site once we had been evicted?
Wendover.
I am not quite sure why you would deliberately misrepresent what I said. But whatever.
What I did say, is in my opinion (but acknowledged that I might be wrong) it is extremely unlikely that it would be possible to get planning permission for residential development on the Adams park land. It would I suspect be possible to get permission for industrial units but they have a much lower land value then resi and hence obviously much lower value for any asset stripping.
I then asked you whether it would be useful information for you if the club obtained an independent expert opinion on the likely disposal value of the land. You chose to ignore that question.
and so another opportunity for constructive conversation about an important issue for the club slips away.
@Manboobs said:
Forgive my ignorance but does any Director, board member, shareholder, legacy member and so forth stand to gain financially if new minority or majority shareholders come in? I mean gain in a way that is already known about and above board, for example, if the financial position of the club is above X at year end then Mr/Ms Y will receive a bonus or somesuch.
In deciding if and when I am asked to vote on anything I will want to know not just what any investor gets from any stake but also what anyone already involved in the club and ground may gain (or lose) financially and in other less tangible areas.
No stakes or profitable outcomes exist for any directors or associates unless the training ground lease was ever turn up and those three benefactors who own it sold it for a profit which is their right of course but highly unlikely as the TG arrangement works well for the club .
If financial outcomes from a sale and any bias that may create in decision making is your concern the only people who would “ benefit” per se are the clubs creditors . Around £950k of debt remains according to the FD on Wednesday night of which around £450k is choirboy funders - please correct me if my memory is wrong in detail .
One or two people make up a large portion of that debt as funders if around £100k each or more. Theoretically if any of those are agitating for repayment or need repayment for any variety of reasons , and had influence on the board , then there could be a bias towards selling the club at board level.
I don’t know this to be the case , just outlining a response to possibilities. What is fact is that directors ( either elected or appointed) have funds loaned to the club and at least one directors ( I won’t specify if elected or not ) direct family members have significant cash invested as chairboy funders . This is on public record and not speculation.
I don’t think pressure from
Creditors or lenders is a pressure creating bias in the decision making but it is possible and deserving of the question being asked manboobs
@marlowchair said:
I haven’t abused you but if I were that kind of person I coukd see why your penchant for making arguments personal could lead to you being abused.
You don’t offer alternate view point , you personally attack others , liken then to farage, label others cronies , falsely paraphrase things I have said and misrepresent things said weeks ago .
You take great umbrage at questions or comments that are critical of sitting directors of our club or management of our club , in a similar way the FD did on Wednesday night . This overly defensive stance which seems to demand no questions are asked and that we all must have complete faith in the abilities and competency’s of our volunteer directors is misplaced and dangerous . We are debating the future of our club. Just because someone volunteers and works hard dues bit mean they are good at what they do or immune from accountability or questions about their performance .
Volunteering does not make one competent or beyond criticism.
Just catching up with all the posts this morning but just wanted to say this from @marlowchair is probably the best post I've ever read on this board. I agree with every word of it. There are so many pertinent questions to the Trust that need asking right now. We've only been given very limited information about what's going on behind the scenes - hence why this thread is full of guesswork and innuendo. This is such a serious matter that I would hope all questions will be answered in a open and timely way. Having indicated a certain level of transparency by holding the meeting on Tuesday I hope the Trust doesn't now clam up and consider the consultation process over until they need us to vote on whatever proposal is deemed worthy of being put to us.
brilliant post from Marlow Chair- does anyone know who is standing for re-election at the agm in november? They used to say but have stopped doing so and don't publish monthly meeting notes.Marlow chair would get my vote if he/she was to stand. Football club creditors should not be the people to evaluate what is in the best interests of shareholders/trust members given they have never been elected and are not on the Trust board.
Yes thank you @marlowchair understating the pressures on, and motivations of, all parties in the upcoming decisions will be key. As I’ve said before, I am worried about investors who want to be part of ‘the fun’ of having a stake in the club. To me the ‘fun’ seems no more guaranteed than, and somewhat equivalent to, football fortune (cup run, promotion, growing a future star player). I recall it said that one or more consortia would have loved to have been part of the promotion experience at Chesterfield. With enough cash they could maybe reasonably think a similar experience will come again in a few years. After that though, what is left for ‘fun’? Would mid table championship every year be fun enough for them, even if they are genuine ‘Old Bucks Boys’ as alongside that there’s the hard graft of running the operation, wheeling and dealing, and so on. And how often would the chairman’s cheque book have be opened to keep us in the ‘fun’ zone? And as others have said, if they walk away what prevents the next consortia having the worst of motives.
