One other thing to mention from last night's Fans Council meeting. Matt Cecil, unprompted, updated everyone on @JoeTheDrummer's eventful afternoon at Pompey. He said that the Portsmouth FC stewards had confirmed that Joe's drum was taken off him, then returned minus the sticks, because he was encouraging the Wycombe fans to make too much noise. Apparently, this noise was provoking the home fans to our side.
I don't know where to start with this, so I'll just say I am a huge admirer of Joe, I don't know where he gets his energy from. It doesn't feel right if I don't hear him at an away game, he is an important part of my away days.
One very important point (detail) May have been overlooked in all this but I think is important to whether I will be using my legacy membership to vote For or against investment. It won’t form my decision in isolation but it may allow me to overlook the lack of process and due diligence excercised by the board to date:
The trust board voted unanimously to explore new models and ownership structures which sees us exploring these options. That is prudent governance.
But they voted unanimously with one clear stipulation- that no new model or structure should increase the clubs debt.
A simple yet prudent and very well considered proviso.
On that basis, no sale to third parties of part or all of our club should see the initial purchase price invested into the club as directors loans. That would simply leave us with new shareholders and a larger creditor register (debt)
Any initial purchase price MUST be treated as revenue from share sales and deposited directly into the club trading account . Our loans must not increase as a result . That is not my request, that is what our trust board stipulated must happen when voting.
Going forward, new shareholders must not be allowed to put money into the club and list it as directors loan unchecked. Increasing the directors loans whilst running a club is the easiest and most often used method of gaining full control .
You may remember the last guy who “loaned” us lots of money and how that ended .
All of that said, there is no way at all to date we have any reasonable prospect of being able to confidently vote for any proposed investment given:
-the unresolved mess/question around whether substantial conflict of interest has been present during our current chairman’s tenure
-the flawed due diligence process around the entire canvassing period of potential investors
-the fact that two major players from our side who have met , negotiated, courted and appeased potential investors to date have resigned from our company quickly after the public meeting to members announcing their recommendation and weeks before an AGM
the fact the very management and board who have enjoyed autonomy and control of all operational and strategic matters for 5 years , admitting they have managed and run the club into an unsustainable position , deem themselves suitable and credible advisors and negotiators in the most important period of our clubs history is by definition illogical and cause for great concern.
-the fact that profitable and beneficial cash sponsorship deals and also valuable value in kind deals that make our club revenue and save our club cash expenditure, have been lost or strained in 2018 further negatively altering our sustainability position. This is a direct result of board and management decisions or abilities and comes at exactly the wrong time for our club.
It just leaves us in no position at all to make such big decisions. We need a period of new management and directors who can audit the operations and decisions of previous few years and shine some light on what our actual position is and WHY our revenues and expenditure sit where they sit.
Why?
Because if our position can be greatly improved by improving efficiencies , skill level ,experience , management control and leadership in our off - pitch operations , we need to know ,as changing those things MUST be tabled as an alternate option before we sell some or all of our club.
By definition though our board and chair are unlikely to wish to be open minded and objective enough to consider “ running the club better “ as a required or valid option in any future vote, and I understand that of course, but it would be truly great men exercising great leadership and integrity who have the self awareness to admit that option is of course a possibility and put in place a process for it to be measured and considered.
TS has the opportunity , a perfect chance to say “ I’ve worked hard to get us to this juncture, but it is only right and proper that I don’t stand for re-election and some fresh faces join the board in order to check out work and provide a more arms length evaluation of our options going forward in the ultimate best interests of WWFC”
AH and MB appear to have taken this honourable step and should be forever admired for it.
@Steve_Peart said:
One other thing to mention from last night's Fans Council meeting. Matt Cecil, unprompted, updated everyone on @JoeTheDrummer's eventful afternoon at Pompey. He said that the Portsmouth FC stewards had confirmed that Joe's drum was taken off him, then returned minus the sticks, because he was encouraging the Wycombe fans to make too much noise. Apparently, this noise was provoking the home fans to our side.
