I wonder if someone giving up their own time, working hard doing a "thankless task" in the best interest of the club might get sufficiently hacked off by persistent attacks on their integrity and honesty to think 'is it really all worth it?' and decide that enough is enough?
This or something more important in real life has come up - family etc?
@DevC said:
What is the alternative to the trust board's plan?
Oh don't start that again!
The plan should be to spend within our limits, especially now that we are not paying off debts to that great guy that Mr Beeks introduced us to; what's his name ...... Steve Hayes.
There IS an alternative to giving the club to someone - and that is that we run it on a budget, which doesn't mean we have to be in the 7th tier, but perhaps we cant afford the largest squad in the division.
I'm confused by the sharp about turn from "our fiances are very healthy" to "we have no alternative but to sell the club" that seems to have happened in about 6 months. I'd really like to look at the books in detail and have really open discussions about our financial planning - and the lead up to the AGM would be a good time to do that?
I also hope we get a good few new (or old) faces standing for election. You don't need to be a brilliant public speaker, just have the club at heart and the ability to keep asking questions and don't be "put in your place" by the club 'elders'. Go for it and get a nomination form.
@DevC said:
What is the alternative to the trust board's plan?
Given two of Marlow's four are stepping down, one is up for re-election and one merely holds a titular position with no conferred authority, I would suggest an alternative would be to pause the process until after the AGM and wait for the new board to be constituted - and allow them to decide whether to continue as planned or to go back to the drawing board.
In the meantime I repeat my plea for all talented members of the Trust to put themselves forward for election. We need a board full of people of the calibre and business acumen of Andrew Howard. It's vital we get contested elections where potential directors are expected to put forward manifestos showing what they could do to make supporter ownership a successful model. Or alternatively how they could provide the expertise necessary to get the best sale to outside investors.
If no one within the fan base feels up to it maybe we should just flyer the helipads in Beaconsfield and see which multimillionaires looking for a hobby fancy spending their Saturdays at Adams Park. There have to be a few more Howards out there, not necessarily fans of WWFC but willing to pitch in out of vanity if nothing else.
Supporter ownership is a difficult enough model to make work with a fair wind behind it. In the current climate it's nigh on impossible, I acknowledge that. The only way we'll do so is with a top notch board full of business acumen and bustling with clever ideas.
IF the choice was league football with private ownership or conference south football with fan ownership, which would you prefer.
Because unless the trust board are lying, or unless there are untapped opportunities for revenue enhancement or cost reduction that no-one on the trust board or anywhere else has yet identified, it is hard to see what other choice there apparently is?
And it depends. My interpretation of your comments on here would be an 'attack'. I'm not sure what the right place to ask your valid questions and expect answers is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't on here.
I actually think you are right to openly raise the issues you do, but (in my view) you can't help yourself from making them appear personal more times than not.
As an example from your post just above: "...the main proponent of the grand plan we had outlined on September 12th has left with a whimper..." You have absolutely no evidence to support that he has 'left with a whimper' (or at least haven't presented it) and appear to be putting your own spin on it to fit in with your internal dialogue of what is happening within the club.
I'm not saying you aren't right, it is entirely possible you are, but you are stating a lot of these things as facts when they are really only conjecture at this stage.
And if you believe that saying someone has left with a whimper isn't a personal dig at someone then either you or I seriously misunderstand what being personal is.
You consistently refer to your being passionate about the football club as an excuse for 'the tiresome nature of your posts' but be aware that one of the problems about inflamed passions is that it can cloud good judgement.
Having said all that I do really value your contributions on here. You do bring a good insight to the inner machinations and despite my personal attacks on your posting style I don't (generally) find them tiresome.
Thank you Bookertease yes I do take it seriously, as seriously I would imagine as those who stand for election and I don’t apologise for it , we must have passions in life.
You’ve highlighted something in your next point that I will take on board, I never considered “ left with a whimper” in anyway to be subjective, critical or personal of Mr Burrell. Rather I was using a term coined by TS Elliot in his poem “The Hollow men” used colloquially to describe something coming to and end in an anti-climactic way.
It ended “ not with a bang but a whimper “
I meant it that after all the build up pre trust meeting and Burrell’s involvement in the preparation and presentation of the boards plans, the announcement today of his departure is anti-climactic .
A good example of how writing style and terms used can easily be misconstrued.
@DevC said:
What is the alternative to the trust board's plan?
Oh don't start that again!
The plan should be to spend within our limits, especially now that we are not paying off debts to that great guy that Mr Beeks introduced us to; what's his name ...... Steve Hayes.
There IS an alternative to giving the club to someone - and that is that we run it on a budget, which doesn't mean we have to be in the 7th tier, but perhaps we cant afford the largest squad in the division.
