I think you have fully understood @marlowchair 's proposal @DevC which he made at my request. He was asked what he would suggest and he suggested it,so I'm not sure asking him for a full financial spreadsheet so you can pick through it is really necessary. Though I doubt it will happen asking for a full examination of the club's present financial position with a view to forward planning is not exactly the height of stupidity is it...even if @marlowchair owns the Mars Bar/Tea Urn franchise for South Bucks.
Wendover, Marlow’s suggestion is a business proposal. To be taken seriously business proposals need an indication of rough cost and timescale.
All academic anyway as I see Marlow has chosen to ignore the questions I asked, as of course is his right.
it’s not a business proposal at all.it’s a proposal of what I believe is basic and adequate governance around a critical decision making process our club is facing.
I didn’t respond because I didn’t want to entertain such ridiculous and irrelevant questions. I’m not a bidder, I’m not involved in any bids or bidders, I’m not a management consultant, I won’t be seeking any contract work or management role with the club.
The irony in your post is hilarious because even if I was any of the above, sound procurement practices and a third party independent process as I outlined would protect the club , identify and highlight the conflict, and ultimately protect our club.
I covered cost in another post. I would estimate 10% of our yearly projected losses is a reasonable budget to audit the operation in order to evaluate objectively the best path forward. That £60-£70k should be subsidised by the bidders who wish to be considered and thus should have been negotiated by our directors in charge of the process.
Time Scale is short. A full audit of the P&L along with the commercial operation and the procurement processes in place , coupled with interviews of staff wouldnt take longer than 10 working days. Another 5 working days to compile the reported findings .
3 weeks without being pressured should see any decent consultant deliver a full report.
Extremely unlikely that bidders will pay for a report aimed at providing an alternative to their bid.
£70k feels low for the scope of work you have in mind and as I understand it, that’s just for part one of the work. The final bill after stage 2 would presumably be much higher still.
Even if it is, before spending that sort of money, I would want to see good evidence that there was a reasonable probability of these consultants finding the £600k per year required, or at the very least paying for themselves.
Just my opinion though. Others may well consider it a good use of money.
Mr Stroud describes himself on the trust board website as Director of Sales at Cranberry which is not how he describes himself on his twitter feed. Given he may re-stand for election in November I think members are entitled to know who pays him. I don't see how he can stand again and think this issue will go away. We need an independent chairman, he can't be chairman of both boards, his paymaster cannot be a football club creditor, football club creditors cannot host potential buyers of the trust, they have not been elected by the trust members. What must the sports sponsorship company and the private equity fund think when they do their due diligence? Given Paul Burrell has stated that Heads of Terms have gone back and forth and talks have been going on for up to two years - what has been agreed already? And with whom -the creditors who want their money back or trust board directors? They've collected on their training ground and now they want their money. We don't live in trees.
That post really does sound like a threat @NiceCarrots . I don't like the tone, the assumptions or insinuations. It makes me as uneasy about your motives as you seem to be about others.
This social media age seems to have allowed conspiracy theories to thrive. They invariably explain how some evil guy in authority is doing the dirty on the defenceless little guy for his own personal gain. The tactics can be highly effective. They won a referendum FFS.
In this case the theory of personal gain relies on every single one of the volunteer (and often impressively qualified) trust board, all of whom have been elected by us, all of whom have the clubs best interests at heart, all of whom are predisposed towards the fan ownership model, all being duped into supporting a plan designed for the personal benefit of a club board director.
Whether you choose to believe those conspiracy theories or find them ridiculous is of course for each individual to decide. For me they are ridiculous and unpleasant.
It is perfectly possible that the club and trust board have made genuine mistakes in running the club. It is possible that running the club differently may close the financial gap and make it sustainable. It is possible that each of those elected trust directors have made the wrong judgement for the best interests of the club. I would like to see any evidence those opposing outside investment have to suggest this is the case.
Trevor Stroud either works for Beechdean or he doesn't.
If he does, and if Andrew Howard is involved in one of the consortia then it raises entirely legitimate questions regarding potential conflicts of interest
@eric_plant said:
it's hardly a conspiracy theory is it?
Trevor Stroud either works for Beechdean or he doesn't.
If he does, and if Andrew Howard is involved in one of the consortia then it raises entirely legitimate questions regarding potential conflicts of interest
doesn't it?
I thought Andrew Howard had made it fairly clear he wasn't involved in a consortium.
Perhaps in the name of transparency @marlowchair and the @NiceCarrots would advise of their ties as one seems to only post in support of the other.
