While it is a little bit on the potentially awkward side, if the Trust geezer is paid by the other geezer, I have to agree with @Blue_since_1990 , that the sort of post earlier, absolutely drilling into Mr Stroud's personal background may be getting to a level of almost harassment that might make him think, screw this, I don't need the hassle.
Having been on (low key, amateur type) boards before, I recognise how thankless it is at the best of times. If people were constantly trying to discredit me, and cast aspersions, I'd have certainly binned it off sooner.
It is a real shame that decent people with nothing to hide face so much scrutiny because, well, nothing is hidden. To do all this under an Internet persona rather than ask outright is cowardly and actually achieves nothing apart from pushing other decent people from doing decent things.
I would say we are pushing closer to a legal issue with these posts, especially as the 'facts' are not referenced and despite comments stating otherwise are laced with opinion. I hope another forum isn't closed down as a result of a vendetta.
I am getting fed up with the attacks whilst the real issues around investment and running a club are pushed aside. That is a real shame as plenty of other supporters have their objective views pushed aside.
Transparency should be dispensed to every member of the share issue, 500 club, trust members, chairboys funders, shareholders, trust members in an equal fashion not on a case by case, one on one behind closed doors basis. Lots of people know what has been going on but keep quiet to avoid causing a fuss and are fed up with the bullying and confrontation. To remain silent is to remain complicit. It is only the future of our club after all.
I am still convinced @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots are a double act. In the call for transparency can this be confirmed and the beef they have with the Trust board explained.
Rather than give clarity this witch hunt is just distracting and taking away from the real issues.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
I am still convinced @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots are a double act. In the call for transparency can this be confirmed and the beef they have with the Trust board explained.
Rather than give clarity this witch hunt is just distracting and taking away from the real issues.
I agree, Marlow has been aluding to what he has just said for months now yet resists any suggestions of making any kind of formal approach and has waited until others caught up to spell it out. Serious matters perhaps, although as I said earlier possibly less so now than before, and it does look like the argument is being fitted towards the beef rather than the cause of it.
I agree wholeheartedly with Right_in_the_Middle. This tirade by two individuals who quite clearly have an axe to grind is both unnecessary and unfair. I ask again if they are prepared to put their concerns through the proper channels rather than airing them anonymously on here?
I have no idea if the doom-laden Financial Director this year who told us we were on track last year is a buffoon or a liar or just painting a realistic picture of our finances, but as far as I can tell Trevor and Andrew Howard have done a good job in steadying what was a very leaky ship, secured Gareth and some decent players and have helped to get us promotion and for that they should be lauded even if we can criticise the management of the tea urns. It is right to raise questions with regard to bidders and consortiums, possible conflicts of interest and what we want going forwards, but I'm not sure it is helpful casting aspertions on the motives of people who have got us this far until we are given the proper facts and figures.
@glasshalffull said:
I agree wholeheartedly with Right_in_the_Middle. This tirade by two individuals who quite clearly have an axe to grind is both unnecessary and unfair. I ask again if they are prepared to put their concerns through the proper channels rather than airing them anonymously on here?
@glasshalffull said:
I agree wholeheartedly with Right_in_the_Middle. This tirade by two individuals who quite clearly have an axe to grind is both unnecessary and unfair. I ask again if they are prepared to put their concerns through the proper channels rather than airing them anonymously on here?
Will you declare your self interest in blindly defending these directors from any sort of reasonable criticism or questions ?
@glasshalffull said:
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.
I do agree with you there. It's very unfortunate that @marlowchair apparently didn't raise this issue at the recent meeting.
I have not blindly defended anyone, I have simply said (over and over again) that there is a right and proper way to raise issues about individuals on the Trust board and it is not the way that you have chosen. You have constantly avoided the question as to why you refuse to use the correct channels to make your complaints.
@glasshalffull said:
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.
I do agree with you there. It's very unfortunate that @marlowchair apparently didn't raise this issue at the recent meeting.
Ive explained why I didn’t, at previous meetings people have been intimidated and even abused for raising questions or concerns. I saw a very reasonable question attract an overly defensive and dismissive response from the FD last week so saw little point in speaking up.
Aldo and more importantly the meeting was about the model and structure debate not the place to ask for clarity on the chairman’s position on other matters ,
The place for that is, and will be at the AGM should he seek to be re-elected .