I'm confused by the sharp about turn from "our fiances are very healthy" to "we have no alternative but to sell the club" that seems to have happened in about 6 months. I'd really like to look at the books in detail and have really open discussions about our financial planning - and the lead up to the AGM would be a good time to do that?
I also hope we get a good few new (or old) faces standing for election. You don't need to be a brilliant public speaker, just have the club at heart and the ability to keep asking questions and don't be "put in your place" by the club 'elders'. Go for it and get a nomination form.
The big confusion is the change of approach versus the last few seasons, in that we're going with a big squad this year, and even shelling a fee out for McCarthy, but then suddenly saying things aren't sustainable.
IF the choice was league football with private ownership or conference south football with fan ownership, which would you prefer.
It isn't, and it's unhelpful to suggest it is.
People like Notts County achieve less with more, Accrington the other way.
Even if we find someone willing to chip in a decent amount each year rather than loan us a sum they want back, if we think we are sorted and can spend what we like we will be screwed further down the line.
@DevC said:
What is the alternative to the trust board's plan?
Given two of Marlow's four are stepping down, one is up for re-election and one merely holds a titular position with no conferred authority, I would suggest an alternative would be to pause the process until after the AGM and wait for the new board to be constituted - and allow them to decide whether to continue as planned or to go back to the drawing board.
I agree and actually would go further to say I don't see this as an alternative, rather as the only way that I feel this matter should now proceed: put it on hold until the new post-AGM board is in place.
@DevC Finance man says we are doing nicely.
Finance man says bloody hell we're screwed!
Finance man steps down.
He must have been wrong one of those times.
That is a worry. Even from your eyrie many miles away.
No?
IF the choice was league football with private ownership or conference south football with fan ownership, which would you prefer.
Because unless the trust board are lying, or unless there are untapped opportunities for revenue enhancement or cost reduction that no-one on the trust board or anywhere else has yet identified, it is hard to see what other choice there apparently is?
Serious question for you Dev.
The Board reported our financial position as being healthy 6 months ago but are now saying we are losing money hand over fist and this is unsustainable. How can BOTH reports be correct?
Dev is right. There are only two options. If the choice was Premier League football but being owned by an amazing Gorilla in top hat and spats whose IQ has been tested as just below that of a ten year old child and fan ownership and playing on the Rye with people throwing bread at you. Which would you prefer? (Obviously those fans with a gluten allergy would be placed in great danger.) There is nothing in between. Be careful what you wish for.
but if the choice is outside investment and we win the champions league and you get paid 3,000 a season to watch and the beer is free, or we continue as a fan owned entity and end up playing Wycombe district football on the Rye and you spend the whole game having your testicles smashed between 2 bricks while local kids throw dogshit at you then what would you choose?
you have to say, you must say, please say
what's your plan what's your plan what's your plan??????
It could be one of those comedy suits with stuffed fake human legs hanging out in front, so it looks like a chair running around on its back legs with a boy sat on it waving to the crowd.
@Uncle_T said:
It could be one of those comedy suits with stuffed fake human legs hanging out in front, so it looks like a chair running around on its back legs with a boy sat on it waving to the crowd.
A man dressed as both a chair and a boy, genius. I can see it now, pull back mini chairboys on wheels dominate the Christmas toy sales, Tiny Fan owned Wycombe are propelled towards the champions league on royalties alone.
In all the talk of how the club should be run and is it as efficiently as it could be under the present model, I notice that we don’t seem to know that, and importantly we have different views on what ‘efficiently’ is. Take the catering. Many have said it has been poor and better food and service will increase profits. Will they? No catering at all means no catering revenue. Delicious home made burgers with twice cooked chips and ‘slaw for £3 a go would be delightful - and surely run a loss. So the balance lies somewhere in between. Sports Direct is a shit shopping experience but more profitable than many, to my mind, nicer ones. How would we feel if the club demonstrated a compelling financial case that below average catering, toilets, beer and so on maximised revenue and thus sustainability. Same for that matter for the quality of football. Personally I come for the latter and if I believed (said belief derived from facts and figures I accepted) we could remain in the current model and deliver decent football in doing so, I could put up with quite a lot of less than top drawer peripherals. But will today’s supporter? I don’t know but I imagine sadly not in enough numbers to make a RyanAir off the pitch/BA on the pitch ‘match day experience’ sustainable.
So to my mind the club needs marketing and hospitailty savvy just as much as football savvy directors or investors. People have called for trust members with passion to stand for vacant posts. I’m not so sure, I’m passionate and could no more evaluate how to maximise revenue from a football club than I could shit nickels. I hope we have another AH in the ranks who will be dispassionate and have the business skills to work out where we can save, and what we need to change to maximise what we can deliver and so we stay supporter owned - but that’s probably a pipe dream although I’d love to be proved wrong. There have been some good ideas on here that may generate or save cash and I get why people feel they have been ignored. Although maybe a club run with limited full-time employees cannot implement a good idea as easily as we might think.
