The conflict of interest is presumably, that Mr Stroud (why does our carroty friend seem to struggle to write his name properly - intentional wordplay disrespect? Or repeated "typo"?), is on the "Bankroll" of the guy who is massively , or was massively involved with the running of the club, so obviously would find it hard to go against him, on anything.
Others might wonder if there's a level of bitterness held akin to a jilted lover, at some sort of perceived being "wronged" from Mr Stroud.
@Malone said:
The conflict of interest is presumably, that Mr Stroud (why does our carroty friend seem to struggle to write his name properly - intentional wordplay disrespect? Or repeated "typo"?), is on the "Bankroll" of the guy who is massively , or was massively involved with the running of the club, so obviously would find it hard to go against him, on anything.
Others might wonder if there's a level of bitterness held akin to a jilted lover, at some sort of perceived being "wronged" from Mr Stroud.
I’m getting that as well it also has more than a hint of golf club politics
Far enough I suppose considering we've done so badly the last couple of seasons anyone would be worried about such an arrangement. Ownership of the club concerns me, but I cannot say I doubt AH motives though. Then again I'm quite thick and can't play golf.
The question of conflict and what effect the elected chairman working for Mr Howard has on the overall performance and culture of our club is a long one to answer. Without breaching confidence and using specifics some hypothetical scenarios where a situation like this COULD make the arrangement less than acceptable are:-
Mr Howard and his company are sponsors.what if Mr Stroud erred in his employment or contract agreement and fell out with Mr Howard? That could have a diverse effect on our club as the relationship fall out professionally may lead to revenue being withdrawn from our club
-If an important club event date clashes with an important Beechdean ice cream sales meeting or event, what takes priority?
-If a staff member,sponsor,supporter or potential investor were to be subjected to a personal falling out with mr Howard or other acrimonious situation , would Mr Stroud take an objective position in the best interest of the club or have little choice but to side with his main client / employer?
If mr Howard felt his sponsorship was not good value or wanted to resist a market rate increase on renewal, or if he felt the club had breached the contract in some way so wanted to be compensated for example, who would argue the clubs position? Or would we even argue at all?
-If a player or their agent had a grievance or issue with mr Howard in his role as sporting director , who would they speak to in the course of proper process? could they raise it with Trevor and expect an objective and fair hearing?
Just some hypothetical examples but essentially in my opinion real conflict of interest claims ate possible, and perceived conflict of interest is probabl
For as long as Mr Stroud is employed by Mr Howard, it is difficult to see whether Mr Howard's decision to stand down as a director will make any actual difference.
The conflict of interest - and yes, I sound like a broken record for which I apologise - is critical to the club's financial results which are likely to be very poor indeed hence the decision of two FC directors resigning in time to avoid the AGM in November.
A conflict COULD arise when Chairman says we can't afford to spend so much money on the playing squad given the revenue.
Many of the revenue sources are also dependent on his boss like stand sponsorships etc.
How can the Chairman say with any authority whatsoever you need to curb your spending to his boss, upon whom he is financially dependent, without running the risk of having his money stopped?
A conflict COULD also arise when the Chairman discusses the relative merits of different consortia and for the same reason.
All this begs the question -what are the Trust board doing about it?
It will be interesting to see what the Fans Council comes up with tonight as they seem to have replaced the Trust board in terms of significance.
Ironic comment of the day has to be Nicecarrots saying: ‘without breaking any confidence’ after his countless posts doing exactly that. He also launches into yet another long missive about Trevor Stroud whilst still insisting that ‘it’s nothing personal’.
If Mr Stroud has failed to declare an interest in contravention of the Club Rules then surely he needs to brought to task by the membership. Failure to do so may encourage him to ignore/break other rules with impudence.
Thanks @marlowchair and i get the issue now with regard to the secret santa bidders and the sudden claims of poverty but in the daily running of the club despite such possible scenarios i would suggest the relationship has worked thus far. Though of course there are plenty of questions it seems as we limp forward...
Genuine question. Is it still a problem now that AH has, effectively, ‘left the building’?
Good question.
It is only a current problem if mr Howard or his family for example are significant creditors. Such influence over our chairman could very easily affect our strategy in terms of debt repayment or management. In light of the current conversation around selling or not I feel it is far from ideal.
Secondly It certainly is still a problem for Mr Stroud’s integrity in terms of asking to be re-elected if indeed it has been the case that for over a year and a half until very recently he was happy to be working under such a significant and undeclared conflict of interest.
It easily solved, he just needs to clear it all up and demonstrate how and when the conflict was declared to the board and minuted prior to asking members to vote for him or not. Explaining why he hasn’t informed the membership at previous AGM meetings would also be prudent.
