The trust raised money for the share issue under Supporters Direct operating 'democratically, fairly and transparently' and run 'for the long term interest of the community' - they have failed to do so. Why trust a management who have failed so spectacularly in everything we voted them in to do. The football club creditors run the club, the chairman is conflicted by being on the payroll of one of the creditors, the creditors cherrypick which option best suits them screening potential bidders before the trust members even get to hear about it. The meeting last week was about directing traffic, do you want to be a Portsmouth (100% owned) and gosh can we compete with Havant's wage bill and a misrepresentation of the meeting by a previously mute BFP. They are responsible for the budget, they monitor this on a monthly basis, they chose not to worry about players budget and have put our club at risk. The two choices as presented - as screened - are those that suit non-elected individuals. They won't give us the report and accounts before AGMs but are happy to share with anyone else in spite of them being ready before the AGM, they can give 25% away without a vote and if you want the slides you have to write in. How arrogant can these people be that although they have the email addresses they choose not to give you what you are entitled to unless you doff your cap and say pretty please.
I don't trust them and I don't know anybody that does.
He left school and worked in the bank ( nat Westminster) for 15 years in retail banking. Starting as a teller as most did at the time , working his way around different roles and departments in local and regional branches. Nothing to be joked about it’s a good career. A short stint commercial lending before going into consultancy.
A great career and certainly a good cv for a director of Wwfc,
But I asked what his qualifications are?
I’d argue that as we are needing some serious accountancy and financial modelling support on our proposed structure going forward , we really need some formally qualified support in that area.
It was said at the meeting that we have a solicitor Mr Smith on the board who will do much of the with before outsourcing , a good approach.
I argue that the same approach at a minimum should be applied to the financial side of things, and am asking , is it?
When one makes criticisms of players, it is understood one is doing so from a position of relative ignorance and > @eric_plant said:
@HCblue said:
"Starry-eyed" should be hyphenated and it's "diametrically".
If you're going to make ad hominem attacks on a person who works so hard for the good of the club, spelling them correctly makes you look literate even if your bitterness and willingness to judge harshly and partially remain evident.
poor start to the week
Possibly. Woke up in a perfectly sound temper but rather fed-up with the constant sniping and thus felt uncommonly willing to judge another by his own critical standards.
My last one sent itself without my wishing it to go, though it somehow made a small measure of sense even though it as a couple of different thoughts in draft form.
@Malone said: @HCblue . I don't think a couple of minor mistakes on an internet forum discredits @marlowchair somehow do you?
Not really the issue or my intended point. Marlowchair discredits himself, to my mind, with his increasingly snidely-adjectived criticisms, unsupported by signficant substance. It may be he has the benefit of some inside knowledge that might enlighten the room. If so, he should share it rather than doing as he is.
I suggest that the people who volunteer their time to run the club as best they can, with rather more expertise than it is clear anyone on this forum possesses, deserves better than to be sniped at in this way. I find it toxic and think it would be much better if there was a civilised discussion about the issues arising from Thursday's meeting.
So what we know so far, is that the consortium that are being highlighted by the board, and it appears to be pole position. They a group that has previously owned a club in the EFL in the last few years,and are the club involved was not geograpicaly close to WWFC, has bought and sold 1000's of companies, and could possibly be from overseas ?
I wonder if anyone of our whizzkids with time on their hands, could go through the 70 odd clubs and eliminate those that dont fall into those catergories.
It would probably whittle those down to a handful, and maybe a clearer picture of whom the possible investors are ?
@peterparrotface said:
"with rather more expertise than it is clear anyone on this forum possesses"
How do you know that?
I understand Andrew Howard to be responsible for the creation and running for early thirty years of a hugely successful company. No-one on here has ever made it known that they have similar accomplishments. That's how.
@peterparrotface said:
"with rather more expertise than it is clear anyone on this forum possesses"
How do you know that?
I understand Andrew Howard to be responsible for the creation and running for early thirty years of a hugely successful company. No-one on here has ever made it known that they have similar accomplishments. That's how.
I've never known anyone on here to make their accomplishments in life known, so I don't think a sweeping statement like this really helps anything.
To confirm -s I am not Marlow Chair. Regarding running successful companies, the chairman's background is in selling dried fruit and nuts unless you are suggesting the sporting director is running the club?
@peterparrotface said:
"with rather more expertise than it is clear anyone on this forum possesses"
How do you know that?
I understand Andrew Howard to be responsible for the creation and running for early thirty years of a hugely successful company. No-one on here has ever made it known that they have similar accomplishments. That's how.