@glasshalffull said:
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.
I do agree with you there. It's very unfortunate that @marlowchair apparently didn't raise this issue at the recent meeting.
Ive explained why I didn’t, at previous meetings people have been intimidated and even abused for raising questions or concerns. I saw a very reasonable question attract an overly defensive and dismissive response from the FD last week so saw little point in speaking up.
Aldo and more importantly the meeting was about the model and structure debate not the place to ask for clarity on the chairman’s position on other matters ,
The place for that is, and will be at the AGM should he seek to be re-elected .
Bit weak that. If you'd made your suggestions 2 weeks ago someone probably would have done it for you.
@glasshalffull said:
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.
I do agree with you there. It's very unfortunate that @marlowchair apparently didn't raise this issue at the recent meeting.
Ive explained why I didn’t, at previous meetings people have been intimidated and even abused for raising questions or concerns. I saw a very reasonable question attract an overly defensive and dismissive response from the FD last week so saw little point in speaking up.
Aldo and more importantly the meeting was about the model and structure debate not the place to ask for clarity on the chairman’s position on other matters ,
The place for that is, and will be at the AGM should he seek to be re-elected .
Bit weak that. If you'd made your suggestions 2 weeks ago someone probably would have done it for you.
No, still the wrong meeting. The chair made that clear. Only questions regarding the topic at Hand
From your last post (4.46 pm) @marlowchair, I assume that you were at the meeting on 12 September. I understand, I think, your reason for not speaking up at that meeting. Will you be at the AGM on 29 November? If so, I hope you will be as bold and eloquent as you are on here. One criticism I would make about the handling of the meeting on 12 September was that there was no insistence that questioners should give their names, even though Mr Stroud had asked at the start of question time that they should do so. Only a couple of them complied. It is essential that they should do so on 29 November.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
I am still convinced @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots are a double act. In the call for transparency can this be confirmed and the beef they have with the Trust board explained.
Rather than give clarity this witch hunt is just distracting and taking away from the real issues.
Therefore let's stop going on about the people asking questions/making allegations and refocus on the issue of how we are going to keep the club afloat with projected losses off several hundred thousand pounds per year and the prospect of share capital being reclaimed by the investors to the tune of half a million.
Without football fortune or outside investment it is difficult to see the gap bridged. All told the input on the Gasroom is generally helpful in coming to a picture of the state of the club's finances but we are still a long way from coming up with a consensus solution.
Now if only we could progress in the cups it would keep the wolf from the door for a while...
I read in Tuesday’s programme that Lincoln City made more than half a million from prize money and gate receipts in winning the Checkatrade Trophy last season. That’s all we’ve got to do.
@marlowchair has raised some questions and given some information but when the directors of the trust and club have been so good with their time and money I don't doubt their integrity or motives and the points raised don't seem overly important (although I am sure they aren't perfect). It is only fair and democratic to have the discussion and it is great how much people are thinking about it. The trouble would come when people stop caring! But of course we should not put up with personal attacks. If we suspect that individuals aren't up to the job we could always vote for alternative candidates but the current team have been very successful in keeping GA and supporting success on the pitch.
Everyone has some level of bias because of experience, principles, emotions etc, that is natural and the points raised don't seem overly important. We can look at the figures presented and make up our own minds. My main worry now is that we seem to be spending more money on players and wages but the books are yet to be balanced. Perhaps this has been necessary to keep hold of GA but cost control in order to stay supporter owned is my number one priority, even if it gives us less chance of staying in League One. Any extra income in League One could just be treated as going some way to balancing the books. I worry that cost control would further be put aside if we go with a minority investor. I am not convinced that we can't rely on football fortune and player sales to some degree. Getting in young unproven players and selling one occasionally seems to be quite a good model with the right manager to bring them on. My passion for our beloved club is certainly increased because we are supporter owned and it maintains my top priority. I would listen to a minority investment proposal but don't see why a minority investor would be interested without a view to becoming a majority investor and I would worry what would happen if they wanted out so I doubt I would vote for it.
@bookertease said: @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.