Also interesting time to demand now (not unreasonably in the first place) that trust and club board are separate when a majority sale would change the club board, and that there may be a conflict of interest with Andrew Howard just as he steps away.
I agree with @NiceCarrots in so far as Mr Stroud (or any other person for that matter) should NEVER be chairman of both boards. If he doesn't drop one of these chairs then he is going to open himself up to allegations of lack of transparency etc. .
It is not a healthy situation and I am surprised that Mr Stroud cannot see this, or perhaps he is too arrogant to have any regard to supporters concerns.
@YorkExile said:
Sorry if I've missed this previously, but who are TRS Connections?
It doesn’t appear to be a company listed on companies house.
Mr Trevor Robert Stroud is our director according to companies house. It is therefore likely that TRS connections is Trevor Robert Stroud connections.
When he was appointed as director of Wycombe Wanderers Football Club in 2015 he listed his occupation as Director. This reconciles with his directorship of a company called Cranberry at the time (July 2015).
In March 2017 Mr Stroud resigned from Cranberry enterprises. In September 2017 mr Stroud was appointed sole director of the blues development fund replacing mr Andrew Howard which would be prudent given it appears the Football Club Chairman is appointed Director if this fund. Noteworthy however is Mr Stroud now listed his occupation as consultant ( September 2017)
Mr Stroud’s public LinkedIn business curriculum vitae lists him as departing Cranberry enterprises in March 2017 and beginning to work for TRS conmections in April 2017. I can not locate any company under that name, it may exist, my research is not exhaustive, however it is more likely to be a business name he uses to trade as a consultant. That said, TRS connections does not exist as a registered company or business name at companies house.
Mr Stroud lists himself on Twitter as “owner TRS Connections” the same title.
On May 11 2017 Mr Stroud , on being appointed football club chairman as Mr howard stepped down,was fluent in his praise of Mr Howard and also was clear on the success and future prospects of the club business saying-
“Everyone involved with the club has made excellent progress since we made the transition to supporter ownership five years ago,and the future looks brighter as we build upon the foundations that have been laid,particularly in the past three years in which Andrew has been chairman”
“In 2014 we were in need of a new direction for the club and Andrew cane to us with outstanding business acumen.a real passion for sport, and the time and generosity to offer his services to the club without a penny in return “
“What he had done for Wwfc cannot be understated,he has done a phenomenal job in turning around an organisation which was in serious danger of going out of business..”
Both Beechdean and others have made public statements and photographs indicating Mr Stroud works for them and has done since April 2017. As early as April 2017 Mr Stroud attended the world travel catering conference in Hamburg Germany working for Beechdean.
October 12th 2017 @iprosport published two photographs of mr Stroud working for Beechdean.
Whether he is employed as a PAYE employee or the more likely scenario as a full time consultant using an unregistered trading name TRS isn’t relevant as a consultant operating as a sole trader ( which Trevor Robert Stroud Connections would indicate) working full time for a company is equally as beholden,loyal, and dependent on that employer and income as a PAYE employee.
I state the above facts without judgement,it is all public record. What I think the above does pose are questions such as:
were the glowing comments made by Stroud in May 2017 about Howard motivated by Stroud speaking about his new boss or as chairman of the football club?
-were the statements made accurate at the time and honest? There is no reason to suggest they weren’t, in which case why has our glowingly positive position diminished between May 2018 to September 2018 so drastically to the hopeless “must sell” position mr Stroud and Burrell outlined last week?
does Mr Stroud take responsibility if the situation has deteriorated so substantially under his chairmanship of both boards in that time ? If so, will he accept this and do the honourable thing and refrain from standing for reelection in November having had a good go and with our thanks for his efforts?
how does the admitted fact that Stroud and Burrel have been actively negotiating with bidders for 2 years , reconcile with the glowing statements about our prospects on record by Stroud only 15 months ago ? Are we to therefore take everything they say with a grain of salt such are the identifiable contradictions?
-there have been many opportunities to inform the trust board and members of a change of profession that could easily be viewed as a conflict of interest. Why hasn’t this been done?
-why has MR Stroud’s profile and career detail on the trust board website not been updated to reflect the change in employment circumstances since April 2017 some 16 months ago?
