I do think that there is a great deal of irony in the lack of trust in the Trust board. Some of this is based on conspiracy theories, some are leaps of faith and some is based on unfortunate history. The latter is the biggest concern for me and the issue surrounding the Beeks purchase of the training ground. We were told that at once it was a heroic gesture that solved a huge cashflow problem we had. However the gesture had to be masked in secrecy. Why? The price? The long term intention of the buyer? We never really got to know and dare anyone ever question. Frankly if I had been offered that land at £350k I am pretty sure I could have come up with the money to buy that with a mortgage and a sitting tennant. It was not a generous gesture it was a verycute business deal.
And now here we are. Trust us, we know what we are doing. Yes I will but I think we need a bit of housekeeping first about some of the fringe players in this affair. After all their intentions are only for the good of the club and not self-interest. So lets hear their previous grand gestures so we can buy them a pint and offer a thumbs up next time we see them. If not then I fear we are building this process on a very unstable foundation.
Having read a multitude of differing opinions on here there is one very important aspect that needs considering.
IF neither party wishing to buy into the club is able to complete a deal for whatever reason (they don’t wish to continue or the membership rejects it) we need a plan B.
Whilst I don’t give much weight to those who see our future status at level 3 in Non-League football we would have to have a plan to push this club much more than it is at present and that would have to be via enthusiastic Trust members.
Staffing levels at the club have been greatly reduced to shave costs but a really big sales/marketing push would be needed to promote WW not only to the local community but to towns & villages further away.
Something to be considered alongside the first question of should we / shouldn’t we accept outside investment.
@TheAndyGrahamFanClub said:
I do think that there is a great deal of irony in the lack of trust in the Trust board. Some of this is based on conspiracy theories, some are leaps of faith and some is based on unfortunate history. The latter is the biggest concern for me and the issue surrounding the Beeks purchase of the training ground. We were told that at once it was a heroic gesture that solved a huge cashflow problem we had. However the gesture had to be masked in secrecy. Why? The price? The long term intention of the buyer? We never really got to know and dare anyone ever question. Frankly if I had been offered that land at £350k I am pretty sure I could have come up with the money to buy that with a mortgage and a sitting tennant. It was not a generous gesture it was a verycute business deal.
And now here we are. Trust us, we know what we are doing. Yes I will but I think we need a bit of housekeeping first about some of the fringe players in this affair. After all their intentions are only for the good of the club and not self-interest. So lets hear their previous grand gestures so we can buy them a pint and offer a thumbs up next time we see them. If not then I fear we are building this process on a very unstable foundation.
I agree with @TheAndyGrahamFanClub and previous posters that a culture of "ask no questions" has developed over the years at the Club.
For example, questions from the small number of supporters who attended the last Finance Forum were made about as welcome as a plate of cold custard.
Whilst it may not be the most pressing issue currently it does need to be resolved by the Trust.
I am not sure its terribly relevant now but the training ground controversy is a classic example of social media opinion becoming social media fact.
The reality is that the deal was on pure commercial terms an extremely good deal for the club and an extremely bad deal for the purchasers
Buy a commercial property and you are looking for three things
1) Development or other value upside potential - none as the club had a buyback and location precludes
2) Reliable tenant - not in this case as very uncertain whether club could pay the rent (as subsequently proved)
3) Alternative tenants available if first tenant failed - no obvious alternative user.
More importantly after this burst on unpleasantness and airing of old grudges, really is time now to come up with workable alternatives to the trust plan if that is what you want to achieve. Perfectly valid approach to argue stay with trust ownership and slip down to Conference south (if that is the most likely outcome), not sure if there is another practical solution. The Trust elections would seem a good opportunity to put up candidates with an alternative view and see if they command support.
Some very interesting posts this morning. If the identity of Nicecarrots as revealed above is correct, I’m disappointed to hear who it is having met the guy concerned several times and always found him to be an enthusiastic fan.
Andy Warboys makes a good point about plan B. I thought about this on Saturday at the Pompey game-big ground, big crowd, proper football match. Would people really want to sacrifice days like this by dropping down several levels just so that we can say we’re fan owned?
I disagree with Itscoldupnorth. The club has always been open to questions be it fans forums or open meetings and Trust board members are always on hand to answer questions on match days.
Finally, Dev C is so right about social media opinion becoming social media fact. It’s wrong that serious and possibly unfounded rumours can become dressed up as a factual version of events.
