My real name is Mr Wendoverman so I don;t see what the problem is. @marlowchair I assume you are crafting a detailed response to my previous post? What is your opinion of what we should do moving forwards?
@aloysius said:
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.
Which Alan are you referring to in your first and fourth paragraphs please?
As I recall, I have always used my real name in the Gasroom.
Micra, I have the utmost respect for you and your opinions but I have to disagree with you on this topic. I don’t see what’s healthy about people making accusations and insinuations that could be totally unfounded when the people being accused are either unaware of the comments or choose not to respond to them on an Internet forum.
@AlanCecil I'm referring to Alan Parry, aka @glasshalffull. As you'll have seen, I compliment you in my second paragraph for your admirable transparency and willingness to engage.
Speaking of which, perhaps you can answer the question I pose in my penultimate paragraph? As I'm sure Trevor Stroud would have declared such a conflict of interest in board meetings if it indeed exists.
@aloysius said: @AlanCecil I'm referring to Alan Parry, aka @glasshalffull. As you'll have seen, I compliment you in my second paragraph for your admirable transparency and willingness to engage.
Speaking of which, perhaps you can answer the question I pose in my penultimate paragraph? As I'm sure Trevor Stroud would have declared such a conflict of interest in board meetings if it indeed exists.
Thank you for the clarification on the 'Alan' situation.
I do not attend WWFC Board meetings but all Directors of that and the Trust Board are subject to an agreed Conflicts of Interest Policy.
@Wendoverman said: @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.
Apologies Wendoverman I overlooked this as we seem to have posted similar times.
Moving forward I think we need full objectivity to make those judgements. I am not confident in the ability of those currently engaging the bidders and reconciling our financial position to provide us with an unbiased position,I’ve made that clear. But take my admitted bias out of the equation in that regard because no one persons views or opinion should influence this process, I would suggest this...
A “ friendly neutral” is needed.either a third party consultancy or someone known to the club and respected who has no political ties or relationship with the current board or management. It may be a local accountancy firm acting in the best interest of the local club or it might be a supporters direct referred industry professional or auditing firm.
I would expect as basic good practice an audit of our operations and commercial arm, HR practices, governance and finances and procurement practices. I would include protected staff interviews to ensure a full disclosure of all info and reflective feedback.
This independent audit should therefore be in the best position to provide us with the most objective unbiased actual position of our club and how we are running currently. If there is room for improvement it will tell us , and will also tell us if improvement in the areas identified would deliver any tangible bottom line financial improvement if fixed.
Only then will we know what our ceiling is in terms of performance and how close we are to achieving it. Are we miles away or are we close to running to our best possible position?
No personal sensitivities, no defensiveness by those who have tried their best,just measurement. As unbiased arms length as possible, objectivity.
If that process determines we are miles away from realising our potential financially and operationally as a supporter owned club, I would suggest we should then as priority put on hold any negotiations or notions of sale of all or any part of our club, and deal firstly with the issues at hand.get our house in order firstly so to speak. If that requires a new group of directors or overhaul of senior management and processes then so be it,get it done.
Re-visit the process in 24 months and see what,if any improvements have been made.
If the initial audit process identifies our club is operating to 85% or better of it’s potential. And the audit shows that without investment our model is only viable with football fortune for the short to mid term. I would argue that we are giving it a decent go but it would be prudent to explore the investment models further.
That process in my opinion should also be run by a third party . Not the decision making, but the canvassing , attracting of, compiling of and tabling of a short list for presentations to our board and membership both by the third party consulting or accountants ( BDO or Deloitte even) . (The current position sees us potentially considering 2 or 3 options that have gone thru a quasi process of elimination based on qualitative and emotive tests performed by directors who are conflicted by definition.we need a true and thorough market position-who else is out there? On What criteria have the remaining bidders been selected on? On what criteria were others disqualified from being considered ?)
We then arrive at the most pure, objective position possible for members and directors alike to judge and consider the best market options available to us and directors will not be biased towards one option or another, they will be safe (and rightly proud) in the knowledge that an independent process had found they governed our club to the best part of its optimal performance and put in place a transparent and robust process to identify new investment options for the membership to consider and decide on the clubs future.
Sounds a sensible approach. My experience of auditors (actually quite a bit) does suggest that to be truly effective and independent if won’t exactly be cheap, and I’m a little cynical about how accurate any effectiveness potential percentage could be given the variables involved, but given the stakes probably worth doing something along those lines.