He’s not an elected director.besides that he is sporting director who oversees what we all seem to agree is an exceptionally well performing department at our club. Terrible example!
It's a fairly clear and reasonable proposition, I think, @peterparrotface.
Statement A: (Ideally, with the benefit of experience in the running of a large business on a scale comparable to the football club) I have the following observations/ concerns about the current situation...
Statement B: We're all having the wool pulled over our eyes by a board with vested interests including the desire to hide their own incompetence.
Statement A has a substance and background that merits further discussion. Statement B is on the same level as the "What's Gareth doing picking X? X is useless" comments that many of us perhaps lapse into but do so knowing we have much less expertise than those involved and understanding that, while it might be OK to vent occasionally, it would be wrong to pretend our thoughts should be attended to and certainly not in order to make personal criticisms of those involved. There's been too much of the latter from certain quarters lately for my tastes (though I welcome the more measured observations made just now on the other thread by marlow.
I use him as an example to counter the suggestion that the club is riddled with inexperienced incompetence. (I'd also be really surprised if he had no part in discussions about the club's future.)
@NiceCarrots said:
The trust raised money for the share issue under Supporters Direct operating 'democratically, fairly and transparently' and run 'for the long term interest of the community' - they have failed to do so. Why trust a management who have failed so spectacularly in everything we voted them in to do. The football club creditors run the club, the chairman is conflicted by being on the payroll of one of the creditors, the creditors cherrypick which option best suits them screening potential bidders before the trust members even get to hear about it. The meeting last week was about directing traffic, do you want to be a Portsmouth (100% owned) and gosh can we compete with Havant's wage bill and a misrepresentation of the meeting by a previously mute BFP. They are responsible for the budget, they monitor this on a monthly basis, they chose not to worry about players budget and have put our club at risk. The two choices as presented - as screened - are those that suit non-elected individuals. They won't give us the report and accounts before AGMs but are happy to share with anyone else in spite of them being ready before the AGM, they can give 25% away without a vote and if you want the slides you have to write in. How arrogant can these people be that although they have the email addresses they choose not to give you what you are entitled to unless you doff your cap and say pretty please.
I don't trust them and I don't know anybody that does.
@peterparrotface said:
"with rather more expertise than it is clear anyone on this forum possesses"
How do you know that?
I understand Andrew Howard to be responsible for the creation and running for early thirty years of a hugely successful company. No-one on here has ever made it known that they have similar accomplishments. That's how.
I've never known anyone on here to make their accomplishments in life known, so I don't think a sweeping statement like this really helps anything.
didn't @bourne70 once post a bizarre rant in which he told us all what a great salesman he was and how much money he had made?
@HCblue if I recall rightly, you've mentioned in the past that you're a teacher - and I believe @OxfordBlue works in betting, @glasshalffull has a background in sports commentary and @micra used to be a weather forecaster but other than that, very few of our professions are known. If one of your pupils wrote in an essay that people on this forum have much less expertise than those on the board I'm sure you'd mark it down for being a sweeping statement with no evidence behind it at all.
Quite right about my job, @aloysius and correct that I would be critical of an essay that made unevidenced claims of the sort you describe. However, I have not done that.
My statement: "with rather more expertise than it is clear anyone on this forum possesses" should (and can properly!) be read as meaning that no-one here has presented themselves as having a measure of experience qualifying them to make meaningful criticisms of the way the board runs the club, at least not without some substance behind the criticisms as opposed to pejorative adjectives.
@HCblue said:
I use him as an example to counter the suggestion that the club is riddled with inexperienced incompetence. (I'd also be really surprised if he had no part in discussions about the club's future.)
He is unelected by trust members, so I would expect and hope good governance is excercised and he has very limited input and influence in discussions about the clubs future.
The club board and the trust board must have a conflict of interest policy and it would be the directors' legal responsibility to make sure everyone behaved accordingly with no exceptions whether they stood for election or not or whether they are chairman or not.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion caused by the overlap of Trust and Football Club board membership.
Comments about a particular member or members of the Football Club board being unelected are spurious given that, unless I am mistaken, none of the Football Club board have been elected to serve on it. They are appointed by the Trust board, the members of which have been elected by the Trust membership for the stated purpose, amongst other responsibilities, of appointing and employing the Football Club board and directors.
The fact that elected members of Trust board also serve as members of the Football Club board gives rise to some confusion and, as I know has been discussed previously on other threads in this forum, potential for conflicts of interest. I understood that the presentation on 12th September regarding the possibility of selling part or all of the Football Club was being made by Trevor Stroud and Mark Burrell in their capacity as elected members of the Trust board, not in their capacity as members of the Football Club board, so non-elected Football Club directors have nothing to do with it.