It seems Oxford are going to beat us to getting an investor on board. According to Sky, billionaire Erick Thohir is negotiating a minority investment. He is currently Chairman and co-owner of Inter Milan, so expect a wave of Italian loanees coming over.
@glasshalffull@DevC Social media unpleasantness and personal grudges aside, as I haven't attended any of the meetings, so can you confirm that a number of people on here are wrong and there is absolutely nothing to claims that questions from the floor are dealt with in an angry and confrontational manner?
The majority of questions at the September 12 meeting we’re dealt with in a calm and factual manner. I have found that to be the case at most of the public meetings staged by the club that I have attended. There have been times when those answering questions-and those asking them-have lost their cool and strayed into a more aggressive demeanour but I would challenge anyone to say that is the norm rather than the exception. The subjects being discussed are often emotive so a degree of passion is inevitable.
Just on the subject of the meeting, has anyone that emailed the trust requesting the slides actually been sent them? I did request these but to date nothing has been emailed to me and I would have thought it would have been far easier and indeed less time consuming to simply email these out to all trust members as opposed to dealing with individual requests. I watched the meeting on Facebook and you simply could not see the slides hence requesting these.
yup I was sent them on [email protected] had actually been sent them before I asked but they went into the work spam filter. They obviously believe WW Trust is a front for Syria/Putin/North Korea.
lol @glasshalffull I remember Mr Beeks refusing point blank to answer questions on the state of the club's finances at an AGM, stating that "this is not the forum for those sort of questions ..... but I am happy to take any questions on 'The Wasps' ". ycnmiu and it is/was typical of the mushroom approach of those days, which appear sadly to be returning.
It is also sad to see the old ".. if you lot don't do what we, who are in the know, tell you to do, we'll end up in the 7th teir!!" returning. Perhaps it is just coincidence that Mr Beeks and Mr Kane are back on the scene too? Secrecy and the many euphemisms that try to disguise it are only ever bad for a club like Wycombe Wanderers.
My concern is that we don't to go down the route where we vote for something rich people who know better tell us will be the best for everyone and find out further down the line they sold us a crock of ****. I understand that's happened at least once quite recently.
My experience is the opposite of glass half full and others regarding meetings.hard questions are not dealt with at all well and if they are dismissed defensively when asked they are followed up with intimidating approaches afterwards.
The language of the doomsday agenda has been well and truly picked up by the blind supporters of the “sell” movement.they claim we are nailed onto a non-league future if we don’t sell.utter unfounded lies of course.
We also now have a very mucky situation where a self identified former trust director has inexplicably and inexcusably linked another former trust director to the moniker of Nice Carrots. We’ve no evidence that the allegation is correct.i await the derision and outrage from glass half full , Dev and others which would see them avoid being rather blatantly outed as basic hypocrites swimming in s sea of agenda bias laced double standards.
@Wendoverman said:
My concern is that we don't to go down the route where we vote for something rich people who know better tell us will be the best for everyone and find out further down the line they sold us a crock of ****. I understand that's happened at least once quite recently.
@wandering_jock said: Perhaps it is just coincidence that Mr Beeks and Mr Kane are back on the scene too? Secrecy and the many euphemisms that try to disguise it are only ever bad for a club like Wycombe Wanderers.
Joe
I think you have probably hit the nail on the head here. It feels that Stroud and the rest of the Board are merely puppets on a string, strictly controlled by Beeks and Kane.
@marlowchair I'm unsure if you can see for yourself but yes I have deducted Carrots identity from his sign up address so not exactly an accusation. I've also spoken to him personally since and confirmed the same so please do confirm how it is inexplicable or inexcusable?
Please note I am not commenting on the validity or otherwise of any points made, merely stating it is probably pertinent to note where the comments originate from as in my opinion it makes a difference.
Still no closer to knowing who you are though. Would love to have a chat with you at a game though as you are clearly very passionate about the club.
@Wendoverman said:
My concern is that we don't to go down the route where we vote for something rich people who know better tell us will be the best for everyone and find out further down the line they sold us a crock of ****. I understand that's happened at least once quite recently.
Sounds like Brexit.
Think you’ll find that the majority of Brexit voters were working class people in the Midlands and North. Still, never let facts get in the way of prejudice, eh?
@glasshalffull Not sure what prejudice @Stewie63 was exhibiting. I think the point is being persuaded by multi-millionaires that it's a great idea...when it might not be. Midlanders and Northerners aren't to blame for everything.