Great input @marlowchair. That should certainly be the basis of an email to Mr Stroud. All the suggestions therein are beneficial and will ensure the club has a real understanding of its standalone capabilities and if needed, confirm the best investor partner and exactly where they can improve our operation.
Surely no one would deny us this level of clarity?
@bookertease said:
Sounds a sensible approach. My experience of auditors (actually quite a bit) does suggest that to be truly effective and independent if won’t exactly be cheap, and I’m a little cynical about how accurate any effectiveness potential percentage could be given the variables involved, but given the stakes probably worth doing something along those lines.
Yes you make a great point but I would hope the cost could be limited,for example if serious bidding parties are genuine in proposing they are willing to invest what must at least be a few million to be our loyal partners,representing and reflecting our supporter values wanting to go on a journey with us , then £5000 from each bidder on a non-refundable basis to go towards due diligence on behalf of the trust members surely isn’t too much to ask?
Sounds good to me and I'm sure if you get Gareth to explain to an independent auditor that we are little wycombe and we have to cut our cloth, they might do us a deal on the money. Or perhaps the bidders could all chip in to pay for it. (This does not constitute any sort of contract...)
@marlowchair, thank you for your well written and thoughtful suggestion. It certainly seems to be a reasonable next step. However, I feel that there are a couple of potential issues it would raise in itself.
Firstly, it perhaps should have been started 12 to 14 months ago, though nothing that we can do about that now. In triggering this off and thus not taking swift action regarding investment, we may be adding a destabilizing element to the club at a difficult time in that we're trying to maintain our status within L1 whilst retaining our playing staff and management team (GA). It would be all too easy to introduce a feeling of 'lack of ambition' (the players would probably just see this as money), lose GA and his team and subsequently find ourselves in freefall. No amount of audit, honesty or planning will help at that point and we would be facing potential extinction.
My feeling is that it is this concern that is partially behind the current Board thinking in that even if an independent audit underlines their actions as totally correct, by the time it has reported and we've voted, we would have 'missed the boat' to say the least.
I have to say that I have no internal knowledge of club operations except by talking occasionally to Board members and staff and it is just my instinct driving my thoughts. Remembering that our Board are volunteers and that the full time nature of some of the roles is not going to be helpful to their finances, the potential personal financial complexities at this level are unlikely to have any direct affect upon the decision making or running of the club even if a so called 'conflict of interests' is indicated (and as is often quoted on the Gasroom).
In military parlance 'no plan survives contact with the enemy' so it may be action not planning that will assist us at this point. Again, I put this out for debate and thought as an attempt (as you have @marlowchair ) at a balanced approach to a thorny problem.
@glasshalffull said:
Have you put these ideas directly to the Trust/football club board?
Yes I have directly to a director who agrees entirely with my process based recommendation.
Do you agree it is an outline of sound process?
I will leave those who were democratically elected to represent Trust members to decide on the merits or otherwise of your ideas but they sound as if they would cost a lot of money and take a long time and I doubt if we have an abundance of either commodity.
Ah yes.....thanks @glasshalffull. I forgot about the cost! A major element in a discussion about finance and clearly why I'm not involved at a deeper level.
It will be sad to see him go as he clearly has the most direct and business focused approach of all. I'm pretty sure that his dealings behind the scenes both in the administrative and playing areas have been instrumental in supporting the club and assisting GA. Thank you Andrew.
@glasshalffull said:
Have you put these ideas directly to the Trust/football club board?
Yes I have directly to a director who agrees entirely with my process based recommendation.
Do you agree it is an outline of sound process?
I will leave those who were democratically elected to represent Trust members to decide on the merits or otherwise of your ideas but they sound as if they would cost a lot of money and take a long time and I doubt if we have an abundance of either commodity.
Thank you Marlow for (perhaps belatedly) outlining a positive proposal.
As I understand your proposal, you are suggesting a full management consultancy investigation of all aspects of the club with the exception of team affairs (I assume you are including overall team budget and player pay and incentive structure but not training tactics or player targeting?). The brief for the consultants is to recommend ways without affecting on field performance of closing a bottom line gap of around £600k per annum.
If they are unsuccessful you would then ask them or someone similar to conduct a full sale process from trawling for potential bidders to assessment, shortlist and negotiation of the deal
If I have misunderstood, could you please confirm where - I would like to fully understand your proposal.
Could you also confirm your best estimate of
1) cost
2) timescale
for each element.
