It's about money and it's about property. Ivor Beeks wants to buy land bank from distressed sellers i.e training ground so the previous directors (who told the trust board previously that Hayes had gifted the money when they knew it was a loan) buy training ground for a steal, done at 350K, with planning maybe worth £6-7 mn. As part of the trust's commitment to transparency... it is bought anonymously and we are told how it was done to support the club and how it isn't to derive unreasonable profits at the expense of the club. Then they launch the share issue to raise working capital where we are told that one of the aims is to buy the training ground back, the money ends up being spent on things like buying players - the opposite of working capital. Beeks introduces Howard, Howard takes over but in his first radio interview can't explain why, Beeks back on board in July, legal letter sent in early August - the training ground is theirs, nobody must talk about it at public forums etc., then Beeks and Howard want to get their money back so that's why we are talking to the people in the States and the people in Dubai and that is why they (rather than the Trust) are holding the talks themselves. And people attack posters who dare to question? Really? Given Shroud has been bought by Howard what did you think was going to happen? To expedite matters, we write articles saying how we are unsustainable. Nothing like playing hardball is there? Very disappointed in Stroud but at the end of the day it's always about the money.
@colonel_splaffy said:
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 ?
Thank you Colonel.this might rightly silence those who want to try and diminish and undermine my points by deflecting and attempting to paint this as personal. I’ve strongly defended the trust board and the transparency around the training ground matter and spoken up at AGM doing just that.
Now when I feel the same board require questions asked around some conflict of interest issues I’m pointing it out and feel strongly about holding them to account.
@Chris said: @NiceCarrots I think you are misreprenting the facts of the training ground deal.
I agree.nice carrots neglects to mention the club was in dire need of money and the benefactors purchased the training to help. They also put in place a buy back option at the purchase price value. So if the ground ever did miraculously achieve re-zoning and a large uplift in value the club could buy it back for what we sold it for originally and reap the rewards.
I understand the owners of the TG also wrote off rental for a long time.
No matter how well prepared you are, anything beyond mild questioning will be met with hostility from those on stage. What’s worse, is you’ll get the same from those sat around you, who despite previous history seem to have not an ounce of scepticism in their bodies.
I totally accept your point that speaking up at a public gathering can be a daunting experience for some people, however there are other methods of raising concerns.
Marlowchair could have spoken privately with any members of the Trust board and could still do so and club officials are also contactable by email.
The other advantage of speaking privately is you are easier to contain and the easier it is to control the news flow. An alternative would be for the trust board and the football club's chairman to have thought about the consequences beforehand. Just saying!
@glasshalffull said:
I totally accept your point that speaking up at a public gathering can be a daunting experience for some people, however there are other methods of raising concerns.
Marlowchair could have spoken privately with any members of the Trust board and could still do so and club officials are also contactable by email.
It might be inconvenient to accept this, however I have raised it personally with trust board members. It appears even well intentioned trust board members are limited in their ability to raise these issues and be heard or listened to. They’ve tried.
Having met most if not all members of the Trust board, none of them struck me as shrinking violets who would be easily put off from voicing concerns if they felt they were valid. You claim to have had a different experience but that still doesn’t justify making claims on an Internet forum that can’t be defended by the people concerned.
Raising things privately? Yes...it's just like going in to your manager individually to ask for a pay rise...being kind souls who don't mind being questioned and want only the best for their staff that always works. Doesn''t it? And as for public meetings I think the sad fact is, Gasroom gits like us who like to ruminate and pore over details (I'm not describing me, of course, I am a man of hidden shallows who just likes football) may be in the minority and if someone has taken the time to make some slides to explain how ****ed we are, but how great it would be to get an unnamed buyer who seems nice in...I can see that some fans might not want people standing up with facts and that and upsetting said slide makers/deal brokers. It's a bit like Brexit...they shud stop tawking abaht it we shud be ahhhhhht!!!!! I fear we are just going to have to wait and see what is put on the table for our delectation.