I don't know where to start with this, so I'll just say I am a huge admirer of Joe, I don't know where he gets his energy from. It doesn't feel right if I don't hear him at an away game, he is an important part of my away days.
I’m baffled by this. So it’s our fault, via rhythmic beating of a drum, that a few toothless Fratton pillocks couldn’t behave themselves and got worked up enough to be (temporarily) ejected from the stands?
Isn’t this the football supporter equivalent of arguing its not the fault of a sex offender if he assaults a girl because by wearing a short dress she was asking for it?
On a very quick read through, one issue (probably of several) that I would question being presented as a ‘fact’ @marlowchair
“...admitting they have managed and run the club into an unsustainable position...” I appreciate that I don’t follow this as closely as you but I thought that ‘their’ argument is that our supporter owned model has always been unsustainable in the long run.
You make several good points but yet again deflect attention by your presentation of opinions as facts. When you do post these think of the effect of your words on potential legacy voters.
Do I trust the Trust Board? Not really. Do I trust your version of ‘facts’? Not really. If and when I get to express my vote when it matters I have the horrible feeling that your tone and personal attacks on here may tip the balance the other way.
@bookertease said:
On a very quick read through, one issue (probably of several) that I would question being presented as a ‘fact’ @marlowchair
“...admitting they have managed and run the club into an unsustainable position...” I appreciate that I don’t follow this as closely as you but I thought that ‘their’ argument is that our supporter owned model has always been unsustainable in the long run.
You make several good points but yet again deflect attention by your presentation of opinions as facts. When you do post these think of the effect of your words on potential legacy voters.
Do I trust the Trust Board? Not really. Do I trust your version of ‘facts’? Not really. If and when I get to express my vote when it matters I have the horrible feeling that your tone and personal attacks on here may tip the balance the other way.
Fair post booker but I stand by what I define as facts and I actually toned down my language before posting in order to avoid tainting the point with bias. I Could list pages of examples and detail of what I know but that rightly will just be dismissed as unfounded claims .
To your first point- they argue that in their opinion on current turnover and operational costs - our supporter owned model is unsustainable. The facts are our current supporter owner model has only been tried under their own control .
There is no evidence to suggest our supporter club run model is unsustainable under different management and control but it is fact that it is not sustainable under current management and control
We have managed to pay off a fairly substantial debt to our previous owner over the last five years, whilst still having relative success on the field. In view of this I still cannot understand why suddenly the Board states the model in unsustainable, particularly when the annual payments to the loan shark have ended.
Whilst I don't agree with everything Marlow posts on here, I do think it is now time to have fresh leadership on the Board to bring new ideas and a reassessment of the sustainability or otherwise of supporter ownership and end the impression of a closed shop environment. Without the talent and professionalism of Andrew Howard, I do not feel that Stroud has the expertise to run a football league club. I sincerely hope that suitable applicants stand and that there is a fair election.
My real concern with all this (from viewing it afar with minimal knowledge) is that with the exception of AH, who I think did an excellent job, the rest are well-meaning amateurs who probably don’t have “the expertise to run a football club.”
I can’t however see that there is a pool of “suitable applicants” out there with the time and/or capability to do so either. My guess is that running a football club isn’t an easy thing to do.
I agree that it would be wonderful to have a completely new, enthusiastic, committed and capable board who can quickly generate all the income that people seem to think is available (there probably is some income we’re missing out on but personally I doubt there is ‘enough’ to sustain us where we are), but do we honestly think that such people are out there in such a relatively small pool?
At best I think all we are likely to do is replace one set of well-meaning (and hard working) amateurs with another.
That might be the best thing for us, but I don’t know and I have visions of TS leaving a Liam Byrne-type letter for any successor, and we all (okay maybe not Richie) what a mess that led us into.