Could someone explain the supposed conflicts of interest here
There appear to be two separate suggestions
1) That there is a conflict of interest with Mr Stroud being both Chairman of the trust and chairman of the football club. As the football club is (I understand) a wholly owned subsidiary of the trust, this is far from an unusual arrangement, indeed many would see it as desirable so that the owner (the trust) can ensure the subsidiary (the club) operates in line with the owners objectives. Could someone explain specifically the problem they see here.
2) That there is a conflict of interest with Mr Stroud in either role also doing some work outside the Trust/Club for another company owned by another football club director.
Potentially I can see a conflict of interest here but only if the value of work was so significant that it held the potential to influence Mr Stroud to act against the Trust/Clubs interests to protect his personal interests. If such a relationship existed, I would expect Mr Stroud to inform the trust board of this interest. I would not expect such details to be made public. Am I missing something here?
@eric_plant said:
it's hardly a conspiracy theory is it?
Trevor Stroud either works for Beechdean or he doesn't.
If he does, and if Andrew Howard is involved in one of the consortia then it raises entirely legitimate questions regarding potential conflicts of interest
doesn't it?
I thought Andrew Howard had made it fairly clear he wasn't involved in a consortium.
Perhaps in the name of transparency @marlowchair and the @NiceCarrots would advise of their ties as one seems to only post in support of the other.
Also interesting time to demand now (not unreasonably in the first place) that trust and club board are separate when a majority sale would change the club board, and that there may be a conflict of interest with Andrew Howard just as he steps away.
I have no ties whatsoever with any posters on here including nice carrot . Not that I know of,I mean, my barber could indeed be a poster in here but I have no idea if that is the case. My views are my own and I don’t discuss my opinions on my football club with others I know, most are cricket and rebellion beer enthusiasts so they don’t listen or care generally.
For someone who claims that none of his criticisms are personal, you seem to have an obsession with certain individuals. Perhaps the club would be more efficiently run If only the Trust could call upon the voluntary services of someone with enough time on their hands to do exhaustive research and write lengthy posts on social media.
There’s an easy way to deal with this @marlowchair - ask the question of Trevor publicly during the hustings at the AGM and he’ll have to give you some sort of response.
I think we have to be very careful that we are not going down the road of self destruction here. Although I am not that familiar with the people in question, Mr Stroud and Mr Cecil etc do a lot of work for the club on a voluntary basis. They may be pretty fed up of the criticism they are getting on here and thus resign from their posts. If they do resign it could well start a domino effect which could result in people such as GA getting fed up of people getting continually criticised and decide to pack his bags and go.
@glasshalffull said:
For someone who claims that none of his criticisms are personal, you seem to have an obsession with certain individuals. Perhaps the club would be more efficiently run If only the Trust could call upon the voluntary services of someone with enough time on their hands to do exhaustive research and write lengthy posts on social media.
My post is extremely objective outlining publicly available facts.
Do take a view of whether it is appropriate to question and ask for clarity ?
My questions at the end are just that , questions.
@glasshalffull, I have read the above comments from Marlowchair and on the basis that his statement regarding the remarks made by Trevor Stroud are correct I would not call it an obsession. I recently posted on the Gasroom the WWFC trading losses over the last 4 years, and it couldn't have been been making the future brighter to those on the two boards. The major "Future brighter" result has been the completion of the payment to Steve Hayes as a result of the Jordan Ibe Transfer. The one positive step that was taken was the Trust Share scheme, which rather than raise 2 million will be fortunate if it gets about £750,000 over the 5 year period. This is disappointing as it appears that only about 400 members have made a contribution. The Trust Board have now turned to the members for support, and as in 2003, the full facts on which members can make a decision are unlikely to be produced. Unlike the Bucks Free Press, I do not believe that the raised hands last week gave the go ahead to the board to sell 75% of the voting shares.
Hopefully enough comments will have been submitted to the Board for members to get a better understanding of the longer term future of the football club. The Frank Adams Legacy provided High Wycombe with a Football Stadium, if we can't survive in the English Football League we can still have a future at a lower status. The members just need the facts. Your experience in reporting and fact finding must surely understand the feelings of many supporters who are saying " here we go again"
@glasshalffull said:
For someone who claims that none of his criticisms are personal, you seem to have an obsession with certain individuals. Perhaps the club would be more efficiently run If only the Trust could call upon the voluntary services of someone with enough time on their hands to do exhaustive research and write lengthy posts on social media.
@marlowchair certainly has been guilty of sounding like he’s waging a personal vendetta, but surely asking whether or not there’s a conflict of interest for Trevor Stoud doesn’t fall into that category.