May I remind all Gasroom posters to submit their feedback to last week's meeting and presentation by email to [email protected] or [email protected] within the next few days as the Trust Board will be reviewing that feedback next week.
Not all Trust Directors have the time to follow every post on the Gasroom.
There is nothing wrong with asking why we have not been informed of the other bidders and how our leaders came to choose the one they favour. Apologies if I missed something...not hard for someone with a goldfish brain and the War and Peace length of some of these threads...or was that explained at the meeting? And yes...having run thousands of companies and previously owned an EFL club might beg the questions which companies and why they are no longer running an EFL club....?
F.A.O. Alan Cecil given you read the gasroom most days please inform the board as to what is being said. Sorry for asking about TStroud and Beechdean but surely it must have been minuted before he started and members should be informed when he first received payment so they can assess how indpendent his views are. Thanx.
@aloysius I don’t work in betting, I do advertising and digital operations for a group of sports websites including football. My brother works in sports betting though!
Comments
The trust raised money for the share issue under Supporters Direct operating 'democratically, fairly and transparently' and run 'for the long term interest of the community' - they have failed to do so. Why trust a management who have failed so spectacularly in everything we voted them in to do. The football club creditors run the club, the chairman is conflicted by being on the payroll of one of the creditors, the creditors cherrypick which option best suits them screening potential bidders before the trust members even get to hear about it. The meeting last week was about directing traffic, do you want to be a Portsmouth (100% owned) and gosh can we compete with Havant's wage bill and a misrepresentation of the meeting by a previously mute BFP. They are responsible for the budget, they monitor this on a monthly basis, they chose not to worry about players budget and have put our club at risk. The two choices as presented - as screened - are those that suit non-elected individuals. They won't give us the report and accounts before AGMs but are happy to share with anyone else in spite of them being ready before the AGM, they can give 25% away without a vote and if you want the slides you have to write in. How arrogant can these people be that although they have the email addresses they choose not to give you what you are entitled to unless you doff your cap and say pretty please.
I don't trust them and I don't know anybody that does.
Did you read that before commenting?
He left school and worked in the bank ( nat Westminster) for 15 years in retail banking. Starting as a teller as most did at the time , working his way around different roles and departments in local and regional branches. Nothing to be joked about it’s a good career. A short stint commercial lending before going into consultancy.
A great career and certainly a good cv for a director of Wwfc,
But I asked what his qualifications are?
I’d argue that as we are needing some serious accountancy and financial modelling support on our proposed structure going forward , we really need some formally qualified support in that area.
It was said at the meeting that we have a solicitor Mr Smith on the board who will do much of the with before outsourcing , a good approach.
I argue that the same approach at a minimum should be applied to the financial side of things, and am asking , is it?
@HCblue . I don't think a couple of minor mistakes on an internet forum discredits @marlowchair somehow do you?
When one makes criticisms of players, it is understood one is doing so from a position of relative ignorance and > @eric_plant said:
Possibly. Woke up in a perfectly sound temper but rather fed-up with the constant sniping and thus felt uncommonly willing to judge another by his own critical standards.
Well said @NiceCarrots
My last one sent itself without my wishing it to go, though it somehow made a small measure of sense even though it as a couple of different thoughts in draft form.
Not really the issue or my intended point. Marlowchair discredits himself, to my mind, with his increasingly snidely-adjectived criticisms, unsupported by signficant substance. It may be he has the benefit of some inside knowledge that might enlighten the room. If so, he should share it rather than doing as he is.
I suggest that the people who volunteer their time to run the club as best they can, with rather more expertise than it is clear anyone on this forum possesses, deserves better than to be sniped at in this way. I find it toxic and think it would be much better if there was a civilised discussion about the issues arising from Thursday's meeting.
Can Nicecarrots confirm that he is not marlowchair in disguise? The similarities in their posts are remarkable.
So what we know so far, is that the consortium that are being highlighted by the board, and it appears to be pole position. They a group that has previously owned a club in the EFL in the last few years,and are the club involved was not geograpicaly close to WWFC, has bought and sold 1000's of companies, and could possibly be from overseas ?
I wonder if anyone of our whizzkids with time on their hands, could go through the 70 odd clubs and eliminate those that dont fall into those catergories.
It would probably whittle those down to a handful, and maybe a clearer picture of whom the possible investors are ?
"with rather more expertise than it is clear anyone on this forum possesses"
How do you know that?
He/she might not confirm it but I certainly will.
I understand Andrew Howard to be responsible for the creation and running for early thirty years of a hugely successful company. No-one on here has ever made it known that they have similar accomplishments. That's how.