What would be unacceptable is if he or other directors take a position or view that they don’t see anything wrong with the circumstances , see no reason why it could be a conflict of interest, or see no reason why it should have been declared .
If that position is taken then I would use it as evidenced of a gross lack of judgement and understanding of governance and transparency.
@OxfordBlue said:
As fascinating as this broken record of conflict of interest is, does anyone know anything about the potential investors?
Yes. Things have changed since the meeting and the front runners the financial director and chairman spoke about so glowingly have cooled in their interest. Some old phone numbers of intersted parties have been utilised from earlier in the “process” which now will be at least considered given recent resignations.
@mooneyman said:
If Mr Stroud has failed to declare an interest in contravention of the Club Rules then surely he needs to brought to task by the membership. Failure to do so may encourage him to ignore/break other rules with impudence.
@Wendoverman said:
Thanks @marlowchair and i get the issue now with regard to the secret santa bidders and the sudden claims of poverty but in the daily running of the club despite such possible scenarios i would suggest the relationship has worked thus far. Though of course there are plenty of questions it seems as we limp forward...
How has it worked so far though ?
On/field performance yes, absolutely.
Other ares ?
Financially it hasn’t, it’s been an abject failure if our finance director and TS himself are to be believed.
Mr Howard has done a great job for Gareth and the results are there for all to see. I’m on record as being an admirer of them both. But if the expenditure has been unchecked by our chairman because it is his boss doing the spending, then who is responsible for our “unsustainable” position that TS and MB so keenly tables on September 12th?
@marlowchair
presuming those old phone numbers are of an extremely wealthy curly haired ex Wanderers player. Most people I've spoken to that have a sprinkling of info on the different consortiums bidding, felt a lot more comfortable with these local chaos than the overseas ones.
but for whatever reason were not deemed the front runners by the present WWFC big wigs whoever they were/are ?
How do we know this hasn't been declared to the board, I'm not sure the conflict of interest stuff means you have to ring up all supporters to disclose.
Difficult to say the finances have been an abject failure just because they are warning that current ownership may not be sustainable long term.
I'm as concerned as anyone about getting sold down the river but some of the reaching here is laughable.
@ChasHarps said: @marlowchair
presuming those old phone numbers are of an extremely wealthy curly haired ex Wanderers player. Most people I've spoken to that have a sprinkling of info on the different consortiums bidding, felt a lot more comfortable with these local chaos than the overseas ones.
but for whatever reason were not deemed the front runners by the present WWFC big wigs whoever they were/are ?
Lol.... anyone else like me, trying to desperately think of an old curly haired player !?!?
Comments
Aren't you confusing him with Richie!
@Right_in_the_Middle impenetrable as ever
Sorry @mooneyman I meant Mr Shroud not Our beloved trevor. (I thought richie was paid out of Bedfordshire?)
The conflict of interest is presumably, that Mr Stroud (why does our carroty friend seem to struggle to write his name properly - intentional wordplay disrespect? Or repeated "typo"?), is on the "Bankroll" of the guy who is massively , or was massively involved with the running of the club, so obviously would find it hard to go against him, on anything.
Others might wonder if there's a level of bitterness held akin to a jilted lover, at some sort of perceived being "wronged" from Mr Stroud.
As fascinating as this broken record of conflict of interest is, does anyone know anything about the potential investors?
Also interested in what was discussed at "Monday's boardmeeting" about ifollow, that was mentioned somewhere.
@malone iFollow is on tomorrow's Fans Council meeting agenda.
I’m getting that as well it also has more than a hint of golf club politics
Far enough I suppose considering we've done so badly the last couple of seasons anyone would be worried about such an arrangement. Ownership of the club concerns me, but I cannot say I doubt AH motives though. Then again I'm quite thick and can't play golf.
The question of conflict and what effect the elected chairman working for Mr Howard has on the overall performance and culture of our club is a long one to answer. Without breaching confidence and using specifics some hypothetical scenarios where a situation like this COULD make the arrangement less than acceptable are:-
-If an important club event date clashes with an important Beechdean ice cream sales meeting or event, what takes priority?
-If a staff member,sponsor,supporter or potential investor were to be subjected to a personal falling out with mr Howard or other acrimonious situation , would Mr Stroud take an objective position in the best interest of the club or have little choice but to side with his main client / employer?
-If a player or their agent had a grievance or issue with mr Howard in his role as sporting director , who would they speak to in the course of proper process? could they raise it with Trevor and expect an objective and fair hearing?