Liam Bryne said there was "No money left", I thought that at the Trust meeting the comment was we don't have enough money to stay in the League. Over 67% of the clubs are in a similar situation,surely the solution for all clubs is to get the EFL to rethink on how to maintain the present structure. There is plenty of money in football. sadly, not being used wisely.
It will be interesting to see what the Trust board say after tonight's meeting.
The lobbying for an increase in legacy membership among younger season ticket holders would make getting past the 75% threshold easier.
The Trust directors were elected to 'safeguard our heritage' not to monetise their connections.
Please read the excellent Chairboys on the net for context.
Looking at the feedback on last week's fans council, can anyone explain why the consortia/ club think it is a good idea to present to the Fans Council before the trust membership?
Wait, hold on. No one is suggesting that any of the directors are ‘monetising their connections’ as far as I’m aware. Highlighting a potential conflict of interest is one thing, but you have gone beyond that here. You should either have evidence or not make unfounded insinuations again.
Voluntary director.
Meets major sponsor through said role.
Makes major sponsor chairman of club by appointment not election.
Leaves long term employment to work for said major sponsor.
Major sponsor stands down to Sporting Director Role.
TS is made chairman of club.
Happy to be corrected in that timeline but there isn’t really any doubt about a monetary benefit being obtained through his in connections is there ?
He either gets paid by Beechdean or he does not.
That in itself isn’t an issue in my opinion.
Declaration is the key. Failure to declare is very serious for this very reason. It creates a perception of conflict at best.
Fine, if that is all that is being implied. I took it as something beyond that - I agree there is nothing wrong with being offered work by someone you happen to have met, which seems fairly obvious, so my interpretation was that it was something other than a repetition of what has been said many times before. Of course I also agree it should be declared if there is potential for a conflict of interest.
I think that @NiceCarrots could have phrased it in a clearer manner.
The american hedge fund guys may be coming over shortly and look favourites at the moment, they'd want a majority stake, active investors, put their own people in etc, the investment in Derby didn't go well so it'd be interesting to see their plans as to how to make money out of WWFC.
When they do come over they should meet ALL the trust members not a bunch of hand-picked, hand-reared yes men and yes ladies. They would get more accurate feedback from a meeting with the trust members who actually own the club and the legacy members who they need 75% support to share the vision of 'wanting to make a fun journey.'
What are these people thinking? Firstly, misrepresenting the views of the consortia, then emailing members to allow them permission to ask for the slides from the presentation and now this...YCMIU
Very interesting info @NiceCarrots. Are the Americans the same people that were behind MICG Investment Management that ran into a spot of difficulty while running Derby?
The american hedge fund guys may be coming over shortly and look favourites at the moment, they'd want a majority stake, active investors, put their own people in etc, the investment in Derby didn't go well so it'd be interesting to see their plans as to how to make money out of WWFC.
When they do come over they should meet ALL the trust members not a bunch of hand-picked, hand-reared yes men and yes ladies. They would get more accurate feedback from a meeting with the trust members who actually own the club and the legacy members who they need 75% support to share the vision of 'wanting to make a fun journey.'
What are these people thinking? Firstly, misrepresenting the views of the consortia, then emailing members to allow them permission to ask for the slides from the presentation and now this...YCMIU
@aloysius said:
Very interesting info @NiceCarrots. Are the Americans the same people that were behind MICG Investment Management that ran into a spot of difficulty while running Derby?
Jeffrey A. Martinovich, the firm's CEO and majority owner, was banned for life for securities fraud, misusing investors' funds and causing false account statements.
I don't know if this is who NiceCarrots is talking about, and if he is, if he is right, but does this sound like the sort of people we want running WWFC?
I said it at the time, but to say at that meeting that one of the interested parties had bought about 1000 businesses, expecting that to somehow be of comfort to us was probably the biggest misstep of the entire presentation
That and mentioning Billericay as somehow something to aspire to
A good point made by someone at the last Fans Council meeting was that the Members should be able to vote on all parties, not just on one put forward by the Trust Board.
Can’t say fairer than that @Wendoverman.