Comments
I really don't want to turn this into a personal battle, marlow. So just to be clear.
I have absolutely no issue with clear evidence based criticism of anyone. that is entirely healthy.
I do have an issue with hints and rumours and implications without substance. That is the farage method. With respect I think you have slipped into that method in the past.
but lets draw a line under the past and start again.
If I understand your position correctly, you are arguing that there is significant weaknesses between (I am presuming) some or all of Howard, Burrell, Stroud and the day to day general manager whose name I have forgotten.
If I understand your position correctly, you believe that with better people in place, the cash gap could be closed and that therefore League status could likely be retained within the current structure.
If that is not your position, I apologise. Could you explain what exactly you are saying if I have misunderstood.
Then could you go on to outline clearly your evidence to support that view.
I share your suspicions and cynicism Wendoverman but let’s just wait and find out more information before condemning the Trust board for trying to find a solution to the club’s financial problems.
Bucks Free Press have ignored this week's meeting untl today with back page GREEN LIGHT FOR TAKEOVER TALKS and how an anonymous member of the trust (bad word in a wycombe context) told the BFP how a millionaire consortium was looking to buy 75% and how this was a very "positive" move for the club. Clearly th guys in charge Beeks and Howard favour a 75% majority with Burell/Stroud telling us our players budget is only a bit bigger than Havant and Waterlooville...scary tactics like Hayes saying back me or I'll put it in receivership. As Trust board directors it's imprtant that we have an independent chairman, one chairman of the trust board and one for the football club board. we need an independent chairman which Stroud cannot be if he is on the payroll of Beechdean.
Can one of the directors please state whether Stroud is paid for by Beechdean or not?
I thought the show of hands 'vote' at the end was pointless and maybe pathetic.
'do we have a mandate for continuing our talks?'
Of course we should explore all possibilities. The show of hands was an obvious attempt to sell to the plants in the room
So what alternative way would you have used to judge the mood of those who attended? Surely if only a few people had raised their hands that would have been a strong indication that there was no appetite to continue the talks?
I think what he means is that they require no mandate as such to hold talks, as they have been doing so already.
As @LX1 might have said, I strongly object to being described as a plant.
Slow as ever, I’ve only just noticed that it was ‘imself that made the comment!
What was the show of hands as a rough percentage? I was listening to the stream so couldn’t see.
On the fundamentally moot point about motivation (and I agree that the “wanting to have fun on the journey” or words to that effect was hardly persuasive), I wonder if, with the GA five year contract, the three year deal for Jason McCarthy, other shrewd squad reinforcements and a growing fan base, thoughts may be harboured of a flirtation (however brief) with the Championship. Yeovil, Burton and probably others that I have forgotten have managed it so why not us?
I would guess at circa 80%
90+
@glasshalffull I'm willing to believe everyone is working for the best of the club...just retain the right to be dubious. Devon's statement that the ground is worth nothing so there's no need to worry our silly little heads about the nasty men in suits just got my goat.
Forgive my ignorance but does any Director, board member, shareholder, legacy member and so forth stand to gain financially if new minority or majority shareholders come in? I mean gain in a way that is already known about and above board, for example, if the financial position of the club is above X at year end then Mr/Ms Y will receive a bonus or somesuch.
In deciding if and when I am asked to vote on anything I will want to know not just what any investor gets from any stake but also what anyone already involved in the club and ground may gain (or lose) financially and in other less tangible areas.
My biggest fear is that majority ownership will be sold to a person or group who think they can get Wycombe into the Championship simply by putting some money in. What happens if that success doesn't happen or, as in the cases of Yeovil and Burton to which you refer, doesn't last long? Will they still want to keep putting money in when they realise it isn't quite as simple (or cheap) to buy success as they first thought? What if that pursuit of success just leaves us back where we are in League One, or possibly in League Two, with bigger debts and less sustainable costs? If they decide they want away at that stage it would be entirely up to them who they sold the club on to and the fans would have no power to stop them, even if we all felt the next owner to be highly undesirable and disastrous for the future of the club.
The only thing we would potentially be able to do, if ownership of Adams Park is retained by the Trust via FALL, would be to make some kind of statement by refusing to let the new owner's team play there, but why would we really want to do that? That would just leave us with an unused, rapidly depreciating asset that would cost more to maintain than it generates in income.
I would much rather be Daedelus, still flapping my wings for years to come in League One or Two or, yes, even in the National League or National League South, than I would be Icarus, having briefly skimmed the heights of the Championship only to crash and burn out of existence, waiting for that other mythical footballing creature, the Phoenix Club, to hatch at whatever lower level it is permitted to start life in.
