My understanding is both the U.S and the Saudi/Dubai consortia are not best pleased and other options may be explored. It is possible both consortia are less keen than they were before the carefully orchestrated sales pitch delivered on the 12th.
Quoting the BDO report inaccurately and creating the impression that it was independent when we wrote the article, is at best unfortunate at worst misleading. As was do we want to be a Portsmouth (100% owned) or a Havant and Waterlooville...
You can't fool all the people all of the time.
And maybe now would be a good time to stop trying?
Nice try @NiceCarrots . Might be an idea to practice what you preach. I am tired of your speculation being presented as an understanding to warp the debate.
Thanks @NiceCarrots - I for one am very grateful for your informed speculation and am tired of those like @Right_in_the_Middle trying to stop you and @marlowchair from posting it. People complain about hidden agendas on here - I consider Mr Carrots and Marlow's agenda(s) to be among the most transparent and clearly defined. It's those who want to shut down the debate and stick their fingers in their ears until the Trust make some sort of announcement that I worry about.
It is interesting trying to work our what is going on - everyone loves a conspiracy theory after all.
But if studying history all those years back taught us anything - you need to get to the bottom of someone's background to see if there are underlying things biasing their views.
That's true @Malone but it works both ways. Those on here defending the directors of the Trust or calling for the discussion to be curtailed would also need to declare any relevant information, including relationships, friendships and business dealings. That's unlikely to be done. So let's not just single out those critical of the status quo, eh?
Hats off @aloysius
If you’re tired @Right_in_the_Middle perhaps you should have an early night? @NiceCarrots Do you happen to know why said consortia are “not best pleased?”
Probably a fair comment @aloysius. But it's always an easier target to go at the people with all the moans and "inside knowledge", rather than the ones whose interest simply seems to be that we almost were ruined by private ownership a mere handful of years ago
I have obviously missed something. Is it common knowledge (if indeed it is factual) that two of the potentially interested minority (initially) stakeholders are a US consortium and a Saudi/Dubai consortium?
@bookertease I have no idea who is or isn't interested in the club or which countries they are from.
Regarding Mr Copus, @NiceCarrots mentioned his name in a post this morning so, out of curiosity, I decided to look him up on line. He apparently lives near Wycombe and is connected with a Dubai/Saudi company who hold a minority stake in Sutton United. I know nothing more.
@NiceCarrots apologies if I've missed something important...but what is it exactly the two consortia are not best pleased about? There being two consortia? The burgers? @trevor ? @TheAndyGrahamFanClub leaving the Gasroom? The Gasroom? It's the puns, isn't it?
@Uncle_T said: @bookertease I have no idea who is or isn't interested in the club or which countries they are from.
Regarding Mr Copus, @NiceCarrots mentioned his name in a post this morning so, out of curiosity, I decided to look him up on line. He apparently lives near Wycombe and is connected with a Dubai/Saudi company who hold a minority stake in Sutton United. I know nothing more.
Copus's plan could be to move our club to Sutton and rename us Sutton Wanderers!
Seems to me we have reached an impasse. We have not had a conversation about options available to the club and/or what it supporters want from it, we are still hung up on trust.
Fundamentally you have a choice. You can believe unless there is clear evidence to the contrary that the club and trust board, mostly elected by their peers, are decent people giving their time altruistically working for the best interests of the club, but like all humans, sometimes they will get judgements weong
Or you can start from the premise that those people are all either Machiavellian geniuses engaged in a cunning plan to enrich themselves or to stupid to realise they have been duped.
If you are in the latter camp, you will always find untruths and unrelated facts that can spun to further the “argument”. If that is your mindset I will not be able to change your mind.
Meanwhile I see no alternative proposal to seeking cash from outside beyond Marlows rather bizarre suggestion of throwing a six figure sum at employing management consultants in an untargeted fishing expedition or the perfectly valid but surely unacceptable option of slashing the playing budget and accepting a slide way into the depths of nonleague. For those who don’t want to see outside “investment”, really is time you suggested a serious alternative.
@Chris I believe @NiceCarrots is probably referring to the fact that, in the run-up to the September 12th meeting, the Trust communications indicated that the BDO Annual Survey of Football Club Finance Directors had concluded that "Fan owned football really isn't sustainable as there aren't the principal shareholders who can make capital injections when required, leaving funding challenges."