Completely agree. Anyone can sign up to this site and post whatever they like. The Trust should not be taking formal feedback from an online forum where they have no way of checking who is posting. They’d be giving trolls the same credibility as registered Trust members. Also, the nature of this forum means that whoever shouts the loudest (posts the most invective) is most likely to be heard. Every member should have equal opportunity to scrutinise and ask questions and that can only be achieved through public meetings like that one the 12th.
The weight that @marlowchair gives to the question of transparency and conflict of interest is, whatever his (or her - sorry I don’t know if it’s ever been stated) protestations say, are without doubt evidence of obsessive behaviour.
It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, but unless i’ve missed something, it is a question that has yet to be asked in a way/place where it would be reasonable to expect an answer.
Without that he (or she) has filled in the gaps and joined the dots in a way that seems to look for a conspiracy without any real evidence to support it.
As an example the singing Howard’s praises for turning the club around is seen as a false statement, whereas the accounts show we made a profit for the last 3 years. I appreciate that is based on player sales, but we weren’t profitable before and selling players on to balance the books has always been the lot of a club without a wealthy benefactor, so it can equally be seen as a perfectly fair comment.
@DevC’s comment that it doesn’t really matter if he does work for AH if he has declared the potential conflict of interest to his fellow board members is valid. Is it really likely to be significant enough to cloud his judgement?
At heart I think this is about a fundamental difference of opinion. Marlow & co believe that a well-run, supporter owned, minimally-funded football club is sustainable at around our current level. The Trust board don’t, and probably never have, believed that this is realistic.
We have elected people to make decisions for us and it’s right that we are given the right information to hold our elected representatives to account but we must be careful not to see witches at every turn.
We know that whoever responded on behalf of WWFC to the BDO football finance report believes that supporter ownership really isn’t sustainable, as there is a big bold quote saying exactly that on page 69.
@Chris said:
We know that whoever responded on behalf of WWFC to the BDO football finance report believes that supporter ownership really isn’t sustainable, as there is a big bold quote saying exactly that on page 69.
I’m surprised it’s taken this long for someone to make this eureka statement but well don’t Chris.
That can only have been Burrell or Stroud who made that statement in their response to the BDO audit.
So the FD wrote to members citing the report as a reason for the board taking the course of action and position they are, yet they already held that position and indeed helped form the view the report takes.
This page from the BDO report formed part of the meeting presentation slides. It was seen by everyone at the meeting but only commented on now. Maybe all the others weren't as bothered as you are @marlowchair .
Would love to know where this hatred really comes from. It is so clearly far more than a bit of mistrust.
Ah I am gutted to have the honour and then it be taken away so quickly @micra ? but to be fair I would vote for the more eloquant post from @bookertease.
It is interesting to look back at the forum posts from @marlowchair. Historically defended the trust and seemed to say there was sufficient transparancy regarding the training ground saga despite lots of others saying there was not. Now seems to be questioning the level of transparency regarding the courting of potential investors. Not that I am saying there is anything wrong with this or making any judgement but I feel we should all be as informed as possible about potential inconsistencies ?
It's been a while... hi to anyone who remembers me.
Firstly, to those who are asking why people didn't raise questions at the trust meeting: doing so is DAUNTING. Trust me, I did it enough times, and even with solid evidence I was shouted down. Standing up and speaking in front of a room full of people when you are not a holder of a C-level position yourself can in itself be enough to give people nightmares, let alone to stand up and effectively challenge members of a board. Not everyone has that in them, but their opinions are no less valid.
For those who want a direct example, I spoke at a public meeting last time the idea of outside investment / partial selling was tabled. After years of attending NFFSA / FSF meetings I'd seen a ton of horror stories involving unscrupulous owners play out, so I'd done my research on Hayes just in case. I had checked my facts and found that Loans.co.uk was fined 455k for mis-selling PPI between January 2005 and November 2005:
I had a better 2nd source at the time... it's been a while. I had printed sheets in my hand, and as a big chunk of the FSA's detailed mis-selling period was before the sale of the company, I felt that an explanation was a reasonable request. I got up and spoke at a WWFC public meeting in the run up to a vote, and presented what I'd found. I was instantly shouted down from the table by a riled Hayes who insisted the issue was solely from after the sale. I also received shouted insults and abuse from other supporters present, the in-person version of what I'm seeing here now, for 'making a personal attack' on Hayes. I gave up and sat down, and I've never gotten an answer.