@Wendoverman said: @glasshalffull Not sure what prejudice @Stewie63 was exhibiting. I think the point is being persuaded by multi-millionaires that it's a great idea...when it might not be. Midlanders and Northerners aren't to blame for everything.
Maybe a debate for a different forum.
It was a tongue in cheek comment anyway.
Have to say I’m not sure it’s appropriate to splash an identity gained via moderator privilege. If @NiceCarrots wanted to be identified he would surely have used his real name (which I assume in not Nice Carrots).
Comments
I do think that there is a great deal of irony in the lack of trust in the Trust board. Some of this is based on conspiracy theories, some are leaps of faith and some is based on unfortunate history. The latter is the biggest concern for me and the issue surrounding the Beeks purchase of the training ground. We were told that at once it was a heroic gesture that solved a huge cashflow problem we had. However the gesture had to be masked in secrecy. Why? The price? The long term intention of the buyer? We never really got to know and dare anyone ever question. Frankly if I had been offered that land at £350k I am pretty sure I could have come up with the money to buy that with a mortgage and a sitting tennant. It was not a generous gesture it was a verycute business deal.
And now here we are. Trust us, we know what we are doing. Yes I will but I think we need a bit of housekeeping first about some of the fringe players in this affair. After all their intentions are only for the good of the club and not self-interest. So lets hear their previous grand gestures so we can buy them a pint and offer a thumbs up next time we see them. If not then I fear we are building this process on a very unstable foundation.
Having read a multitude of differing opinions on here there is one very important aspect that needs considering.
IF neither party wishing to buy into the club is able to complete a deal for whatever reason (they don’t wish to continue or the membership rejects it) we need a plan B.
Whilst I don’t give much weight to those who see our future status at level 3 in Non-League football we would have to have a plan to push this club much more than it is at present and that would have to be via enthusiastic Trust members.
Staffing levels at the club have been greatly reduced to shave costs but a really big sales/marketing push would be needed to promote WW not only to the local community but to towns & villages further away.
Something to be considered alongside the first question of should we / shouldn’t we accept outside investment.
I agree with @TheAndyGrahamFanClub and previous posters that a culture of "ask no questions" has developed over the years at the Club.
For example, questions from the small number of supporters who attended the last Finance Forum were made about as welcome as a plate of cold custard.
Whilst it may not be the most pressing issue currently it does need to be resolved by the Trust.
Andygraham
I am not sure its terribly relevant now but the training ground controversy is a classic example of social media opinion becoming social media fact.
The reality is that the deal was on pure commercial terms an extremely good deal for the club and an extremely bad deal for the purchasers
Buy a commercial property and you are looking for three things
1) Development or other value upside potential - none as the club had a buyback and location precludes
2) Reliable tenant - not in this case as very uncertain whether club could pay the rent (as subsequently proved)
3) Alternative tenants available if first tenant failed - no obvious alternative user.
More importantly after this burst on unpleasantness and airing of old grudges, really is time now to come up with workable alternatives to the trust plan if that is what you want to achieve. Perfectly valid approach to argue stay with trust ownership and slip down to Conference south (if that is the most likely outcome), not sure if there is another practical solution. The Trust elections would seem a good opportunity to put up candidates with an alternative view and see if they command support.
Some very interesting posts this morning. If the identity of Nicecarrots as revealed above is correct, I’m disappointed to hear who it is having met the guy concerned several times and always found him to be an enthusiastic fan.
Andy Warboys makes a good point about plan B. I thought about this on Saturday at the Pompey game-big ground, big crowd, proper football match. Would people really want to sacrifice days like this by dropping down several levels just so that we can say we’re fan owned?
I disagree with Itscoldupnorth. The club has always been open to questions be it fans forums or open meetings and Trust board members are always on hand to answer questions on match days.
Finally, Dev C is so right about social media opinion becoming social media fact. It’s wrong that serious and possibly unfounded rumours can become dressed up as a factual version of events.
Unfounded rumours of a standing ovation can also attempted to be dressed up as a fact !!
Bit rogue of an admin revealing someone's identity though. I take it Marlow chair has been less naive with his email sign up address!
ps @glasshalffull WOR, not WAR!
It seems Oxford are going to beat us to getting an investor on board. According to Sky, billionaire Erick Thohir is negotiating a minority investment. He is currently Chairman and co-owner of Inter Milan, so expect a wave of Italian loanees coming over.
Thanks Malone, my mistake.
Chairman and co-owner of Inter Milan?!? And wants something to do with a minor league 1 club in England?
