Nicecarrots, Alan Cecil has already indicated how people should make their feelings known through the correct channels so why should it be down to him to communicate the differing views?
A few people have mentioned that they were unable to attend the meeting or listen in to the live stream. Please remember that Trust Members may obtain copies of the presentation slides by email request to [email protected]
@Uncle_T said:
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.
Excellent contribution. I don’t think there was any doubt messrs Stroud and Burrell were present or representing the trust board in their elected positions. But the confusion you rightly point out that exists is understandable given Mr Beeks and Mr Howard have been the ones hosting the potential buyers at home and away matches giving the clear impression they are leading the negotiations to onlookers and other trust directors.
Adding to that,anyone with a passing interest or involvement at meetings either public member AGMs or trust meetings , or other club business in recent years can be in little doubt that both Stroud and Burrell defer fully to Mr Howard on most , if not all matters.
Personally I prefer that given the experience of all three men and Howard’s results running football, but it’s not a good governance model in my opinion
@glasshalffull , perhaps Nicecarrots would prefer not to write direct to the person he is suggesting may not have acted in the proper manner. Asking another Trust board member to pass this on seems reasonable to me. I am sure that Alan Cecil will convey the remarks.
@Wendoverman said:
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....?
To be fair did they say used to run an EFL club?
I understand they still have shareholding in one championship club.
@wformation said: @glasshalffull , perhaps Nicecarrots would prefer not to write direct to the person he is suggesting may not have acted in the proper manner. Asking another Trust board member to pass this on seems reasonable to me. I am sure that Alan Cecil will convey the remarks.
Given the number of comments on this and other threads, it would be best if individual members followed the prescribed route for their feedback. If anyone has issue with writing to Trevor or Mark, then they can email me via [email protected]
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.
@wformation said: @glasshalffull , perhaps Nicecarrots would prefer not to write direct to the person he is suggesting may not have acted in the proper manner. Asking another Trust board member to pass this on seems reasonable to me. I am sure that Alan Cecil will convey the remarks.
I disagree. Nicecarrots has made statements about many issues, not just one in particular. I also understood his post to suggest that Alan Cecil should be communicating all the opinions expressed on here, not just those that Nicecarrots himself has expressed.
Is the suggestion that the Trust Board should take into account the views of people who are not prepared to put their names to those views?
Really? Seriously?
I think that by doing so they could leave themselves open to genuine criticism from members who do have sufficient confidence in their opinions, and in the Board's ability not to be offended by them, to let their names be known.
@Wig_and_Pen said:
Is the suggestion that the Trust Board should take into account the views of people who are not prepared to put their names to those views?
Really? Seriously?
I think that by doing so they could leave themselves open to genuine criticism from members who do have sufficient confidence in their opinions, and in the Board's ability not to be offended by them, to let their names be known.
Your point is well made.unfortunately at previous public meetings people who have spoken up or asked sensitive questions have been stood over and bullied. A Member raised concerns at an AGM about the training ground purchase situation and was abused by the then Chairman who lost his cool needlessly. The FD rose sensitively to a very reasonable question only last week. People have had calls to “ come for a coffee” with the chairman or directors whenever they raise an alternate position or question the status quo. People have been directly encouraged to withdraw their interest in standing for election as it would “ upset the apple cart” so to speak.
How does any of that encourage constructive debate?
Putting the qualification of the FD aside for a minute, (and who on the Board has actual experience of selling a stake in a football club?)my main concern is that we run the risk of treating this as some kind of management consulting exercise. Hence the use of that awful terminology that they will be coming on "a journey" with us. This is our beloved football clubs future that is at stake for goodness sake. Lets get the right blend of professionalism in negotiation with an honesty that reflects the heartfelt wishes of the membership to retain a viable football club and one that puts the interests of its supporters first and foremost
@North_of_the_Border said:
Putting the qualification of the FD aside for a minute, (and who on the Board has actual experience of selling a stake in a football club?)my main concern is that we run the risk of treating this as some kind of management consulting exercise. Hence the use of that awful terminology that they will be coming on "a journey" with us. This is our beloved football clubs future that is at stake for goodness sake. Lets get the right blend of professionalism in negotiation with an honesty that reflects the heartfelt wishes of the membership to retain a viable football club and one that puts the interests of its supporters first and foremost
Absolutely first class contribution this,could not agree more.
@North_of_the_Border I agree it comes down to are we going to potentially miss the chance to give the club a sustainable future with a healthy amount of fan representation now rather than a fire sale a couple of years down the road or are we being led down the garden path again with a buyer coming in and gradually reducing our influence and gradually easing the supporters out of any decision making.