As can clearly be seen here, I made no personal attack, I just presented a business issue that required explanation. MarlowChair (who I don't, to the best of my knowledge, know) has done the same - tabled a potential discrepancy that needs to be explained away. I tried to do just that in a public meeting, doing exactly what people are saying here needs to be done for a person's standpoint to be taken seriously, and look where it got me (and what little good it did). I'd back my public speaking skills too, heck I now make a living from them.
I'm not trying to allude to anything else here. If anyone accuses me of trying to imply that certain people who were present and are still involved either missed or were willing to overlook a potential red flag as worrisome as the above issue last time around, check yourself. I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to introduce what to many may be a controversial or difficult to understand issue in the pressurised scenario of a public meeting. I'm not trying to put people off either, just explain how tough it can be to those who would never do so themselves.
Maybe if someone here has the confidence to raise MarlowChair's point at the next meeting, that might solve the problem by combining skill sets (investigative skills plus public speaking confidence).
Comments
While it is a little bit on the potentially awkward side, if the Trust geezer is paid by the other geezer, I have to agree with @Blue_since_1990 , that the sort of post earlier, absolutely drilling into Mr Stroud's personal background may be getting to a level of almost harassment that might make him think, screw this, I don't need the hassle.
Having been on (low key, amateur type) boards before, I recognise how thankless it is at the best of times. If people were constantly trying to discredit me, and cast aspersions, I'd have certainly binned it off sooner.
It is a real shame that decent people with nothing to hide face so much scrutiny because, well, nothing is hidden. To do all this under an Internet persona rather than ask outright is cowardly and actually achieves nothing apart from pushing other decent people from doing decent things.
I would say we are pushing closer to a legal issue with these posts, especially as the 'facts' are not referenced and despite comments stating otherwise are laced with opinion. I hope another forum isn't closed down as a result of a vendetta.
I am getting fed up with the attacks whilst the real issues around investment and running a club are pushed aside. That is a real shame as plenty of other supporters have their objective views pushed aside.
Trevor or any director has that choice. He needn’t stand for election if he doesn’t like questions being asked. Reasonable questions.
The concern for us as members is if we feel the club would suffer in their absence?
Transparency should be dispensed to every member of the share issue, 500 club, trust members, chairboys funders, shareholders, trust members in an equal fashion not on a case by case, one on one behind closed doors basis. Lots of people know what has been going on but keep quiet to avoid causing a fuss and are fed up with the bullying and confrontation. To remain silent is to remain complicit. It is only the future of our club after all.
I am still convinced @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots are a double act. In the call for transparency can this be confirmed and the beef they have with the Trust board explained.
Rather than give clarity this witch hunt is just distracting and taking away from the real issues.
I agree, Marlow has been aluding to what he has just said for months now yet resists any suggestions of making any kind of formal approach and has waited until others caught up to spell it out. Serious matters perhaps, although as I said earlier possibly less so now than before, and it does look like the argument is being fitted towards the beef rather than the cause of it.
I agree wholeheartedly with Right_in_the_Middle. This tirade by two individuals who quite clearly have an axe to grind is both unnecessary and unfair. I ask again if they are prepared to put their concerns through the proper channels rather than airing them anonymously on here?
I have no idea if the doom-laden Financial Director this year who told us we were on track last year is a buffoon or a liar or just painting a realistic picture of our finances, but as far as I can tell Trevor and Andrew Howard have done a good job in steadying what was a very leaky ship, secured Gareth and some decent players and have helped to get us promotion and for that they should be lauded even if we can criticise the management of the tea urns. It is right to raise questions with regard to bidders and consortiums, possible conflicts of interest and what we want going forwards, but I'm not sure it is helpful casting aspertions on the motives of people who have got us this far until we are given the proper facts and figures.
Tirade ? Please...
Will you declare your self interest in blindly defending these directors from any sort of reasonable criticism or questions ?
I do agree with you there. It's very unfortunate that @marlowchair apparently didn't raise this issue at the recent meeting.
I have not blindly defended anyone, I have simply said (over and over again) that there is a right and proper way to raise issues about individuals on the Trust board and it is not the way that you have chosen. You have constantly avoided the question as to why you refuse to use the correct channels to make your complaints.