The current directors (unless they are very duplicitous) have done their collective best. Some perhaps may benefit in some way (which, if the case, should be made transparent) from a comsortium coming in but doesn’t mean they haven’t been grafting for us up to now. And in doing their best I doubt it was so poor that they have been letting over half a million a year slip past them. Maybe comminications and handling of challenging questions could be improved but that doesn’t equate to incompetence and sharp practice. It is a common fallacy to conflate the two.
So where does that leave us? It leaves me concerned for the club and hoping that whatever model we end up with, the people involved have the right skills, are sensible and honest and open about their reasons for involvement (For me ‘fun’ would need expanding on). That would be a start.
The bigger question is whether league football as we know it is sustainable. I’m no expert on European or World football leagues so I’m off to see how many other countries sustain as many professional clubs per head of population as we do. Although I bet some smart arse on here will have a table up by tomorrow.
The accounts do not lie, I am afraid. They are far from healthy.
I would be very happy to back supporter ownership if there was a strong probability of staying in league football. As I understand it the trust doesn't think that is likely. Have I misunderstood?
Comments
What is the alternative to the trust board's plan?
Hey, this new person with previous interests in an EFL club favoured by Ivor Beeks doesn't run a loans company and have a great stadium idea does he?
Hear hear @MBS.
And the alternative Mooney?
This or something more important in real life has come up - family etc?
Oh don't start that again!
The plan should be to spend within our limits, especially now that we are not paying off debts to that great guy that Mr Beeks introduced us to; what's his name ...... Steve Hayes.
There IS an alternative to giving the club to someone - and that is that we run it on a budget, which doesn't mean we have to be in the 7th tier, but perhaps we cant afford the largest squad in the division.
I'm confused by the sharp about turn from "our fiances are very healthy" to "we have no alternative but to sell the club" that seems to have happened in about 6 months. I'd really like to look at the books in detail and have really open discussions about our financial planning - and the lead up to the AGM would be a good time to do that?
I also hope we get a good few new (or old) faces standing for election. You don't need to be a brilliant public speaker, just have the club at heart and the ability to keep asking questions and don't be "put in your place" by the club 'elders'. Go for it and get a nomination form.
Is there an echo?
Given two of Marlow's four are stepping down, one is up for re-election and one merely holds a titular position with no conferred authority, I would suggest an alternative would be to pause the process until after the AGM and wait for the new board to be constituted - and allow them to decide whether to continue as planned or to go back to the drawing board.
In the meantime I repeat my plea for all talented members of the Trust to put themselves forward for election. We need a board full of people of the calibre and business acumen of Andrew Howard. It's vital we get contested elections where potential directors are expected to put forward manifestos showing what they could do to make supporter ownership a successful model. Or alternatively how they could provide the expertise necessary to get the best sale to outside investors.
If no one within the fan base feels up to it maybe we should just flyer the helipads in Beaconsfield and see which multimillionaires looking for a hobby fancy spending their Saturdays at Adams Park. There have to be a few more Howards out there, not necessarily fans of WWFC but willing to pitch in out of vanity if nothing else.
Supporter ownership is a difficult enough model to make work with a fair wind behind it. In the current climate it's nigh on impossible, I acknowledge that. The only way we'll do so is with a top notch board full of business acumen and bustling with clever ideas.
How much of a reduction in the playing budget would be required to "spend within our limits"/
I think one of the problems we have is that no-one has the faintest idea @DevC
Please see @wandering_jock's post above, the sentiments of which I broadly agree.
I suggest you prepare one of your spreadsheets and let us all know!
So serious question for you.
IF the choice was league football with private ownership or conference south football with fan ownership, which would you prefer.
Because unless the trust board are lying, or unless there are untapped opportunities for revenue enhancement or cost reduction that no-one on the trust board or anywhere else has yet identified, it is hard to see what other choice there apparently is?
Thank you Bookertease yes I do take it seriously, as seriously I would imagine as those who stand for election and I don’t apologise for it , we must have passions in life.
You’ve highlighted something in your next point that I will take on board, I never considered “ left with a whimper” in anyway to be subjective, critical or personal of Mr Burrell. Rather I was using a term coined by TS Elliot in his poem “The Hollow men” used colloquially to describe something coming to and end in an anti-climactic way.
It ended “ not with a bang but a whimper “
I meant it that after all the build up pre trust meeting and Burrell’s involvement in the preparation and presentation of the boards plans, the announcement today of his departure is anti-climactic .
A good example of how writing style and terms used can easily be misconstrued.
The big confusion is the change of approach versus the last few seasons, in that we're going with a big squad this year, and even shelling a fee out for McCarthy, but then suddenly saying things aren't sustainable.
Your man, it is made of straw.
It isn't, and it's unhelpful to suggest it is.