Your point is well made.unfortunately at previous public meetings people who have spoken up or asked sensitive questions have been stood over and bullied. A Member raised concerns at an AGM about the training ground purchase situation and was abused by the then Chairman who lost his cool needlessly. The FD rose sensitively to a very reasonable question only last week. People have had calls to “ come for a coffee” with the chairman or directors whenever they raise an alternate position or question the status quo. People have been directly encouraged to withdraw their interest in standing for election as it would “ upset the apple cart” so to speak.
How does any of that encourage constructive debate?
Surely the point is that here feedback does not need to be given face to face. It can be, of course, and probably is being, but if there are individuals who (for whatever reason) are nervous of face to face conversation with any of the Trust directors then they are expressly being invited to comment in writing. I still don't see that it is right that the Trust Board should give any weight to the views of those who post anonymously on here.
@marlowchair what is your suggestion for moving forward? And I ask this in all seriousness having had a look at the slides. Is your stand that we could survive Trust owned with no outside investment if we were simply run better? Or that with offers being made, negotiations for a sale of some sort are inevitable and so should be conducted at a higher professional level? I'm not looking for an argument, just an idea of what your view as someone with 'inside knowledge' (I'll also be asking richie later, of course) would be. I know this smacks of another Project Fear and I'm certainly no business brain, I would be loathe to give selling any sort of nod, but I'm not sure what the upshot of kicking these unknown buyers into touch might be.
and I agree with you. They do read it though,the phones and chit chat run hot between the key power brokers every time someone puts something on here that makes them nervous, which is rather often. So they do read and react to what is on here and I for one hope they listen. They can be in little doubt as to what trust members do know about and care about so they are certainly on notice about their directors obligations both legally and morally. That’s always a good thing in this world we live in.
So now we know. The board are obviously listening to the voices on the Facebook group and have decided the only way to please the masses is to sell the soul of the club.
They are the future of the club unlike this backwater of a forum for ancient, rose-tinted glasses wearers.
Maybe we should add a poll to this thread? Yes for investment, minority or majority. No meaning we wish to remain a fan run football club, even though we may have to accept the fact that we will need to cut our cloth to suit.
@marlowchair wrote at 3:58
Mr Beeks and Mr Howard have been the ones hosting the potential buyers at home and away matches
Did I miss something? Have Mr Beeks & Mr Howard been hosting potential buyers? When was this confirmed?
I'm sure it's true, just I don't remember that being stated anywhere.
The slides from the meeting talk about how "we recognise the need for transparency." Yet they sign off on accounts in October 2017 but don't give them to members at the AGM in November 2017. This is not the first time Burrell and Shroud has held back the release of the accounts from members at the AGM. The slides, a pre-written and no doubt vetted script, do not include the questions that were asked as happened previously. Members have to get them by emailing when the trust already have our email addresses. This AGM 2018 won't have a meeting to discuss the accounts until a fortnight after the event. Stroud talked at last year's AGM about the conflict of interest with him being chairman of both boards. That was November 2017 which makes his start date on the payroll at Beechdean a critical date. If he was already being paid by Beechdean before November's AGM and he omitted to tell the members then his credibility is shot. Irrespective as to what happens and with whom the trust members are entitled to know whether Stroud is independent. They used to -in recognising 'the need for transparency" - tell you who was re-standing for election tell you who but obviously now they don't. Who is standing for re-election, will the trust tell us or are members expected to email every board member individually?
If posts like this and those from Marlowchair demonstrate the ‘benefits’ of being Trust owned then it strengthens the case for outside investment. The constant allegations, accusations and unsubstantiated rumours from people who had the chance to raise these points on September 12 and still have that option via email are destabilising.
Earlier posts suggest that they have the right to make these claims and yet remain anonymous but I don’t agree. If you’re going to make accusations of wrongdoing and incompetence I would have a lot more respect for you if you were to do so up front rather than on a forum like this. What do you have to lose?
Apologies for my posting above regarding the date the A/Cs were signed off, the accounts were signed off on the 21st November and not October as I posted above. The AGM was held on the 29th November.
Alan, it's a bit rich complaining about people's anonymity on here when you refused to reveal who you were for weeks after joining, obfuscated when asked directly numerous times and only came out when the sheer weight of evidence against you made your denials untenable.