I've never known anyone on here to make their accomplishments in life known, so I don't think a sweeping statement like this really helps anything.
To confirm -s I am not Marlow Chair. Regarding running successful companies, the chairman's background is in selling dried fruit and nuts unless you are suggesting the sporting director is running the club?
He’s not an elected director.besides that he is sporting director who oversees what we all seem to agree is an exceptionally well performing department at our club. Terrible example!
It's a fairly clear and reasonable proposition, I think, @peterparrotface.
Statement A: (Ideally, with the benefit of experience in the running of a large business on a scale comparable to the football club) I have the following observations/ concerns about the current situation...
Statement B: We're all having the wool pulled over our eyes by a board with vested interests including the desire to hide their own incompetence.
Statement A has a substance and background that merits further discussion. Statement B is on the same level as the "What's Gareth doing picking X? X is useless" comments that many of us perhaps lapse into but do so knowing we have much less expertise than those involved and understanding that, while it might be OK to vent occasionally, it would be wrong to pretend our thoughts should be attended to and certainly not in order to make personal criticisms of those involved. There's been too much of the latter from certain quarters lately for my tastes (though I welcome the more measured observations made just now on the other thread by marlow.
I use him as an example to counter the suggestion that the club is riddled with inexperienced incompetence. (I'd also be really surprised if he had no part in discussions about the club's future.)
Well said Sir...?
didn't @bourne70 once post a bizarre rant in which he told us all what a great salesman he was and how much money he had made?
@HCblue if I recall rightly, you've mentioned in the past that you're a teacher - and I believe @OxfordBlue works in betting, @glasshalffull has a background in sports commentary and @micra used to be a weather forecaster but other than that, very few of our professions are known. If one of your pupils wrote in an essay that people on this forum have much less expertise than those on the board I'm sure you'd mark it down for being a sweeping statement with no evidence behind it at all.
Quite right about my job, @aloysius and correct that I would be critical of an essay that made unevidenced claims of the sort you describe. However, I have not done that.
My statement: "with rather more expertise than it is clear anyone on this forum possesses" should (and can properly!) be read as meaning that no-one here has presented themselves as having a measure of experience qualifying them to make meaningful criticisms of the way the board runs the club, at least not without some substance behind the criticisms as opposed to pejorative adjectives.
We’ve been informed before that @Wwfc2015_ has quite a fortune from his exploits in the world of business.
Now that is a truly scary thought @arnos_grove .
He is unelected by trust members, so I would expect and hope good governance is excercised and he has very limited input and influence in discussions about the clubs future.
The club board and the trust board must have a conflict of interest policy and it would be the directors' legal responsibility to make sure everyone behaved accordingly with no exceptions whether they stood for election or not or whether they are chairman or not.
Certainly the interests of WWFC should override any potential personal vendettas standing in the way of considering any of the would-be investors.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion caused by the overlap of Trust and Football Club board membership.
Comments about a particular member or members of the Football Club board being unelected are spurious given that, unless I am mistaken, none of the Football Club board have been elected to serve on it. They are appointed by the Trust board, the members of which have been elected by the Trust membership for the stated purpose, amongst other responsibilities, of appointing and employing the Football Club board and directors.
The fact that elected members of Trust board also serve as members of the Football Club board gives rise to some confusion and, as I know has been discussed previously on other threads in this forum, potential for conflicts of interest. I understood that the presentation on 12th September regarding the possibility of selling part or all of the Football Club was being made by Trevor Stroud and Mark Burrell in their capacity as elected members of the Trust board, not in their capacity as members of the Football Club board, so non-elected Football Club directors have nothing to do with it.
May I remind all Gasroom posters to submit their feedback to last week's meeting and presentation by email to [email protected] or [email protected] within the next few days as the Trust Board will be reviewing that feedback next week.
Not all Trust Directors have the time to follow every post on the Gasroom.
There is nothing wrong with asking why we have not been informed of the other bidders and how our leaders came to choose the one they favour. Apologies if I missed something...not hard for someone with a goldfish brain and the War and Peace length of some of these threads...or was that explained at the meeting? And yes...having run thousands of companies and previously owned an EFL club might beg the questions which companies and why they are no longer running an EFL club....?
F.A.O. Alan Cecil given you read the gasroom most days please inform the board as to what is being said. Sorry for asking about TStroud and Beechdean but surely it must have been minuted before he started and members should be informed when he first received payment so they can assess how indpendent his views are. Thanx.
@aloysius I don’t work in betting, I do advertising and digital operations for a group of sports websites including football. My brother works in sports betting though!