I have stated several times that questions/allegations of this nature should be made through the right channels and not through an Internet forum. I recognise that supporters have understandable concerns but if they were unable or unwilling to raise them at the meeting on September 12 they can do so by email to the individuals concerned or through Alan Cecil who volunteered to pass them on. I don’t see how it benefits anyone to spread possibly unfounded rumours/accusations without the persons concerned being able to answer them.
Comments
Sad news about AH. He has done an excellent job for us. Timing is not great either.
I am starting to get a feeling of deja vu (again)
Very sorry to hear that AH is stepping down. Hope GA continues to “have his ear” and I wish him well for the future.
I picked up on @bookertease’s comment and thought I was on the AH thread. Don’t know how to transfer this (and it’s not that important to be fair).
I think you have fully understood @marlowchair 's proposal @DevC which he made at my request. He was asked what he would suggest and he suggested it,so I'm not sure asking him for a full financial spreadsheet so you can pick through it is really necessary. Though I doubt it will happen asking for a full examination of the club's present financial position with a view to forward planning is not exactly the height of stupidity is it...even if @marlowchair owns the Mars Bar/Tea Urn franchise for South Bucks.
Wendover, Marlow’s suggestion is a business proposal. To be taken seriously business proposals need an indication of rough cost and timescale.
All academic anyway as I see Marlow has chosen to ignore the questions I asked, as of course is his right.
it’s not a business proposal at all.it’s a proposal of what I believe is basic and adequate governance around a critical decision making process our club is facing.
I didn’t respond because I didn’t want to entertain such ridiculous and irrelevant questions. I’m not a bidder, I’m not involved in any bids or bidders, I’m not a management consultant, I won’t be seeking any contract work or management role with the club.
The irony in your post is hilarious because even if I was any of the above, sound procurement practices and a third party independent process as I outlined would protect the club , identify and highlight the conflict, and ultimately protect our club.
It’s called governance
Thank you for answering one of the questions asked.
I am still waiting for your estimate of roughly how much this would cost and how long it would take.
I covered cost in another post. I would estimate 10% of our yearly projected losses is a reasonable budget to audit the operation in order to evaluate objectively the best path forward. That £60-£70k should be subsidised by the bidders who wish to be considered and thus should have been negotiated by our directors in charge of the process.
Time Scale is short. A full audit of the P&L along with the commercial operation and the procurement processes in place , coupled with interviews of staff wouldnt take longer than 10 working days. Another 5 working days to compile the reported findings .
3 weeks without being pressured should see any decent consultant deliver a full report.
Extremely unlikely that bidders will pay for a report aimed at providing an alternative to their bid.
£70k feels low for the scope of work you have in mind and as I understand it, that’s just for part one of the work. The final bill after stage 2 would presumably be much higher still.
Even if it is, before spending that sort of money, I would want to see good evidence that there was a reasonable probability of these consultants finding the £600k per year required, or at the very least paying for themselves.
Just my opinion though. Others may well consider it a good use of money.
Mr Stroud describes himself on the trust board website as Director of Sales at Cranberry which is not how he describes himself on his twitter feed. Given he may re-stand for election in November I think members are entitled to know who pays him. I don't see how he can stand again and think this issue will go away. We need an independent chairman, he can't be chairman of both boards, his paymaster cannot be a football club creditor, football club creditors cannot host potential buyers of the trust, they have not been elected by the trust members. What must the sports sponsorship company and the private equity fund think when they do their due diligence? Given Paul Burrell has stated that Heads of Terms have gone back and forth and talks have been going on for up to two years - what has been agreed already? And with whom -the creditors who want their money back or trust board directors? They've collected on their training ground and now they want their money. We don't live in trees.
That post really does sound like a threat @NiceCarrots . I don't like the tone, the assumptions or insinuations. It makes me as uneasy about your motives as you seem to be about others.
Or maybe I live in a tree in your world?
This social media age seems to have allowed conspiracy theories to thrive. They invariably explain how some evil guy in authority is doing the dirty on the defenceless little guy for his own personal gain. The tactics can be highly effective. They won a referendum FFS.
In this case the theory of personal gain relies on every single one of the volunteer (and often impressively qualified) trust board, all of whom have been elected by us, all of whom have the clubs best interests at heart, all of whom are predisposed towards the fan ownership model, all being duped into supporting a plan designed for the personal benefit of a club board director.
Whether you choose to believe those conspiracy theories or find them ridiculous is of course for each individual to decide. For me they are ridiculous and unpleasant.