My barber asked me this afternoon if it was true that “that ice cream man” was one of the bidders. One of his “clients” this morning apparently said he’d heard he was. News to me and wholly unlikely, I’d have thought.
agree @micra Not sure why he would step down to step back up again. No doubt, like many cliffhangers, after all the arguments and conjecture when we finally get the answer, it may well be underwhelming.
Listened to the Mellor show a few times. The one I remember was some guy had a quite sensible 5min chat with him over some issue all very calm, then as he signed off said "by the way, you're a c@~t".
I always remember that!
Comments
One other thing to mention from last night's Fans Council meeting. Matt Cecil, unprompted, updated everyone on @JoeTheDrummer's eventful afternoon at Pompey. He said that the Portsmouth FC stewards had confirmed that Joe's drum was taken off him, then returned minus the sticks, because he was encouraging the Wycombe fans to make too much noise. Apparently, this noise was provoking the home fans to our side.
I don't know where to start with this, so I'll just say I am a huge admirer of Joe, I don't know where he gets his energy from. It doesn't feel right if I don't hear him at an away game, he is an important part of my away days.
Read the excellent Chairboys on the net article about the push for new members.
One very important point (detail) May have been overlooked in all this but I think is important to whether I will be using my legacy membership to vote For or against investment. It won’t form my decision in isolation but it may allow me to overlook the lack of process and due diligence excercised by the board to date:
The trust board voted unanimously to explore new models and ownership structures which sees us exploring these options. That is prudent governance.
But they voted unanimously with one clear stipulation- that no new model or structure should increase the clubs debt.
A simple yet prudent and very well considered proviso.
On that basis, no sale to third parties of part or all of our club should see the initial purchase price invested into the club as directors loans. That would simply leave us with new shareholders and a larger creditor register (debt)
Any initial purchase price MUST be treated as revenue from share sales and deposited directly into the club trading account . Our loans must not increase as a result . That is not my request, that is what our trust board stipulated must happen when voting.
Going forward, new shareholders must not be allowed to put money into the club and list it as directors loan unchecked. Increasing the directors loans whilst running a club is the easiest and most often used method of gaining full control .
You may remember the last guy who “loaned” us lots of money and how that ended .
All of that said, there is no way at all to date we have any reasonable prospect of being able to confidently vote for any proposed investment given:
-the unresolved mess/question around whether substantial conflict of interest has been present during our current chairman’s tenure
-the flawed due diligence process around the entire canvassing period of potential investors
-the fact that two major players from our side who have met , negotiated, courted and appeased potential investors to date have resigned from our company quickly after the public meeting to members announcing their recommendation and weeks before an AGM
-the fact that profitable and beneficial cash sponsorship deals and also valuable value in kind deals that make our club revenue and save our club cash expenditure, have been lost or strained in 2018 further negatively altering our sustainability position. This is a direct result of board and management decisions or abilities and comes at exactly the wrong time for our club.
It just leaves us in no position at all to make such big decisions. We need a period of new management and directors who can audit the operations and decisions of previous few years and shine some light on what our actual position is and WHY our revenues and expenditure sit where they sit.
Why?
Because if our position can be greatly improved by improving efficiencies , skill level ,experience , management control and leadership in our off - pitch operations , we need to know ,as changing those things MUST be tabled as an alternate option before we sell some or all of our club.
By definition though our board and chair are unlikely to wish to be open minded and objective enough to consider “ running the club better “ as a required or valid option in any future vote, and I understand that of course, but it would be truly great men exercising great leadership and integrity who have the self awareness to admit that option is of course a possibility and put in place a process for it to be measured and considered.
TS has the opportunity , a perfect chance to say “ I’ve worked hard to get us to this juncture, but it is only right and proper that I don’t stand for re-election and some fresh faces join the board in order to check out work and provide a more arms length evaluation of our options going forward in the ultimate best interests of WWFC”
AH and MB appear to have taken this honourable step and should be forever admired for it.