Wow, I go away for a day and come back to a full-blown culture war on the Gasroom. On one hand those who don't think we should ask probing questions on this forum of the people charged with securing a future for the club; and on the other @NiceCarrots, @marlowchair, a few others with the sense to realise that this is too big an issue to have brushed under the carpet and - for the avoidance of any doubt - me.
@glasshalffull implies that we're being really unfair asking difficult questions on a public internet forum rather than going through the "right channels", like it would be impossible for Trevor Stroud to register on here and either confirm or deny the rumours swirling round about his employment. Well, sorry, but he's been elected to represent the supporters. This - like it or not - is the main forum for said supporters to discuss what goes on with the club, both on the pitch and behind the scenes. I don't doubt how busy he is but serious accusations have been leveled and he should want to respond to them. You yourself have said you posted on the old Gasroom when a club director; Alan Cecil does so now on here. There is absolutely no reason why Mr Stroud cannot - indeed if I were him, I'd do so pretty sharpish.
One further small point on this. I'm not sure anyone suggested during the recent debates on catering provisions at Adams Park that we were wrong to discuss the inner workings of the club on a public forum. Indeed the fact the club moved to bring in outside caterers following on from the discussion suggests to me it is only through public pressure that anything gets done.
My favourite post of the last day is from @Blue_since_1990 - whose argument that asking questions of Mr Stroud could see Gareth Ainsworth quit because he might "get fed up of people getting continually criticised". This is spin that even Alastair Campbell in his pomp would have been too shamefaced to attempt.
@marlowchair said yesterday that there are photos online of Mr Stroud representing Beechdean at business events - I don't think he linked to those photos but if it's possible to do so I for one would like to see them.
Alan Cecil has said that all Trust and Club directors make declarations of conflicts of interest. I've had a look at the Trust website but can't find a link to them anywhere. Perhaps Alan could post it or say why said declarations have not been published?
Look, I know Trevor Stroud and all the Trust directors give up significant amounts of their time on a voluntary basis. They're probably all lovely guys and great fans of the club and only got involved in the first place because they want what's best for Wycombe and were prepared to step up to the plate. I don't doubt that in the slightest and they all get my appreciation for their willingness to do so. I'm sure they've had to sacrifice a lot of free time as a result. But they also have the future of the club as we know it in their hands. And given the difficult financial situation they outlined last week, it's imperative we have the best people working for the club's future. People with relevant experience, talent and drive; people who are whiter than white when it comes to transparency and conflicts of interest and willing to engage with fans in whatever forum necessary.
If Mr Stroud doesn't feel that he can fulfill those criteria I hope he will accept that he might not be the right man to shepherd the club into the next era, whatever that is. His term on the board ends in November. On reflection, he may decide it best if someone else picks up the reins.
A year ago the club was on track for sustainability. Now it is apparently destined for bankruptcy unless something radically changes. We need the best Trust board possible to help manage any transition we may now face; I hope many fans will be putting themselves forward for election in November so we have a real contest; a real debate over the club's future and a real injection of fresh talent onto the board.
For the record I don’t think the issue around Mr Stroud’s employment is at all a serious allegation. Alone it isn’t a serious matter. It is the lack of declaring it that concerns me. Also the wider issue concerns me much more, which is the conflict it presents. Where would he stand on any isssue that may arise around Beechdean sponsorship? Hard negotiations around sponsorship values? If any Beechdean staff or guests needed stewarding involvement on match day? If the club failed to deliver aspects of the sponsorship? Etc etc
Conflict of interest is a difficult topic but can be managed if declared . Not declaring just raises suspicion rightly or wrongly.
Aloysius, I enjoy the gasroom as much as anyone but to suggest that it’s some kind of official mouthpiece that the club should constantly monitor and respond to is nonsense. Why should the chairman be obliged to explain his actions to a group of people who choose to remain anonymous? What next- should the manager come on here to justify his team selection and player recruitment?
I don’t know how many people are registered on the gas room but I’m sure they are hugely outnumbered by those fans who never read it, let alone post on it so it can’t be truly representative of the whole fan base.
This a forum for an exchange of opinions, not a vehicle for accusations of misconduct that cannot and indeed should not be defended on here by those being accused.