Ive explained why I didn’t, at previous meetings people have been intimidated and even abused for raising questions or concerns. I saw a very reasonable question attract an overly defensive and dismissive response from the FD last week so saw little point in speaking up.
Aldo and more importantly the meeting was about the model and structure debate not the place to ask for clarity on the chairman’s position on other matters ,
The place for that is, and will be at the AGM should he seek to be re-elected .
Bit weak that. If you'd made your suggestions 2 weeks ago someone probably would have done it for you.
No, still the wrong meeting. The chair made that clear. Only questions regarding the topic at Hand
From your last post (4.46 pm) @marlowchair, I assume that you were at the meeting on 12 September. I understand, I think, your reason for not speaking up at that meeting. Will you be at the AGM on 29 November? If so, I hope you will be as bold and eloquent as you are on here. One criticism I would make about the handling of the meeting on 12 September was that there was no insistence that questioners should give their names, even though Mr Stroud had asked at the start of question time that they should do so. Only a couple of them complied. It is essential that they should do so on 29 November.
Therefore let's stop going on about the people asking questions/making allegations and refocus on the issue of how we are going to keep the club afloat with projected losses off several hundred thousand pounds per year and the prospect of share capital being reclaimed by the investors to the tune of half a million.
Without football fortune or outside investment it is difficult to see the gap bridged. All told the input on the Gasroom is generally helpful in coming to a picture of the state of the club's finances but we are still a long way from coming up with a consensus solution.
Now if only we could progress in the cups it would keep the wolf from the door for a while...
I read in Tuesday’s programme that Lincoln City made more than half a million from prize money and gate receipts in winning the Checkatrade Trophy last season. That’s all we’ve got to do.
@marlowchair has raised some questions and given some information but when the directors of the trust and club have been so good with their time and money I don't doubt their integrity or motives and the points raised don't seem overly important (although I am sure they aren't perfect). It is only fair and democratic to have the discussion and it is great how much people are thinking about it. The trouble would come when people stop caring! But of course we should not put up with personal attacks. If we suspect that individuals aren't up to the job we could always vote for alternative candidates but the current team have been very successful in keeping GA and supporting success on the pitch.
Everyone has some level of bias because of experience, principles, emotions etc, that is natural and the points raised don't seem overly important. We can look at the figures presented and make up our own minds. My main worry now is that we seem to be spending more money on players and wages but the books are yet to be balanced. Perhaps this has been necessary to keep hold of GA but cost control in order to stay supporter owned is my number one priority, even if it gives us less chance of staying in League One. Any extra income in League One could just be treated as going some way to balancing the books. I worry that cost control would further be put aside if we go with a minority investor. I am not convinced that we can't rely on football fortune and player sales to some degree. Getting in young unproven players and selling one occasionally seems to be quite a good model with the right manager to bring them on. My passion for our beloved club is certainly increased because we are supporter owned and it maintains my top priority. I would listen to a minority investment proposal but don't see why a minority investor would be interested without a view to becoming a majority investor and I would worry what would happen if they wanted out so I doubt I would vote for it.
Completely agree. Anyone can sign up to this site and post whatever they like. The Trust should not be taking formal feedback from an online forum where they have no way of checking who is posting. They’d be giving trolls the same credibility as registered Trust members. Also, the nature of this forum means that whoever shouts the loudest (posts the most invective) is most likely to be heard. Every member should have equal opportunity to scrutinise and ask questions and that can only be achieved through public meetings like that one the 12th.
Post of the day, @colonel_splaffy.
The weight that @marlowchair gives to the question of transparency and conflict of interest is, whatever his (or her - sorry I don’t know if it’s ever been stated) protestations say, are without doubt evidence of obsessive behaviour.
It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, but unless i’ve missed something, it is a question that has yet to be asked in a way/place where it would be reasonable to expect an answer.
Without that he (or she) has filled in the gaps and joined the dots in a way that seems to look for a conspiracy without any real evidence to support it.
As an example the singing Howard’s praises for turning the club around is seen as a false statement, whereas the accounts show we made a profit for the last 3 years. I appreciate that is based on player sales, but we weren’t profitable before and selling players on to balance the books has always been the lot of a club without a wealthy benefactor, so it can equally be seen as a perfectly fair comment.