There is a very clear allegation that's been leveled against Trevor Stroud and has been since the beginning of the summer. In the last few days it's been made repeatedly on here. Marlowchair tells us that board members read this board regularly - frankly I would be amazed if they didn't and I would treat that as a dereliction of duty given they are in place to represent supporters. Alan Cecil sets an admirable example in regularly posting on here, as did Dale Jenkins during his time on the board. We now have Tony Hector posting as @ForeverBlue occasionally.
The simple point is that a serious allegation of a conflict of interest has been repeatedly leveled against the Trust & Club chairman in this public space and never been denied, despite countless opportunities to do so. In my opinion this is causing real reputational damage to Mr Stroud and the whole Trust board at a time when confidence in them is vitally important.
So perhaps instead of hiding behind requesting emails (please note, Alan, not once has anyone said that any questions emailed to them will be answered) Mr Stroud or another member of the board could answer this question in public: is he employed by or any consultancy he runs contracted to Beechdean or any parent or subsidiary company of Beechdean; if so for how long and if not, has he ever been and over which dates?
Some clarity would be most welcome and hopefully put these scurrilous rumours to bed once and for all.
Firstly, when I was on the club’s board of directors I always posted on the old gas room under my real name. When I stood down from the board I started posting on the fans Facebook page under my real name but such was the level of abuse and foul language that I received that I stopped posting. I then returned to the gas room using a nom de plume in common with everyone else.
Some posters insisted that I revealed my true identity which I did. How many other people have willingly done so?
However, on your main point I am disappointed that you think allegations (the key word here) on an Internet forum carry any credibility. If people have an issue with Mr.Stroud or any other Trust director why not take it up with them directly? It’s far too easy to throw stones from a distance.
I have yet to see any willingness on the part of posters like Marlowchair and Nicecarrots to put their allegations in person or even in writing.
To be fair, Alan, I think it is right that people should be able to air their concerns on here regarding political and financial aspects of the current state of play. You have singled out two individuals who clearly feel very strongly about the way the non-footballing side of the club is being managed and who, to put it mildly, are uncomfortable about some of the people who represent the rest of us. Their feelings are clearly shared by others (generally reasonable and thoughtful people) on here and, whatever one thinks about the axe-grinding and general tone of the main protagonist, his/her posts have prompted wide-ranging discussion both on the Gasroom and elsewhere. That can only be healthy.
@glasshalffull is absolutely right on this. This is a place for relatively like-minded Wycombe fans to debate, opine, whinge, gloat and otherwise let off steam (and of course an opportunity to enhance our education on grammatical matters - keep up the good work @micra) and occasionally be entertained.
It is not remotely an official channel for the board to take notes on. If they choose to do so and provide helpful comments as @alancecil does from time to time that is to be welcomed but shouldn’t be taken as part of any official communications.
It is also only fair that if people wish to remain anonymous that they can do on here. Berating someone for not revealing who they are is pointless as we all generally put our thoughts on here as fans and it is irrelevant whether we are a member of the board, work in the club shop, live in Devon or manically depressed.
The point about whether or not Trevor Stroud is employed by Andrew Howard is a valid question, but this is not the right forum to demand or expect an answer on.
Comments
Nicecarrots, Alan Cecil has already indicated how people should make their feelings known through the correct channels so why should it be down to him to communicate the differing views?
A few people have mentioned that they were unable to attend the meeting or listen in to the live stream. Please remember that Trust Members may obtain copies of the presentation slides by email request to [email protected]
Excellent contribution. I don’t think there was any doubt messrs Stroud and Burrell were present or representing the trust board in their elected positions. But the confusion you rightly point out that exists is understandable given Mr Beeks and Mr Howard have been the ones hosting the potential buyers at home and away matches giving the clear impression they are leading the negotiations to onlookers and other trust directors.
Adding to that,anyone with a passing interest or involvement at meetings either public member AGMs or trust meetings , or other club business in recent years can be in little doubt that both Stroud and Burrell defer fully to Mr Howard on most , if not all matters.
Personally I prefer that given the experience of all three men and Howard’s results running football, but it’s not a good governance model in my opinion
@glasshalffull , perhaps Nicecarrots would prefer not to write direct to the person he is suggesting may not have acted in the proper manner. Asking another Trust board member to pass this on seems reasonable to me. I am sure that Alan Cecil will convey the remarks.
To be fair did they say used to run an EFL club?
I understand they still have shareholding in one championship club.
Given the number of comments on this and other threads, it would be best if individual members followed the prescribed route for their feedback. If anyone has issue with writing to Trevor or Mark, then they can email me via [email protected]
@marlowchair I dunno...I think I read that somewhere...or dreamt it...or just made it up.
Right I'm with you now.