The way this was presented led to many of those reading the Trust communcations, including myself, thinking that this was a conclusion drawn independently by BDO. If you read the actual report though, as I subsequently did, you find that this was not a conclusion drawn by BDO. It is actually a direct quote attributed in the report to "Wycombe Wanderers FC."
The Trust were not incorrect in stating that the BDO report included that wording. They were, however, being somewhat devious in not making it clear that the wording only appeared in the report as a quote from themselves
OK so here is one attempt to join the dots based purely on the hints provided by @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots in the last few days. No more than a 'conspiracy theory' though @Malone!
What we've been told: there has been an emergency board meeting; what's written on here has apparently got the chairman nervous; two consortia are less keen now than before the 12th; one consortia might have links to Mr Copus, who lives near Wycombe and regularly tweets about the club. What has been rumoured but not denied: Trevor Stroud works at Beechdean for Andrew Howard (and certainly on at least one occasion has worn Beechdean-branded clothing totally unrelated to WWFC at a trade fair). Declarations of conflicts of interest are apparently required by the Trust but nothing appears to have been published.
So let's assume Mr Copus also reads the Gasroom and has a particular interest in this thread, as he probably would if doing due diligence before investing. Perhaps until reading this thread he was unaware that the Trust chairman, the man he was probably working directly with, potentially is employed by Andrew Howard and would therefore have a conflict of interest when negotiating investment into the club, especially if Mr Howard is a major shareholder in the club. He may feel that the Trust chairman has not served as an honest broker in that scenario and threaten to pull out - thus taking one option off the table, potentially preventing the club from getting the best deal through a competitive bidding process and denying the club the use of Mr Copus's experience and expertise on the board.
It's just a theory, of course, and one based on nothing more than unfounded rumour and intuition. But it's exactly for this reason I and others have been keen to get some clarity on Mr Stroud's employment position and wonder whether he can be the right person to lead this process until we do.
Chairman and consortia worried by reaction of a limited number of Wycombe fans on a forum? I never knew the Gasroom was so very powerful. We must learn to wield it only for the good of the world/High Wycombe area.
@Wendoverman said:
Chairman and consortia worried by reaction of a limited number of Wycombe fans on a forum? I never knew the Gasroom was so very powerful. We must learn to wield it only for the good of the world/High Wycombe area.
Dear Club lurkers I have heard people will only come to games if there is free beer, make the people happy.
And @aloysius. That is certainly one way to join some dots that may or may not actually exist.
Am I alone in finding all of this this rather amusing? I know it does matter but regardless of which direction we do go in we are in a much better position than we were last time we got into this position and have the perspective of history to inform us. Relax, enjoy the football, drink the beer, don’t eat the burgers and feel confident that we’ll still be able to do it for a few more years at least.
Here is the Chairman's report at the November 2017 AGM.
Copied verbatim - please check for yourselves.
This is posted on Feb. 18th 2018 on the AGM on 29th November 2017.
Heard some of the figures had changed but can't substantiate this so if any accountants could tell me if figures presented in November 2017 differ to those released in Feb. 2018, please say so.
Chairman's Report:
The source is the Wycombe Supporters Trust website:
I’m sure some of you are asking in which capacity I am standing in front of you, is it as TrustChairman or Football Club Chairman. Well the answer is both, but primarily as Trust Chairman this evening. It has been questioned whether it is possible or appropriate for me to perform both roles,and whilst there are plusses and minuses to the situation, I, and more importantly your Trust Board,believe that is there is no reason to change the situation at the moment. The Trust Chairman is appointed by the Trust board, which also appoints a majority of the football club board, and I’m sure that if they feel the situation is not working they will take the appropriate steps to change it.
For Trevor Stroud to raise the issue without admitting he was being bankrolled at the time is up to you to decide.
This week a trust board director who was on the board at the time confirmed this was minuted which would pre-date the meeting to before November 2017.
Comments
My understanding is both the U.S and the Saudi/Dubai consortia are not best pleased and other options may be explored. It is possible both consortia are less keen than they were before the carefully orchestrated sales pitch delivered on the 12th.