@glasshalffull @DevC Social media unpleasantness and personal grudges aside, as I haven't attended any of the meetings, so can you confirm that a number of people on here are wrong and there is absolutely nothing to claims that questions from the floor are dealt with in an angry and confrontational manner?
The majority of questions at the September 12 meeting we’re dealt with in a calm and factual manner. I have found that to be the case at most of the public meetings staged by the club that I have attended. There have been times when those answering questions-and those asking them-have lost their cool and strayed into a more aggressive demeanour but I would challenge anyone to say that is the norm rather than the exception. The subjects being discussed are often emotive so a degree of passion is inevitable.
Just on the subject of the meeting, has anyone that emailed the trust requesting the slides actually been sent them? I did request these but to date nothing has been emailed to me and I would have thought it would have been far easier and indeed less time consuming to simply email these out to all trust members as opposed to dealing with individual requests. I watched the meeting on Facebook and you simply could not see the slides hence requesting these.
yup I was sent them on [email protected] had actually been sent them before I asked but they went into the work spam filter. They obviously believe WW Trust is a front for Syria/Putin/North Korea.
in which case I will email again, not in spam
lol @glasshalffull I remember Mr Beeks refusing point blank to answer questions on the state of the club's finances at an AGM, stating that "this is not the forum for those sort of questions ..... but I am happy to take any questions on 'The Wasps' ". ycnmiu and it is/was typical of the mushroom approach of those days, which appear sadly to be returning.
It is also sad to see the old ".. if you lot don't do what we, who are in the know, tell you to do, we'll end up in the 7th teir!!" returning. Perhaps it is just coincidence that Mr Beeks and Mr Kane are back on the scene too? Secrecy and the many euphemisms that try to disguise it are only ever bad for a club like Wycombe Wanderers.
Joe
My concern is that we don't to go down the route where we vote for something rich people who know better tell us will be the best for everyone and find out further down the line they sold us a crock of ****. I understand that's happened at least once quite recently.
My experience is the opposite of glass half full and others regarding meetings.hard questions are not dealt with at all well and if they are dismissed defensively when asked they are followed up with intimidating approaches afterwards.
The language of the doomsday agenda has been well and truly picked up by the blind supporters of the “sell” movement.they claim we are nailed onto a non-league future if we don’t sell.utter unfounded lies of course.
We also now have a very mucky situation where a self identified former trust director has inexplicably and inexcusably linked another former trust director to the moniker of Nice Carrots. We’ve no evidence that the allegation is correct.i await the derision and outrage from glass half full , Dev and others which would see them avoid being rather blatantly outed as basic hypocrites swimming in s sea of agenda bias laced double standards.
Unless I’m mistaken, everyone can see the email address that people use when they sign up.
Sounds like Brexit.
As you are both moderators you will be able to. I don’t believe any other members can although I will stand corrected if wrong.
Whitehall does not allow MI6 e-mails addresses to be available to any site we log in to for security reasons. We are very secretive.
I think you have probably hit the nail on the head here. It feels that Stroud and the rest of the Board are merely puppets on a string, strictly controlled by Beeks and Kane.
@marlowchair I'm unsure if you can see for yourself but yes I have deducted Carrots identity from his sign up address so not exactly an accusation. I've also spoken to him personally since and confirmed the same so please do confirm how it is inexplicable or inexcusable?
Please note I am not commenting on the validity or otherwise of any points made, merely stating it is probably pertinent to note where the comments originate from as in my opinion it makes a difference.
Still no closer to knowing who you are though. Would love to have a chat with you at a game though as you are clearly very passionate about the club.
Think you’ll find that the majority of Brexit voters were working class people in the Midlands and North. Still, never let facts get in the way of prejudice, eh?
You're mistaken.
It's a moderator privilege
@glasshalffull Not sure what prejudice @Stewie63 was exhibiting. I think the point is being persuaded by multi-millionaires that it's a great idea...when it might not be. Midlanders and Northerners aren't to blame for everything.
Maybe a debate for a different forum.
It was a tongue in cheek comment anyway.
Have to say I’m not sure it’s appropriate to splash an identity gained via moderator privilege. If @NiceCarrots wanted to be identified he would surely have used his real name (which I assume in not Nice Carrots).
It’s not something I’d do.
I assumed it wouldn't really be an issue as previously he's openly declared who he is.
Given the importance of this issue I think it is important that potential interests / motives are in the open.