I disagree. Nicecarrots has made statements about many issues, not just one in particular. I also understood his post to suggest that Alan Cecil should be communicating all the opinions expressed on here, not just those that Nicecarrots himself has expressed.
I think @AlanCecil should buy the kiosk a new kettle and nip down the cash and carry for Mars Bars.
Is the suggestion that the Trust Board should take into account the views of people who are not prepared to put their names to those views?
Really? Seriously?
I think that by doing so they could leave themselves open to genuine criticism from members who do have sufficient confidence in their opinions, and in the Board's ability not to be offended by them, to let their names be known.
Your point is well made.unfortunately at previous public meetings people who have spoken up or asked sensitive questions have been stood over and bullied. A Member raised concerns at an AGM about the training ground purchase situation and was abused by the then Chairman who lost his cool needlessly. The FD rose sensitively to a very reasonable question only last week. People have had calls to “ come for a coffee” with the chairman or directors whenever they raise an alternate position or question the status quo. People have been directly encouraged to withdraw their interest in standing for election as it would “ upset the apple cart” so to speak.
How does any of that encourage constructive debate?
I assume 'come for a coffee' in the Putin/Kim Il Jong sense? Gawd, who knew all this was going on in leafy Bucks...?
Putting the qualification of the FD aside for a minute, (and who on the Board has actual experience of selling a stake in a football club?)my main concern is that we run the risk of treating this as some kind of management consulting exercise. Hence the use of that awful terminology that they will be coming on "a journey" with us. This is our beloved football clubs future that is at stake for goodness sake. Lets get the right blend of professionalism in negotiation with an honesty that reflects the heartfelt wishes of the membership to retain a viable football club and one that puts the interests of its supporters first and foremost
Absolutely first class contribution this,could not agree more.
@North_of_the_Border I agree it comes down to are we going to potentially miss the chance to give the club a sustainable future with a healthy amount of fan representation now rather than a fire sale a couple of years down the road or are we being led down the garden path again with a buyer coming in and gradually reducing our influence and gradually easing the supporters out of any decision making.
Surely the point is that here feedback does not need to be given face to face. It can be, of course, and probably is being, but if there are individuals who (for whatever reason) are nervous of face to face conversation with any of the Trust directors then they are expressly being invited to comment in writing. I still don't see that it is right that the Trust Board should give any weight to the views of those who post anonymously on here.
@marlowchair what is your suggestion for moving forward? And I ask this in all seriousness having had a look at the slides. Is your stand that we could survive Trust owned with no outside investment if we were simply run better? Or that with offers being made, negotiations for a sale of some sort are inevitable and so should be conducted at a higher professional level? I'm not looking for an argument, just an idea of what your view as someone with 'inside knowledge' (I'll also be asking richie later, of course) would be. I know this smacks of another Project Fear and I'm certainly no business brain, I would be loathe to give selling any sort of nod, but I'm not sure what the upshot of kicking these unknown buyers into touch might be.
and I agree with you. They do read it though,the phones and chit chat run hot between the key power brokers every time someone puts something on here that makes them nervous, which is rather often. So they do read and react to what is on here and I for one hope they listen. They can be in little doubt as to what trust members do know about and care about so they are certainly on notice about their directors obligations both legally and morally. That’s always a good thing in this world we live in.
So now we know. The board are obviously listening to the voices on the Facebook group and have decided the only way to please the masses is to sell the soul of the club.
They are the future of the club unlike this backwater of a forum for ancient, rose-tinted glasses wearers.
Maybe we should add a poll to this thread? Yes for investment, minority or majority. No meaning we wish to remain a fan run football club, even though we may have to accept the fact that we will need to cut our cloth to suit.
@marlowchair wrote at 3:58
Mr Beeks and Mr Howard have been the ones hosting the potential buyers at home and away matches
Did I miss something? Have Mr Beeks & Mr Howard been hosting potential buyers? When was this confirmed?
I'm sure it's true, just I don't remember that being stated anywhere.
The slides from the meeting talk about how "we recognise the need for transparency." Yet they sign off on accounts in October 2017 but don't give them to members at the AGM in November 2017. This is not the first time Burrell and Shroud has held back the release of the accounts from members at the AGM. The slides, a pre-written and no doubt vetted script, do not include the questions that were asked as happened previously. Members have to get them by emailing when the trust already have our email addresses. This AGM 2018 won't have a meeting to discuss the accounts until a fortnight after the event. Stroud talked at last year's AGM about the conflict of interest with him being chairman of both boards. That was November 2017 which makes his start date on the payroll at Beechdean a critical date. If he was already being paid by Beechdean before November's AGM and he omitted to tell the members then his credibility is shot. Irrespective as to what happens and with whom the trust members are entitled to know whether Stroud is independent. They used to -in recognising 'the need for transparency" - tell you who was re-standing for election tell you who but obviously now they don't. Who is standing for re-election, will the trust tell us or are members expected to email every board member individually?