Just some hypothetical examples but essentially in my opinion real conflict of interest claims ate possible, and perceived conflict of interest is probabl
Thanks @marlowchair.
Genuine question. Is it still a problem now that AH has, effectively, ‘left the building’?
For as long as Mr Stroud is employed by Mr Howard, it is difficult to see whether Mr Howard's decision to stand down as a director will make any actual difference.
The conflict of interest - and yes, I sound like a broken record for which I apologise - is critical to the club's financial results which are likely to be very poor indeed hence the decision of two FC directors resigning in time to avoid the AGM in November.
A conflict COULD arise when Chairman says we can't afford to spend so much money on the playing squad given the revenue.
Many of the revenue sources are also dependent on his boss like stand sponsorships etc.
How can the Chairman say with any authority whatsoever you need to curb your spending to his boss, upon whom he is financially dependent, without running the risk of having his money stopped?
A conflict COULD also arise when the Chairman discusses the relative merits of different consortia and for the same reason.
All this begs the question -what are the Trust board doing about it?
It will be interesting to see what the Fans Council comes up with tonight as they seem to have replaced the Trust board in terms of significance.
Ironic comment of the day has to be Nicecarrots saying: ‘without breaking any confidence’ after his countless posts doing exactly that. He also launches into yet another long missive about Trevor Stroud whilst still insisting that ‘it’s nothing personal’.
If Mr Stroud has failed to declare an interest in contravention of the Club Rules then surely he needs to brought to task by the membership. Failure to do so may encourage him to ignore/break other rules with impudence.
Did Howard turn you down for a job @NiceCarrots?
Thanks @marlowchair and i get the issue now with regard to the secret santa bidders and the sudden claims of poverty but in the daily running of the club despite such possible scenarios i would suggest the relationship has worked thus far. Though of course there are plenty of questions it seems as we limp forward...
e> @bookertease said:
Good question.
It is only a current problem if mr Howard or his family for example are significant creditors. Such influence over our chairman could very easily affect our strategy in terms of debt repayment or management. In light of the current conversation around selling or not I feel it is far from ideal.
Secondly It certainly is still a problem for Mr Stroud’s integrity in terms of asking to be re-elected if indeed it has been the case that for over a year and a half until very recently he was happy to be working under such a significant and undeclared conflict of interest.
It easily solved, he just needs to clear it all up and demonstrate how and when the conflict was declared to the board and minuted prior to asking members to vote for him or not. Explaining why he hasn’t informed the membership at previous AGM meetings would also be prudent.
What would be unacceptable is if he or other directors take a position or view that they don’t see anything wrong with the circumstances , see no reason why it could be a conflict of interest, or see no reason why it should have been declared .
If that position is taken then I would use it as evidenced of a gross lack of judgement and understanding of governance and transparency.
Yes. Things have changed since the meeting and the front runners the financial director and chairman spoke about so glowingly have cooled in their interest. Some old phone numbers of intersted parties have been utilised from earlier in the “process” which now will be at least considered given recent resignations.
Succinct and correct.
How has it worked so far though ?
On/field performance yes, absolutely.
Other ares ?
Financially it hasn’t, it’s been an abject failure if our finance director and TS himself are to be believed.
Mr Howard has done a great job for Gareth and the results are there for all to see. I’m on record as being an admirer of them both. But if the expenditure has been unchecked by our chairman because it is his boss doing the spending, then who is responsible for our “unsustainable” position that TS and MB so keenly tables on September 12th?
@bookertease , Clearly he's not best pleased at being "let go" from the board, hence is very anti it now, and for some reason Mr Stroud personally.
@marlowchair
presuming those old phone numbers are of an extremely wealthy curly haired ex Wanderers player. Most people I've spoken to that have a sprinkling of info on the different consortiums bidding, felt a lot more comfortable with these local chaos than the overseas ones.
but for whatever reason were not deemed the front runners by the present WWFC big wigs whoever they were/are ?
Group not chaos !!
How do we know this hasn't been declared to the board, I'm not sure the conflict of interest stuff means you have to ring up all supporters to disclose.
Difficult to say the finances have been an abject failure just because they are warning that current ownership may not be sustainable long term.
I'm as concerned as anyone about getting sold down the river but some of the reaching here is laughable.
Lol.... anyone else like me, trying to desperately think of an old curly haired player !?!?
@HolmerBlue surely worth a thread all of its own!
I'd go for Steve Perrin as a "Curly Haired Wanderer"
Yeah but how many posts until everyone starts arguing
I expect Dev will produce a full team of them shortly.
A curly haired wanderer in a big wig at that.
Is that “reacting” @StrongestTeam or are you just sick of it all?