I've seen the debate about unofficial v official channels for debate played out in other places with the same ideas put across. My view is that whilst the directors/board members would be advised to be cognisant of the views expressed, the correct point of contact for dialogue with those individuals in the first instance should be in person, by private e-mail, or in public meeting. That's not censoring the debate, its seeking to ensure it has sensible parameters.
You’re right @glasshalffull, there’s absolutely no obligation for the Chairman to make any comment about his employment links to Trust members or supporters.
But then again, there’s no obligation to shell out cash on Trust membership, season tickets, 50/50 draws, share scheme, 500 Club etc either. People still do though.
A great job has been done by the Trust and others to pull us out of the mire but I do wish it were a little less old boys club.
Arnos Grove, I didn’t say that the chairman shouldn’t answer any questions put to him in person or through a third party, I said that he shouldn’t be obliged to answer them on an Internet forum where they are posed anonymously.
@arnos_grove said:
A great job has been done by the Trust and others to pull us out of the mire but I do wish it were a little less old boys club.
Unfortunately, with the imminent sad departure of Andrew Howard, I have worries that the Trust will degenerate even further into old boys club mode with Ivor Beeks in the background pulling the strings.
@Chris said: @NiceCarrots I think you are misreprenting the facts of the training ground deal.
I agree.nice carrots neglects to mention the club was in dire need of money and the benefactors purchased the training to help. They also put in place a buy back option at the purchase price value. So if the ground ever did miraculously achieve re-zoning and a large uplift in value the club could buy it back for what we sold it for originally and reap the rewards.
I understand the owners of the TG also wrote off rental for a long time.
Can’t see any conspiracy in that.
>
This is of course all historic but I for one would like to know if there was ever any formal correspondence, letters, emails etc between then Training Ground Consortium and FALL with regard to the non payment of rent which led to the loss of the Training Ground.
If there was, it means someone at FALL was not exactly doing their job properly.
If there wasn't it begs the question as to what sort of "arrangement" was in place.
With regards to any potential Investor maybe they could show good faith by offering to buy back the Training Ground and return it to FALL but this time with slightly better management.
We keep being told the Training Ground has little Development value so I am sure the current Owners will have little problem in selling it back to us under the terms originally agreed.
Very much agreed @Its_Cold_Up_North , i'm sure i'm not alone to see how the training ground situation pans out.
From the moment Gary Smith informed us at the last minute that the then unamed consortium wanted to double the interest of the loan offered on the security of the training ground. In our hour of need we were being held to ransom, and all the more galling when it turns out the consortium consists of none other than Beeks and Kane. Not long after were informed of the non payment of rent which led to the traing ground falling out of the hands of WWFC into the hands of the consortium.
With the prposed development of the southern part of Wycombe airport, which would be yards from the present training ground, you do wonder what chances that this land will also soon be a target for developers ??
Do you have any info on this proposed development you mention above. Beeksy and his mates have been trying to change our constitution for 30 years, this is just another attempt. Given Beeks' health and age I should imagine he'll want this done quickly. One thing that puzles me is Burrell one moment before asking people to vote for him in November the club he describes as "thriving" then next time it is unsustainable and as the results will show it is the polar opposite. Given he reckons he can transform comapnies - transformationdelivery.com or whatever it is surely he is supposed to transform from loss to profit and not the other way round - not good on his c.v. is it? Anyway, anybody knows anything about the development p[lans near the training ground then please tell us.
Trevor Stroud is standing for re-election according to the Trust email. When did he first get paid, it looks like it was before he took over as Chairman. How many other trust board directors are bankrolled by football club creditors? When Stroud told the trust board it must have been minuted so they must know when he was first on the payroll. No wonder we are skint we had more subs than Pompey on Saturday. Why doesn't anybody on the trust board do something? You've had 36,600 views and 777 comments and those who sit in the directors box still pretend there is nothing to see. YCMIU.
On a day when others have been saying how proud they are of our club after the excellent display at Portsmouth you choose to have another miserable moan. I ask you once again: what have you ever done to help WWFC and if you think you know how to run the club better than those currently in charge why don’t you put yourself forward for election to the club board?