People like Notts County achieve less with more, Accrington the other way.
Even if we find someone willing to chip in a decent amount each year rather than loan us a sum they want back, if we think we are sorted and can spend what we like we will be screwed further down the line.
I agree and actually would go further to say I don't see this as an alternative, rather as the only way that I feel this matter should now proceed: put it on hold until the new post-AGM board is in place.
@DevC Finance man says we are doing nicely.
Finance man says bloody hell we're screwed!
Finance man steps down.
He must have been wrong one of those times.
That is a worry. Even from your eyrie many miles away.
No?
Serious question for you Dev.
The Board reported our financial position as being healthy 6 months ago but are now saying we are losing money hand over fist and this is unsustainable. How can BOTH reports be correct?
Dev is right. There are only two options. If the choice was Premier League football but being owned by an amazing Gorilla in top hat and spats whose IQ has been tested as just below that of a ten year old child and fan ownership and playing on the Rye with people throwing bread at you. Which would you prefer? (Obviously those fans with a gluten allergy would be placed in great danger.) There is nothing in between. Be careful what you wish for.
but if the choice is outside investment and we win the champions league and you get paid 3,000 a season to watch and the beer is free, or we continue as a fan owned entity and end up playing Wycombe district football on the Rye and you spend the whole game having your testicles smashed between 2 bricks while local kids throw dogshit at you then what would you choose?
you have to say, you must say, please say
what's your plan what's your plan what's your plan??????
@eric_plant now you're just being silly.
If you had to choose the new mascot would it be a chair made to look like a boy or a boy who looks strangely like a chair.
@eric_plant The masochists amongst us would probably choose the latter!
It could be one of those comedy suits with stuffed fake human legs hanging out in front, so it looks like a chair running around on its back legs with a boy sat on it waving to the crowd.
@Uncle_T now that's something that WOULD get my vote!
A man dressed as both a chair and a boy, genius. I can see it now, pull back mini chairboys on wheels dominate the Christmas toy sales, Tiny Fan owned Wycombe are propelled towards the champions league on royalties alone.
In all the talk of how the club should be run and is it as efficiently as it could be under the present model, I notice that we don’t seem to know that, and importantly we have different views on what ‘efficiently’ is. Take the catering. Many have said it has been poor and better food and service will increase profits. Will they? No catering at all means no catering revenue. Delicious home made burgers with twice cooked chips and ‘slaw for £3 a go would be delightful - and surely run a loss. So the balance lies somewhere in between. Sports Direct is a shit shopping experience but more profitable than many, to my mind, nicer ones. How would we feel if the club demonstrated a compelling financial case that below average catering, toilets, beer and so on maximised revenue and thus sustainability. Same for that matter for the quality of football. Personally I come for the latter and if I believed (said belief derived from facts and figures I accepted) we could remain in the current model and deliver decent football in doing so, I could put up with quite a lot of less than top drawer peripherals. But will today’s supporter? I don’t know but I imagine sadly not in enough numbers to make a RyanAir off the pitch/BA on the pitch ‘match day experience’ sustainable.
So to my mind the club needs marketing and hospitailty savvy just as much as football savvy directors or investors. People have called for trust members with passion to stand for vacant posts. I’m not so sure, I’m passionate and could no more evaluate how to maximise revenue from a football club than I could shit nickels. I hope we have another AH in the ranks who will be dispassionate and have the business skills to work out where we can save, and what we need to change to maximise what we can deliver and so we stay supporter owned - but that’s probably a pipe dream although I’d love to be proved wrong. There have been some good ideas on here that may generate or save cash and I get why people feel they have been ignored. Although maybe a club run with limited full-time employees cannot implement a good idea as easily as we might think.
The current directors (unless they are very duplicitous) have done their collective best. Some perhaps may benefit in some way (which, if the case, should be made transparent) from a comsortium coming in but doesn’t mean they haven’t been grafting for us up to now. And in doing their best I doubt it was so poor that they have been letting over half a million a year slip past them. Maybe comminications and handling of challenging questions could be improved but that doesn’t equate to incompetence and sharp practice. It is a common fallacy to conflate the two.
So where does that leave us? It leaves me concerned for the club and hoping that whatever model we end up with, the people involved have the right skills, are sensible and honest and open about their reasons for involvement (For me ‘fun’ would need expanding on). That would be a start.
The bigger question is whether league football as we know it is sustainable. I’m no expert on European or World football leagues so I’m off to see how many other countries sustain as many professional clubs per head of population as we do. Although I bet some smart arse on here will have a table up by tomorrow.
Oh and let’s get a win tomorrow. COYB.
The accounts do not lie, I am afraid. They are far from healthy.
I would be very happy to back supporter ownership if there was a strong probability of staying in league football. As I understand it the trust doesn't think that is likely. Have I misunderstood?