In the interests of full disclosure, could you also confirm that neither you personally or as a business nor close associates have any interest in bidding for the work, acquiring the club or being considererd for any management role at the club
Comments
My real name is Mr Wendoverman so I don;t see what the problem is. @marlowchair I assume you are crafting a detailed response to my previous post? What is your opinion of what we should do moving forwards?
Which Alan are you referring to in your first and fourth paragraphs please?
As I recall, I have always used my real name in the Gasroom.
Micra, I have the utmost respect for you and your opinions but I have to disagree with you on this topic. I don’t see what’s healthy about people making accusations and insinuations that could be totally unfounded when the people being accused are either unaware of the comments or choose not to respond to them on an Internet forum.
@AlanCecil I'm referring to Alan Parry, aka @glasshalffull. As you'll have seen, I compliment you in my second paragraph for your admirable transparency and willingness to engage.
Speaking of which, perhaps you can answer the question I pose in my penultimate paragraph? As I'm sure Trevor Stroud would have declared such a conflict of interest in board meetings if it indeed exists.
Thank you for the clarification on the 'Alan' situation.
I do not attend WWFC Board meetings but all Directors of that and the Trust Board are subject to an agreed Conflicts of Interest Policy.
@bookertease said:
I've seen plenty of airing. Not so much refining.
Does anyone know who is re-standing for election in November?
I believe the members who were last elected in 2015 and will need to be re-elected, if standing, are John Bignell,Nigel Kingston and Trevor Stroud.
So what exactly is the next key deliverable with regards to the potential investment and is there any target timeline?
Trevor Stroud, Nigel Kingston and John Bignell are the three Trust Directors retiring by rotation this year having all been elected last in 2015.
Apologies Wendoverman I overlooked this as we seem to have posted similar times.
Moving forward I think we need full objectivity to make those judgements. I am not confident in the ability of those currently engaging the bidders and reconciling our financial position to provide us with an unbiased position,I’ve made that clear. But take my admitted bias out of the equation in that regard because no one persons views or opinion should influence this process, I would suggest this...
A “ friendly neutral” is needed.either a third party consultancy or someone known to the club and respected who has no political ties or relationship with the current board or management. It may be a local accountancy firm acting in the best interest of the local club or it might be a supporters direct referred industry professional or auditing firm.
I would expect as basic good practice an audit of our operations and commercial arm, HR practices, governance and finances and procurement practices. I would include protected staff interviews to ensure a full disclosure of all info and reflective feedback.
This independent audit should therefore be in the best position to provide us with the most objective unbiased actual position of our club and how we are running currently. If there is room for improvement it will tell us , and will also tell us if improvement in the areas identified would deliver any tangible bottom line financial improvement if fixed.
Only then will we know what our ceiling is in terms of performance and how close we are to achieving it. Are we miles away or are we close to running to our best possible position?
No personal sensitivities, no defensiveness by those who have tried their best,just measurement. As unbiased arms length as possible, objectivity.
If that process determines we are miles away from realising our potential financially and operationally as a supporter owned club, I would suggest we should then as priority put on hold any negotiations or notions of sale of all or any part of our club, and deal firstly with the issues at hand.get our house in order firstly so to speak. If that requires a new group of directors or overhaul of senior management and processes then so be it,get it done.
Re-visit the process in 24 months and see what,if any improvements have been made.
If the initial audit process identifies our club is operating to 85% or better of it’s potential. And the audit shows that without investment our model is only viable with football fortune for the short to mid term. I would argue that we are giving it a decent go but it would be prudent to explore the investment models further.
That process in my opinion should also be run by a third party . Not the decision making, but the canvassing , attracting of, compiling of and tabling of a short list for presentations to our board and membership both by the third party consulting or accountants ( BDO or Deloitte even) . (The current position sees us potentially considering 2 or 3 options that have gone thru a quasi process of elimination based on qualitative and emotive tests performed by directors who are conflicted by definition.we need a true and thorough market position-who else is out there? On What criteria have the remaining bidders been selected on? On what criteria were others disqualified from being considered ?)
We then arrive at the most pure, objective position possible for members and directors alike to judge and consider the best market options available to us and directors will not be biased towards one option or another, they will be safe (and rightly proud) in the knowledge that an independent process had found they governed our club to the best part of its optimal performance and put in place a transparent and robust process to identify new investment options for the membership to consider and decide on the clubs future.