It is perfectly possible that the club and trust board have made genuine mistakes in running the club. It is possible that running the club differently may close the financial gap and make it sustainable. It is possible that each of those elected trust directors have made the wrong judgement for the best interests of the club. I would like to see any evidence those opposing outside investment have to suggest this is the case.
it's hardly a conspiracy theory is it?
Trevor Stroud either works for Beechdean or he doesn't.
If he does, and if Andrew Howard is involved in one of the consortia then it raises entirely legitimate questions regarding potential conflicts of interest
doesn't it?
Sorry if I've missed this previously, but who are TRS Connections?
@YorkExile , did you check linkedin like I did, and wonder why there's any link with Beechdean?
I thought Andrew Howard had made it fairly clear he wasn't involved in a consortium.
Perhaps in the name of transparency @marlowchair and the @NiceCarrots would advise of their ties as one seems to only post in support of the other.
Also interesting time to demand now (not unreasonably in the first place) that trust and club board are separate when a majority sale would change the club board, and that there may be a conflict of interest with Andrew Howard just as he steps away.
I agree with @NiceCarrots in so far as Mr Stroud (or any other person for that matter) should NEVER be chairman of both boards. If he doesn't drop one of these chairs then he is going to open himself up to allegations of lack of transparency etc. .
It is not a healthy situation and I am surprised that Mr Stroud cannot see this, or perhaps he is too arrogant to have any regard to supporters concerns.
To re-iterate, Marlow Chair and myself are not one and the same.
Thanks for the answer to a question not asked, Theresa May would be proud.
Sorry Strongest you are absolutely correct, I do not know who Marlow is. Hope this clarifies.
It doesn’t appear to be a company listed on companies house.
Mr Trevor Robert Stroud is our director according to companies house. It is therefore likely that TRS connections is Trevor Robert Stroud connections.
When he was appointed as director of Wycombe Wanderers Football Club in 2015 he listed his occupation as Director. This reconciles with his directorship of a company called Cranberry at the time (July 2015).
In March 2017 Mr Stroud resigned from Cranberry enterprises. In September 2017 mr Stroud was appointed sole director of the blues development fund replacing mr Andrew Howard which would be prudent given it appears the Football Club Chairman is appointed Director if this fund. Noteworthy however is Mr Stroud now listed his occupation as consultant ( September 2017)
Mr Stroud’s public LinkedIn business curriculum vitae lists him as departing Cranberry enterprises in March 2017 and beginning to work for TRS conmections in April 2017. I can not locate any company under that name, it may exist, my research is not exhaustive, however it is more likely to be a business name he uses to trade as a consultant. That said, TRS connections does not exist as a registered company or business name at companies house.
Mr Stroud lists himself on Twitter as “owner TRS Connections” the same title.
On May 11 2017 Mr Stroud , on being appointed football club chairman as Mr howard stepped down,was fluent in his praise of Mr Howard and also was clear on the success and future prospects of the club business saying-
“Everyone involved with the club has made excellent progress since we made the transition to supporter ownership five years ago,and the future looks brighter as we build upon the foundations that have been laid,particularly in the past three years in which Andrew has been chairman”
“In 2014 we were in need of a new direction for the club and Andrew cane to us with outstanding business acumen.a real passion for sport, and the time and generosity to offer his services to the club without a penny in return “
“What he had done for Wwfc cannot be understated,he has done a phenomenal job in turning around an organisation which was in serious danger of going out of business..”
Both Beechdean and others have made public statements and photographs indicating Mr Stroud works for them and has done since April 2017. As early as April 2017 Mr Stroud attended the world travel catering conference in Hamburg Germany working for Beechdean.
October 12th 2017 @iprosport published two photographs of mr Stroud working for Beechdean.
Whether he is employed as a PAYE employee or the more likely scenario as a full time consultant using an unregistered trading name TRS isn’t relevant as a consultant operating as a sole trader ( which Trevor Robert Stroud Connections would indicate) working full time for a company is equally as beholden,loyal, and dependent on that employer and income as a PAYE employee.
I state the above facts without judgement,it is all public record. What I think the above does pose are questions such as:
-were the statements made accurate at the time and honest? There is no reason to suggest they weren’t, in which case why has our glowingly positive position diminished between May 2018 to September 2018 so drastically to the hopeless “must sell” position mr Stroud and Burrell outlined last week?
does Mr Stroud take responsibility if the situation has deteriorated so substantially under his chairmanship of both boards in that time ? If so, will he accept this and do the honourable thing and refrain from standing for reelection in November having had a good go and with our thanks for his efforts?
how does the admitted fact that Stroud and Burrel have been actively negotiating with bidders for 2 years , reconcile with the glowing statements about our prospects on record by Stroud only 15 months ago ? Are we to therefore take everything they say with a grain of salt such are the identifiable contradictions?