Comments
Well said
It's about money and it's about property. Ivor Beeks wants to buy land bank from distressed sellers i.e training ground so the previous directors (who told the trust board previously that Hayes had gifted the money when they knew it was a loan) buy training ground for a steal, done at 350K, with planning maybe worth £6-7 mn. As part of the trust's commitment to transparency... it is bought anonymously and we are told how it was done to support the club and how it isn't to derive unreasonable profits at the expense of the club. Then they launch the share issue to raise working capital where we are told that one of the aims is to buy the training ground back, the money ends up being spent on things like buying players - the opposite of working capital. Beeks introduces Howard, Howard takes over but in his first radio interview can't explain why, Beeks back on board in July, legal letter sent in early August - the training ground is theirs, nobody must talk about it at public forums etc., then Beeks and Howard want to get their money back so that's why we are talking to the people in the States and the people in Dubai and that is why they (rather than the Trust) are holding the talks themselves. And people attack posters who dare to question? Really? Given Shroud has been bought by Howard what did you think was going to happen? To expedite matters, we write articles saying how we are unsustainable. Nothing like playing hardball is there? Very disappointed in Stroud but at the end of the day it's always about the money.
Thank you Colonel.this might rightly silence those who want to try and diminish and undermine my points by deflecting and attempting to paint this as personal. I’ve strongly defended the trust board and the transparency around the training ground matter and spoken up at AGM doing just that.
Now when I feel the same board require questions asked around some conflict of interest issues I’m pointing it out and feel strongly about holding them to account.
You’ve highlighted my own objectivity, thank you.
@NiceCarrots I think you are misreprenting the facts of the training ground deal.
I agree.nice carrots neglects to mention the club was in dire need of money and the benefactors purchased the training to help. They also put in place a buy back option at the purchase price value. So if the ground ever did miraculously achieve re-zoning and a large uplift in value the club could buy it back for what we sold it for originally and reap the rewards.
I understand the owners of the TG also wrote off rental for a long time.
Can’t see any conspiracy in that.
Great contribution from @JoeTheDrummer.
No matter how well prepared you are, anything beyond mild questioning will be met with hostility from those on stage. What’s worse, is you’ll get the same from those sat around you, who despite previous history seem to have not an ounce of scepticism in their bodies.
I totally accept your point that speaking up at a public gathering can be a daunting experience for some people, however there are other methods of raising concerns.
Marlowchair could have spoken privately with any members of the Trust board and could still do so and club officials are also contactable by email.
The other advantage of speaking privately is you are easier to contain and the easier it is to control the news flow. An alternative would be for the trust board and the football club's chairman to have thought about the consequences beforehand. Just saying!
It might be inconvenient to accept this, however I have raised it personally with trust board members. It appears even well intentioned trust board members are limited in their ability to raise these issues and be heard or listened to. They’ve tried.
Having met most if not all members of the Trust board, none of them struck me as shrinking violets who would be easily put off from voicing concerns if they felt they were valid. You claim to have had a different experience but that still doesn’t justify making claims on an Internet forum that can’t be defended by the people concerned.
Raising things privately? Yes...it's just like going in to your manager individually to ask for a pay rise...being kind souls who don't mind being questioned and want only the best for their staff that always works. Doesn''t it? And as for public meetings I think the sad fact is, Gasroom gits like us who like to ruminate and pore over details (I'm not describing me, of course, I am a man of hidden shallows who just likes football) may be in the minority and if someone has taken the time to make some slides to explain how ****ed we are, but how great it would be to get an unnamed buyer who seems nice in...I can see that some fans might not want people standing up with facts and that and upsetting said slide makers/deal brokers. It's a bit like Brexit...they shud stop tawking abaht it we shud be ahhhhhht!!!!! I fear we are just going to have to wait and see what is put on the table for our delectation.
Wow, I go away for a day and come back to a full-blown culture war on the Gasroom. On one hand those who don't think we should ask probing questions on this forum of the people charged with securing a future for the club; and on the other @NiceCarrots, @marlowchair, a few others with the sense to realise that this is too big an issue to have brushed under the carpet and - for the avoidance of any doubt - me.