Have you put these ideas directly to the Trust/football club board?
Thanks @marlowchair certainly food for thought.
Sounds a sensible approach. My experience of auditors (actually quite a bit) does suggest that to be truly effective and independent if won’t exactly be cheap, and I’m a little cynical about how accurate any effectiveness potential percentage could be given the variables involved, but given the stakes probably worth doing something along those lines.
Great input @marlowchair. That should certainly be the basis of an email to Mr Stroud. All the suggestions therein are beneficial and will ensure the club has a real understanding of its standalone capabilities and if needed, confirm the best investor partner and exactly where they can improve our operation.
Surely no one would deny us this level of clarity?
Yes I have directly to a director who agrees entirely with my process based recommendation.
Do you agree it is an outline of sound process?
Yes you make a great point but I would hope the cost could be limited,for example if serious bidding parties are genuine in proposing they are willing to invest what must at least be a few million to be our loyal partners,representing and reflecting our supporter values wanting to go on a journey with us , then £5000 from each bidder on a non-refundable basis to go towards due diligence on behalf of the trust members surely isn’t too much to ask?
Sounds good to me and I'm sure if you get Gareth to explain to an independent auditor that we are little wycombe and we have to cut our cloth, they might do us a deal on the money. Or perhaps the bidders could all chip in to pay for it. (This does not constitute any sort of contract...)
@marlowchair, thank you for your well written and thoughtful suggestion. It certainly seems to be a reasonable next step. However, I feel that there are a couple of potential issues it would raise in itself.
Firstly, it perhaps should have been started 12 to 14 months ago, though nothing that we can do about that now. In triggering this off and thus not taking swift action regarding investment, we may be adding a destabilizing element to the club at a difficult time in that we're trying to maintain our status within L1 whilst retaining our playing staff and management team (GA). It would be all too easy to introduce a feeling of 'lack of ambition' (the players would probably just see this as money), lose GA and his team and subsequently find ourselves in freefall. No amount of audit, honesty or planning will help at that point and we would be facing potential extinction.
My feeling is that it is this concern that is partially behind the current Board thinking in that even if an independent audit underlines their actions as totally correct, by the time it has reported and we've voted, we would have 'missed the boat' to say the least.
I have to say that I have no internal knowledge of club operations except by talking occasionally to Board members and staff and it is just my instinct driving my thoughts. Remembering that our Board are volunteers and that the full time nature of some of the roles is not going to be helpful to their finances, the potential personal financial complexities at this level are unlikely to have any direct affect upon the decision making or running of the club even if a so called 'conflict of interests' is indicated (and as is often quoted on the Gasroom).
In military parlance 'no plan survives contact with the enemy' so it may be action not planning that will assist us at this point. Again, I put this out for debate and thought as an attempt (as you have @marlowchair ) at a balanced approach to a thorny problem.
Well after all the lengthy debate, I am actually getting ready to go to a football match, after all that is what it is all about. COYB.
Ah yes.....thanks @glasshalffull. I forgot about the cost! A major element in a discussion about finance and clearly why I'm not involved at a deeper level.
Wonder how much this will impact or affect developments. https://mobile.twitter.com/wwfcofficial/status/1042101531988951041
Sorry, thought that would show up. Hopefully this will work okay
The plot thickens.
It will be sad to see him go as he clearly has the most direct and business focused approach of all. I'm pretty sure that his dealings behind the scenes both in the administrative and playing areas have been instrumental in supporting the club and assisting GA. Thank you Andrew.
Disappointing.
Thank you Marlow for (perhaps belatedly) outlining a positive proposal.
As I understand your proposal, you are suggesting a full management consultancy investigation of all aspects of the club with the exception of team affairs (I assume you are including overall team budget and player pay and incentive structure but not training tactics or player targeting?). The brief for the consultants is to recommend ways without affecting on field performance of closing a bottom line gap of around £600k per annum.
If they are unsuccessful you would then ask them or someone similar to conduct a full sale process from trawling for potential bidders to assessment, shortlist and negotiation of the deal
If I have misunderstood, could you please confirm where - I would like to fully understand your proposal.
Could you also confirm your best estimate of
1) cost
2) timescale
for each element.
In the interests of full disclosure, could you also confirm that neither you personally or as a business nor close associates have any interest in bidding for the work, acquiring the club or being considererd for any management role at the club
A great shame as Andrew Howard was the only real professional on the Board. Will be a huge loss.
Well I thought it was funny Dev