@DevC’s comment that it doesn’t really matter if he does work for AH if he has declared the potential conflict of interest to his fellow board members is valid. Is it really likely to be significant enough to cloud his judgement?
At heart I think this is about a fundamental difference of opinion. Marlow & co believe that a well-run, supporter owned, minimally-funded football club is sustainable at around our current level. The Trust board don’t, and probably never have, believed that this is realistic.
We have elected people to make decisions for us and it’s right that we are given the right information to hold our elected representatives to account but we must be careful not to see witches at every turn.
Just goes to show. Should wait until the day is over before voting for POTD.
Like choosing MOTM at half time, @micra !
We know that whoever responded on behalf of WWFC to the BDO football finance report believes that supporter ownership really isn’t sustainable, as there is a big bold quote saying exactly that on page 69.
https://imgur.com/a/tb6rZMD
I’m surprised it’s taken this long for someone to make this eureka statement but well don’t Chris.
That can only have been Burrell or Stroud who made that statement in their response to the BDO audit.
So the FD wrote to members citing the report as a reason for the board taking the course of action and position they are, yet they already held that position and indeed helped form the view the report takes.
This page from the BDO report formed part of the meeting presentation slides. It was seen by everyone at the meeting but only commented on now. Maybe all the others weren't as bothered as you are @marlowchair .
Would love to know where this hatred really comes from. It is so clearly far more than a bit of mistrust.
Ah I am gutted to have the honour and then it be taken away so quickly @micra ? but to be fair I would vote for the more eloquant post from @bookertease.
It is interesting to look back at the forum posts from @marlowchair. Historically defended the trust and seemed to say there was sufficient transparancy regarding the training ground saga despite lots of others saying there was not. Now seems to be questioning the level of transparency regarding the courting of potential investors. Not that I am saying there is anything wrong with this or making any judgement but I feel we should all be as informed as possible about potential inconsistencies ?
It's been a while... hi to anyone who remembers me.
Firstly, to those who are asking why people didn't raise questions at the trust meeting: doing so is DAUNTING. Trust me, I did it enough times, and even with solid evidence I was shouted down. Standing up and speaking in front of a room full of people when you are not a holder of a C-level position yourself can in itself be enough to give people nightmares, let alone to stand up and effectively challenge members of a board. Not everyone has that in them, but their opinions are no less valid.
For those who want a direct example, I spoke at a public meeting last time the idea of outside investment / partial selling was tabled. After years of attending NFFSA / FSF meetings I'd seen a ton of horror stories involving unscrupulous owners play out, so I'd done my research on Hayes just in case. I had checked my facts and found that Loans.co.uk was fined 455k for mis-selling PPI between January 2005 and November 2005:
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/loanscouk.pdf
I knew that Hayes did not sell Loans.co.uk to MBNA until June 2005:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBNA
I had a better 2nd source at the time... it's been a while. I had printed sheets in my hand, and as a big chunk of the FSA's detailed mis-selling period was before the sale of the company, I felt that an explanation was a reasonable request. I got up and spoke at a WWFC public meeting in the run up to a vote, and presented what I'd found. I was instantly shouted down from the table by a riled Hayes who insisted the issue was solely from after the sale. I also received shouted insults and abuse from other supporters present, the in-person version of what I'm seeing here now, for 'making a personal attack' on Hayes. I gave up and sat down, and I've never gotten an answer.
As can clearly be seen here, I made no personal attack, I just presented a business issue that required explanation. MarlowChair (who I don't, to the best of my knowledge, know) has done the same - tabled a potential discrepancy that needs to be explained away. I tried to do just that in a public meeting, doing exactly what people are saying here needs to be done for a person's standpoint to be taken seriously, and look where it got me (and what little good it did). I'd back my public speaking skills too, heck I now make a living from them.
I'm not trying to allude to anything else here. If anyone accuses me of trying to imply that certain people who were present and are still involved either missed or were willing to overlook a potential red flag as worrisome as the above issue last time around, check yourself. I'm just trying to illustrate how tough it can be to introduce what to many may be a controversial or difficult to understand issue in the pressurised scenario of a public meeting. I'm not trying to put people off either, just explain how tough it can be to those who would never do so themselves.
Maybe if someone here has the confidence to raise MarlowChair's point at the next meeting, that might solve the problem by combining skill sets (investigative skills plus public speaking confidence).