Quoting the BDO report inaccurately and creating the impression that it was independent when we wrote the article, is at best unfortunate at worst misleading. As was do we want to be a Portsmouth (100% owned) or a Havant and Waterlooville...
You can't fool all the people all of the time.
And maybe now would be a good time to stop trying?
Nice try @NiceCarrots . Might be an idea to practice what you preach. I am tired of your speculation being presented as an understanding to warp the debate.
Thanks @NiceCarrots - I for one am very grateful for your informed speculation and am tired of those like @Right_in_the_Middle trying to stop you and @marlowchair from posting it. People complain about hidden agendas on here - I consider Mr Carrots and Marlow's agenda(s) to be among the most transparent and clearly defined. It's those who want to shut down the debate and stick their fingers in their ears until the Trust make some sort of announcement that I worry about.
It is interesting trying to work our what is going on - everyone loves a conspiracy theory after all.
But if studying history all those years back taught us anything - you need to get to the bottom of someone's background to see if there are underlying things biasing their views.
Exactly @Malone.
That's true @Malone but it works both ways. Those on here defending the directors of the Trust or calling for the discussion to be curtailed would also need to declare any relevant information, including relationships, friendships and business dealings. That's unlikely to be done. So let's not just single out those critical of the status quo, eh?
To be fair to @Malone I think he may have had both sides in mind, anyway.
Hats off @aloysius
If you’re tired @Right_in_the_Middle perhaps you should have an early night?
@NiceCarrots Do you happen to know why said consortia are “not best pleased?”
Probably a fair comment @aloysius. But it's always an easier target to go at the people with all the moans and "inside knowledge", rather than the ones whose interest simply seems to be that we almost were ruined by private ownership a mere handful of years ago
@micra , looking out for old malone, appreciate it buddy
Thought you would!
I have obviously missed something. Is it common knowledge (if indeed it is factual) that two of the potentially interested minority (initially) stakeholders are a US consortium and a Saudi/Dubai consortium?
And where does Mr Copus fit in?
@bookertease I have no idea who is or isn't interested in the club or which countries they are from.
Regarding Mr Copus, @NiceCarrots mentioned his name in a post this morning so, out of curiosity, I decided to look him up on line. He apparently lives near Wycombe and is connected with a Dubai/Saudi company who hold a minority stake in Sutton United. I know nothing more.
@NiceCarrots apologies if I've missed something important...but what is it exactly the two consortia are not best pleased about? There being two consortia? The burgers? @trevor ? @TheAndyGrahamFanClub leaving the Gasroom? The Gasroom? It's the puns, isn't it?
Copus's plan could be to move our club to Sutton and rename us Sutton Wanderers!
US and the Saudis? Did someone strike oil under Adams Park without telling anyone?
I do have a soft spot for Sutton and Gander Green Lane
@NiceCarrots Can I ask what article this is a reference to, please?
creating the impression that it was independent when we wrote the article, is at best unfortunate at worst misleading
Seems to me we have reached an impasse. We have not had a conversation about options available to the club and/or what it supporters want from it, we are still hung up on trust.
Fundamentally you have a choice. You can believe unless there is clear evidence to the contrary that the club and trust board, mostly elected by their peers, are decent people giving their time altruistically working for the best interests of the club, but like all humans, sometimes they will get judgements weong
Or you can start from the premise that those people are all either Machiavellian geniuses engaged in a cunning plan to enrich themselves or to stupid to realise they have been duped.
If you are in the latter camp, you will always find untruths and unrelated facts that can spun to further the “argument”. If that is your mindset I will not be able to change your mind.
Meanwhile I see no alternative proposal to seeking cash from outside beyond Marlows rather bizarre suggestion of throwing a six figure sum at employing management consultants in an untargeted fishing expedition or the perfectly valid but surely unacceptable option of slashing the playing budget and accepting a slide way into the depths of nonleague. For those who don’t want to see outside “investment”, really is time you suggested a serious alternative.