If posts like this and those from Marlowchair demonstrate the ‘benefits’ of being Trust owned then it strengthens the case for outside investment. The constant allegations, accusations and unsubstantiated rumours from people who had the chance to raise these points on September 12 and still have that option via email are destabilising.
Earlier posts suggest that they have the right to make these claims and yet remain anonymous but I don’t agree. If you’re going to make accusations of wrongdoing and incompetence I would have a lot more respect for you if you were to do so up front rather than on a forum like this. What do you have to lose?
Apologies for my posting above regarding the date the A/Cs were signed off, the accounts were signed off on the 21st November and not October as I posted above. The AGM was held on the 29th November.
Alan, it's a bit rich complaining about people's anonymity on here when you refused to reveal who you were for weeks after joining, obfuscated when asked directly numerous times and only came out when the sheer weight of evidence against you made your denials untenable.
There is a very clear allegation that's been leveled against Trevor Stroud and has been since the beginning of the summer. In the last few days it's been made repeatedly on here. Marlowchair tells us that board members read this board regularly - frankly I would be amazed if they didn't and I would treat that as a dereliction of duty given they are in place to represent supporters. Alan Cecil sets an admirable example in regularly posting on here, as did Dale Jenkins during his time on the board. We now have Tony Hector posting as @ForeverBlue occasionally.
The simple point is that a serious allegation of a conflict of interest has been repeatedly leveled against the Trust & Club chairman in this public space and never been denied, despite countless opportunities to do so. In my opinion this is causing real reputational damage to Mr Stroud and the whole Trust board at a time when confidence in them is vitally important.
So perhaps instead of hiding behind requesting emails (please note, Alan, not once has anyone said that any questions emailed to them will be answered) Mr Stroud or another member of the board could answer this question in public: is he employed by or any consultancy he runs contracted to Beechdean or any parent or subsidiary company of Beechdean; if so for how long and if not, has he ever been and over which dates?
Some clarity would be most welcome and hopefully put these scurrilous rumours to bed once and for all.
Firstly, when I was on the club’s board of directors I always posted on the old gas room under my real name. When I stood down from the board I started posting on the fans Facebook page under my real name but such was the level of abuse and foul language that I received that I stopped posting. I then returned to the gas room using a nom de plume in common with everyone else.
Some posters insisted that I revealed my true identity which I did. How many other people have willingly done so?
However, on your main point I am disappointed that you think allegations (the key word here) on an Internet forum carry any credibility. If people have an issue with Mr.Stroud or any other Trust director why not take it up with them directly? It’s far too easy to throw stones from a distance.
I have yet to see any willingness on the part of posters like Marlowchair and Nicecarrots to put their allegations in person or even in writing.
To be fair, Alan, I think it is right that people should be able to air their concerns on here regarding political and financial aspects of the current state of play. You have singled out two individuals who clearly feel very strongly about the way the non-footballing side of the club is being managed and who, to put it mildly, are uncomfortable about some of the people who represent the rest of us. Their feelings are clearly shared by others (generally reasonable and thoughtful people) on here and, whatever one thinks about the axe-grinding and general tone of the main protagonist, his/her posts have prompted wide-ranging discussion both on the Gasroom and elsewhere. That can only be healthy.
@glasshalffull is absolutely right on this. This is a place for relatively like-minded Wycombe fans to debate, opine, whinge, gloat and otherwise let off steam (and of course an opportunity to enhance our education on grammatical matters - keep up the good work @micra) and occasionally be entertained.
It is not remotely an official channel for the board to take notes on. If they choose to do so and provide helpful comments as @alancecil does from time to time that is to be welcomed but shouldn’t be taken as part of any official communications.
It is also only fair that if people wish to remain anonymous that they can do on here. Berating someone for not revealing who they are is pointless as we all generally put our thoughts on here as fans and it is irrelevant whether we are a member of the board, work in the club shop, live in Devon or manically depressed.
The point about whether or not Trevor Stroud is employed by Andrew Howard is a valid question, but this is not the right forum to demand or expect an answer on.
And @micra I don’t think he was saying that they shouldn’t air their thoughts on here. Just that they shouldn’t expect the board to respond to it.
This is exactly the place to air and debate and refine our thoughts. But that’s all it should ever be.