For the record, and to @Wendoverman's point, WDC have a history of granting planning permission for building on greenfield, conservation and AONB. Here's a report they produced, which some might read as laying out the case for AONB development.
Yeovil and Burton haven't crashed and been burnt out of existence, merely reverted back to their rightful place.
@drcongo I am shocked and stunned by the idea WDC would behave that way. @mooneyman agree....if someone has the cash, no hidden agenda and just wants the challenge and fun of efficiently running a yo-yo club that will do for me.
@DevC As the ground has no worth and cannot be developed did you think Hayes was so keen to move us because he was going to build a park for underprivileged donkeys or a bird sanctuary/conservation park on the site once we had been evicted?
I didn't say they had crashed and burned, only that they didn't remain for long at Championship level.
Wendover.
I am not quite sure why you would deliberately misrepresent what I said. But whatever.
What I did say, is in my opinion (but acknowledged that I might be wrong) it is extremely unlikely that it would be possible to get planning permission for residential development on the Adams park land. It would I suspect be possible to get permission for industrial units but they have a much lower land value then resi and hence obviously much lower value for any asset stripping.
I then asked you whether it would be useful information for you if the club obtained an independent expert opinion on the likely disposal value of the land. You chose to ignore that question.
and so another opportunity for constructive conversation about an important issue for the club slips away.
No stakes or profitable outcomes exist for any directors or associates unless the training ground lease was ever turn up and those three benefactors who own it sold it for a profit which is their right of course but highly unlikely as the TG arrangement works well for the club .
If financial outcomes from a sale and any bias that may create in decision making is your concern the only people who would “ benefit” per se are the clubs creditors . Around £950k of debt remains according to the FD on Wednesday night of which around £450k is choirboy funders - please correct me if my memory is wrong in detail .
One or two people make up a large portion of that debt as funders if around £100k each or more. Theoretically if any of those are agitating for repayment or need repayment for any variety of reasons , and had influence on the board , then there could be a bias towards selling the club at board level.
I don’t know this to be the case , just outlining a response to possibilities. What is fact is that directors ( either elected or appointed) have funds loaned to the club and at least one directors ( I won’t specify if elected or not ) direct family members have significant cash invested as chairboy funders . This is on public record and not speculation.
I don’t think pressure from
Creditors or lenders is a pressure creating bias in the decision making but it is possible and deserving of the question being asked manboobs
Read the report I posted above @DevC, you could upgrade your "extremely unlikely" to a "fairly likely"
Just catching up with all the posts this morning but just wanted to say this from @marlowchair is probably the best post I've ever read on this board. I agree with every word of it. There are so many pertinent questions to the Trust that need asking right now. We've only been given very limited information about what's going on behind the scenes - hence why this thread is full of guesswork and innuendo. This is such a serious matter that I would hope all questions will be answered in a open and timely way. Having indicated a certain level of transparency by holding the meeting on Tuesday I hope the Trust doesn't now clam up and consider the consultation process over until they need us to vote on whatever proposal is deemed worthy of being put to us.
Good, helpful and non-emotive post. Thanks @marlowchair.
I do hope we aren’t funding choirboys though...
Particularly if we're not funding choirgirls!
brilliant post from Marlow Chair- does anyone know who is standing for re-election at the agm in november? They used to say but have stopped doing so and don't publish monthly meeting notes.Marlow chair would get my vote if he/she was to stand. Football club creditors should not be the people to evaluate what is in the best interests of shareholders/trust members given they have never been elected and are not on the Trust board.
@DevC I acknowledge you might be wrong about that too.
Yes thank you @marlowchair understating the pressures on, and motivations of, all parties in the upcoming decisions will be key. As I’ve said before, I am worried about investors who want to be part of ‘the fun’ of having a stake in the club. To me the ‘fun’ seems no more guaranteed than, and somewhat equivalent to, football fortune (cup run, promotion, growing a future star player). I recall it said that one or more consortia would have loved to have been part of the promotion experience at Chesterfield. With enough cash they could maybe reasonably think a similar experience will come again in a few years. After that though, what is left for ‘fun’? Would mid table championship every year be fun enough for them, even if they are genuine ‘Old Bucks Boys’ as alongside that there’s the hard graft of running the operation, wheeling and dealing, and so on. And how often would the chairman’s cheque book have be opened to keep us in the ‘fun’ zone? And as others have said, if they walk away what prevents the next consortia having the worst of motives.