@glasshalffull implies that we're being really unfair asking difficult questions on a public internet forum rather than going through the "right channels", like it would be impossible for Trevor Stroud to register on here and either confirm or deny the rumours swirling round about his employment. Well, sorry, but he's been elected to represent the supporters. This - like it or not - is the main forum for said supporters to discuss what goes on with the club, both on the pitch and behind the scenes. I don't doubt how busy he is but serious accusations have been leveled and he should want to respond to them. You yourself have said you posted on the old Gasroom when a club director; Alan Cecil does so now on here. There is absolutely no reason why Mr Stroud cannot - indeed if I were him, I'd do so pretty sharpish.
One further small point on this. I'm not sure anyone suggested during the recent debates on catering provisions at Adams Park that we were wrong to discuss the inner workings of the club on a public forum. Indeed the fact the club moved to bring in outside caterers following on from the discussion suggests to me it is only through public pressure that anything gets done.
My favourite post of the last day is from @Blue_since_1990 - whose argument that asking questions of Mr Stroud could see Gareth Ainsworth quit because he might "get fed up of people getting continually criticised". This is spin that even Alastair Campbell in his pomp would have been too shamefaced to attempt.
@marlowchair said yesterday that there are photos online of Mr Stroud representing Beechdean at business events - I don't think he linked to those photos but if it's possible to do so I for one would like to see them.
Alan Cecil has said that all Trust and Club directors make declarations of conflicts of interest. I've had a look at the Trust website but can't find a link to them anywhere. Perhaps Alan could post it or say why said declarations have not been published?
Look, I know Trevor Stroud and all the Trust directors give up significant amounts of their time on a voluntary basis. They're probably all lovely guys and great fans of the club and only got involved in the first place because they want what's best for Wycombe and were prepared to step up to the plate. I don't doubt that in the slightest and they all get my appreciation for their willingness to do so. I'm sure they've had to sacrifice a lot of free time as a result. But they also have the future of the club as we know it in their hands. And given the difficult financial situation they outlined last week, it's imperative we have the best people working for the club's future. People with relevant experience, talent and drive; people who are whiter than white when it comes to transparency and conflicts of interest and willing to engage with fans in whatever forum necessary.
If Mr Stroud doesn't feel that he can fulfill those criteria I hope he will accept that he might not be the right man to shepherd the club into the next era, whatever that is. His term on the board ends in November. On reflection, he may decide it best if someone else picks up the reins.
A year ago the club was on track for sustainability. Now it is apparently destined for bankruptcy unless something radically changes. We need the best Trust board possible to help manage any transition we may now face; I hope many fans will be putting themselves forward for election in November so we have a real contest; a real debate over the club's future and a real injection of fresh talent onto the board.
I’m not sure that there are many fans better placed to run the club than those already there.
For the record I don’t think the issue around Mr Stroud’s employment is at all a serious allegation. Alone it isn’t a serious matter. It is the lack of declaring it that concerns me. Also the wider issue concerns me much more, which is the conflict it presents. Where would he stand on any isssue that may arise around Beechdean sponsorship? Hard negotiations around sponsorship values? If any Beechdean staff or guests needed stewarding involvement on match day? If the club failed to deliver aspects of the sponsorship? Etc etc
Conflict of interest is a difficult topic but can be managed if declared . Not declaring just raises suspicion rightly or wrongly.
@aloysius I love the Alistair Campbell comparison. Great stuff love it.
Aloysius, I enjoy the gasroom as much as anyone but to suggest that it’s some kind of official mouthpiece that the club should constantly monitor and respond to is nonsense. Why should the chairman be obliged to explain his actions to a group of people who choose to remain anonymous? What next- should the manager come on here to justify his team selection and player recruitment?
I don’t know how many people are registered on the gas room but I’m sure they are hugely outnumbered by those fans who never read it, let alone post on it so it can’t be truly representative of the whole fan base.