-there have been many opportunities to inform the trust board and members of a change of profession that could easily be viewed as a conflict of interest. Why hasn’t this been done?
-why has MR Stroud’s profile and career detail on the trust board website not been updated to reflect the change in employment circumstances since April 2017 some 16 months ago?
Could someone explain the supposed conflicts of interest here
There appear to be two separate suggestions
1) That there is a conflict of interest with Mr Stroud being both Chairman of the trust and chairman of the football club. As the football club is (I understand) a wholly owned subsidiary of the trust, this is far from an unusual arrangement, indeed many would see it as desirable so that the owner (the trust) can ensure the subsidiary (the club) operates in line with the owners objectives. Could someone explain specifically the problem they see here.
2) That there is a conflict of interest with Mr Stroud in either role also doing some work outside the Trust/Club for another company owned by another football club director.
Potentially I can see a conflict of interest here but only if the value of work was so significant that it held the potential to influence Mr Stroud to act against the Trust/Clubs interests to protect his personal interests. If such a relationship existed, I would expect Mr Stroud to inform the trust board of this interest. I would not expect such details to be made public. Am I missing something here?
I have no ties whatsoever with any posters on here including nice carrot . Not that I know of,I mean, my barber could indeed be a poster in here but I have no idea if that is the case. My views are my own and I don’t discuss my opinions on my football club with others I know, most are cricket and rebellion beer enthusiasts so they don’t listen or care generally.
For someone who claims that none of his criticisms are personal, you seem to have an obsession with certain individuals. Perhaps the club would be more efficiently run If only the Trust could call upon the voluntary services of someone with enough time on their hands to do exhaustive research and write lengthy posts on social media.
There’s an easy way to deal with this @marlowchair - ask the question of Trevor publicly during the hustings at the AGM and he’ll have to give you some sort of response.
I think we have to be very careful that we are not going down the road of self destruction here. Although I am not that familiar with the people in question, Mr Stroud and Mr Cecil etc do a lot of work for the club on a voluntary basis. They may be pretty fed up of the criticism they are getting on here and thus resign from their posts. If they do resign it could well start a domino effect which could result in people such as GA getting fed up of people getting continually criticised and decide to pack his bags and go.
My post is extremely objective outlining publicly available facts.
Do take a view of whether it is appropriate to question and ask for clarity ?
My questions at the end are just that , questions.
@glasshalffull, I have read the above comments from Marlowchair and on the basis that his statement regarding the remarks made by Trevor Stroud are correct I would not call it an obsession. I recently posted on the Gasroom the WWFC trading losses over the last 4 years, and it couldn't have been been making the future brighter to those on the two boards. The major "Future brighter" result has been the completion of the payment to Steve Hayes as a result of the Jordan Ibe Transfer. The one positive step that was taken was the Trust Share scheme, which rather than raise 2 million will be fortunate if it gets about £750,000 over the 5 year period. This is disappointing as it appears that only about 400 members have made a contribution. The Trust Board have now turned to the members for support, and as in 2003, the full facts on which members can make a decision are unlikely to be produced. Unlike the Bucks Free Press, I do not believe that the raised hands last week gave the go ahead to the board to sell 75% of the voting shares.
Hopefully enough comments will have been submitted to the Board for members to get a better understanding of the longer term future of the football club. The Frank Adams Legacy provided High Wycombe with a Football Stadium, if we can't survive in the English Football League we can still have a future at a lower status. The members just need the facts. Your experience in reporting and fact finding must surely understand the feelings of many supporters who are saying " here we go again"
@marlowchair certainly has been guilty of sounding like he’s waging a personal vendetta, but surely asking whether or not there’s a conflict of interest for Trevor Stoud doesn’t fall into that category.
I have stated several times that questions/allegations of this nature should be made through the right channels and not through an Internet forum. I recognise that supporters have understandable concerns but if they were unable or unwilling to raise them at the meeting on September 12 they can do so by email to the individuals concerned or through Alan Cecil who volunteered to pass them on. I don’t see how it benefits anyone to spread possibly unfounded rumours/accusations without the persons concerned being able to answer them.