@Chris I believe @NiceCarrots is probably referring to the fact that, in the run-up to the September 12th meeting, the Trust communications indicated that the BDO Annual Survey of Football Club Finance Directors had concluded that "Fan owned football really isn't sustainable as there aren't the principal shareholders who can make capital injections when required, leaving funding challenges."
The way this was presented led to many of those reading the Trust communcations, including myself, thinking that this was a conclusion drawn independently by BDO. If you read the actual report though, as I subsequently did, you find that this was not a conclusion drawn by BDO. It is actually a direct quote attributed in the report to "Wycombe Wanderers FC."
The Trust were not incorrect in stating that the BDO report included that wording. They were, however, being somewhat devious in not making it clear that the wording only appeared in the report as a quote from themselves
OK so here is one attempt to join the dots based purely on the hints provided by @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots in the last few days. No more than a 'conspiracy theory' though @Malone!
What we've been told: there has been an emergency board meeting; what's written on here has apparently got the chairman nervous; two consortia are less keen now than before the 12th; one consortia might have links to Mr Copus, who lives near Wycombe and regularly tweets about the club. What has been rumoured but not denied: Trevor Stroud works at Beechdean for Andrew Howard (and certainly on at least one occasion has worn Beechdean-branded clothing totally unrelated to WWFC at a trade fair). Declarations of conflicts of interest are apparently required by the Trust but nothing appears to have been published.
So let's assume Mr Copus also reads the Gasroom and has a particular interest in this thread, as he probably would if doing due diligence before investing. Perhaps until reading this thread he was unaware that the Trust chairman, the man he was probably working directly with, potentially is employed by Andrew Howard and would therefore have a conflict of interest when negotiating investment into the club, especially if Mr Howard is a major shareholder in the club. He may feel that the Trust chairman has not served as an honest broker in that scenario and threaten to pull out - thus taking one option off the table, potentially preventing the club from getting the best deal through a competitive bidding process and denying the club the use of Mr Copus's experience and expertise on the board.
It's just a theory, of course, and one based on nothing more than unfounded rumour and intuition. But it's exactly for this reason I and others have been keen to get some clarity on Mr Stroud's employment position and wonder whether he can be the right person to lead this process until we do.
I should add to my last post that the quote was/is attributed to WWFC in the presentation slides used at the meeting.
Chairman and consortia worried by reaction of a limited number of Wycombe fans on a forum? I never knew the Gasroom was so very powerful. We must learn to wield it only for the good of the world/High Wycombe area.
Dear Club lurkers I have heard people will only come to games if there is free beer, make the people happy.
I hope you are very proud of the influence the Gasroom has @drcongo.
May he can’t answer because he is under the influence! ?
And @aloysius. That is certainly one way to join some dots that may or may not actually exist.
Am I alone in finding all of this this rather amusing? I know it does matter but regardless of which direction we do go in we are in a much better position than we were last time we got into this position and have the perspective of history to inform us. Relax, enjoy the football, drink the beer, don’t eat the burgers and feel confident that we’ll still be able to do it for a few more years at least.
Here is the Chairman's report at the November 2017 AGM.
Copied verbatim - please check for yourselves.
This is posted on Feb. 18th 2018 on the AGM on 29th November 2017.
Heard some of the figures had changed but can't substantiate this so if any accountants could tell me if figures presented in November 2017 differ to those released in Feb. 2018, please say so.
Chairman's Report:
The source is the Wycombe Supporters Trust website:
I’m sure some of you are asking in which capacity I am standing in front of you, is it as TrustChairman or Football Club Chairman. Well the answer is both, but primarily as Trust Chairman this evening. It has been questioned whether it is possible or appropriate for me to perform both roles,and whilst there are plusses and minuses to the situation, I, and more importantly your Trust Board,believe that is there is no reason to change the situation at the moment. The Trust Chairman is appointed by the Trust board, which also appoints a majority of the football club board, and I’m sure that if they feel the situation is not working they will take the appropriate steps to change it.
For Trevor Stroud to raise the issue without admitting he was being bankrolled at the time is up to you to decide.
This week a trust board director who was on the board at the time confirmed this was minuted which would pre-date the meeting to before November 2017.
Has anyone worked out which ELF club one of the proposed consortium previously owned/had a majority interest in yet ?
Spriteon & Hove Elfbion?