This a forum for an exchange of opinions, not a vehicle for accusations of misconduct that cannot and indeed should not be defended on here by those being accused.
Trevor Stroud working for Beechdean on October 12th 2017 as referenced by MarlowChair on page 24 of this thread.
I've seen the debate about unofficial v official channels for debate played out in other places with the same ideas put across. My view is that whilst the directors/board members would be advised to be cognisant of the views expressed, the correct point of contact for dialogue with those individuals in the first instance should be in person, by private e-mail, or in public meeting. That's not censoring the debate, its seeking to ensure it has sensible parameters.
You’re right @glasshalffull, there’s absolutely no obligation for the Chairman to make any comment about his employment links to Trust members or supporters.
But then again, there’s no obligation to shell out cash on Trust membership, season tickets, 50/50 draws, share scheme, 500 Club etc either. People still do though.
A great job has been done by the Trust and others to pull us out of the mire but I do wish it were a little less old boys club.
And I've generally found that ;private communication rather than positing a question into the ether of the internet yields much better results.
Arnos Grove, I didn’t say that the chairman shouldn’t answer any questions put to him in person or through a third party, I said that he shouldn’t be obliged to answer them on an Internet forum where they are posed anonymously.
Unfortunately, with the imminent sad departure of Andrew Howard, I have worries that the Trust will degenerate even further into old boys club mode with Ivor Beeks in the background pulling the strings.
>
This is of course all historic but I for one would like to know if there was ever any formal correspondence, letters, emails etc between then Training Ground Consortium and FALL with regard to the non payment of rent which led to the loss of the Training Ground.
If there was, it means someone at FALL was not exactly doing their job properly.
If there wasn't it begs the question as to what sort of "arrangement" was in place.
With regards to any potential Investor maybe they could show good faith by offering to buy back the Training Ground and return it to FALL but this time with slightly better management.
We keep being told the Training Ground has little Development value so I am sure the current Owners will have little problem in selling it back to us under the terms originally agreed.
Very much agreed @Its_Cold_Up_North , i'm sure i'm not alone to see how the training ground situation pans out.
From the moment Gary Smith informed us at the last minute that the then unamed consortium wanted to double the interest of the loan offered on the security of the training ground. In our hour of need we were being held to ransom, and all the more galling when it turns out the consortium consists of none other than Beeks and Kane. Not long after were informed of the non payment of rent which led to the traing ground falling out of the hands of WWFC into the hands of the consortium.
With the prposed development of the southern part of Wycombe airport, which would be yards from the present training ground, you do wonder what chances that this land will also soon be a target for developers ??
F.A.O. Chas Harps
Do you have any info on this proposed development you mention above. Beeksy and his mates have been trying to change our constitution for 30 years, this is just another attempt. Given Beeks' health and age I should imagine he'll want this done quickly. One thing that puzles me is Burrell one moment before asking people to vote for him in November the club he describes as "thriving" then next time it is unsustainable and as the results will show it is the polar opposite. Given he reckons he can transform comapnies - transformationdelivery.com or whatever it is surely he is supposed to transform from loss to profit and not the other way round - not good on his c.v. is it? Anyway, anybody knows anything about the development p[lans near the training ground then please tell us.
Sorry I meant polar opposite as in not thriving
If you Google Wycombe Airport development, you will see the proposed plans from 2015.
Trevor Stroud is standing for re-election according to the Trust email. When did he first get paid, it looks like it was before he took over as Chairman. How many other trust board directors are bankrolled by football club creditors? When Stroud told the trust board it must have been minuted so they must know when he was first on the payroll. No wonder we are skint we had more subs than Pompey on Saturday. Why doesn't anybody on the trust board do something? You've had 36,600 views and 777 comments and those who sit in the directors box still pretend there is nothing to see. YCMIU.
Transparency, my arse.
On a day when others have been saying how proud they are of our club after the excellent display at Portsmouth you choose to have another miserable moan. I ask you once again: what have you ever done to help WWFC and if you think you know how to run the club better than those currently in charge why don’t you put yourself forward for election to the club board?
I mean Trust Board.