I’m baffled by this. So it’s our fault, via rhythmic beating of a drum, that a few toothless Fratton pillocks couldn’t behave themselves and got worked up enough to be (temporarily) ejected from the stands?
Isn’t this the football supporter equivalent of arguing its not the fault of a sex offender if he assaults a girl because by wearing a short dress she was asking for it?
On a very quick read through, one issue (probably of several) that I would question being presented as a ‘fact’ @marlowchair
“...admitting they have managed and run the club into an unsustainable position...” I appreciate that I don’t follow this as closely as you but I thought that ‘their’ argument is that our supporter owned model has always been unsustainable in the long run.
You make several good points but yet again deflect attention by your presentation of opinions as facts. When you do post these think of the effect of your words on potential legacy voters.
Do I trust the Trust Board? Not really. Do I trust your version of ‘facts’? Not really. If and when I get to express my vote when it matters I have the horrible feeling that your tone and personal attacks on here may tip the balance the other way.
Fair post booker but I stand by what I define as facts and I actually toned down my language before posting in order to avoid tainting the point with bias. I Could list pages of examples and detail of what I know but that rightly will just be dismissed as unfounded claims .
To your first point- they argue that in their opinion on current turnover and operational costs - our supporter owned model is unsustainable. The facts are our current supporter owner model has only been tried under their own control .
There is no evidence to suggest our supporter club run model is unsustainable under different management and control but it is fact that it is not sustainable under current management and control
We have managed to pay off a fairly substantial debt to our previous owner over the last five years, whilst still having relative success on the field. In view of this I still cannot understand why suddenly the Board states the model in unsustainable, particularly when the annual payments to the loan shark have ended.
Whilst I don't agree with everything Marlow posts on here, I do think it is now time to have fresh leadership on the Board to bring new ideas and a reassessment of the sustainability or otherwise of supporter ownership and end the impression of a closed shop environment. Without the talent and professionalism of Andrew Howard, I do not feel that Stroud has the expertise to run a football league club. I sincerely hope that suitable applicants stand and that there is a fair election.
Are you standing for election @marlowchair?
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=31465;article=789538
My real concern with all this (from viewing it afar with minimal knowledge) is that with the exception of AH, who I think did an excellent job, the rest are well-meaning amateurs who probably don’t have “the expertise to run a football club.”
I can’t however see that there is a pool of “suitable applicants” out there with the time and/or capability to do so either. My guess is that running a football club isn’t an easy thing to do.
I agree that it would be wonderful to have a completely new, enthusiastic, committed and capable board who can quickly generate all the income that people seem to think is available (there probably is some income we’re missing out on but personally I doubt there is ‘enough’ to sustain us where we are), but do we honestly think that such people are out there in such a relatively small pool?
At best I think all we are likely to do is replace one set of well-meaning (and hard working) amateurs with another.
That might be the best thing for us, but I don’t know and I have visions of TS leaving a Liam Byrne-type letter for any successor, and we all (okay maybe not Richie) what a mess that led us into.
Liam Bryne said there was "No money left", I thought that at the Trust meeting the comment was we don't have enough money to stay in the League. Over 67% of the clubs are in a similar situation,surely the solution for all clubs is to get the EFL to rethink on how to maintain the present structure. There is plenty of money in football. sadly, not being used wisely.
It will be interesting to see what the Trust board say after tonight's meeting.
The lobbying for an increase in legacy membership among younger season ticket holders would make getting past the 75% threshold easier.
The Trust directors were elected to 'safeguard our heritage' not to monetise their connections.
Please read the excellent Chairboys on the net for context.
Looking at the feedback on last week's fans council, can anyone explain why the consortia/ club think it is a good idea to present to the Fans Council before the trust membership?
Wait, hold on. No one is suggesting that any of the directors are ‘monetising their connections’ as far as I’m aware. Highlighting a potential conflict of interest is one thing, but you have gone beyond that here. You should either have evidence or not make unfounded insinuations again.
Voluntary director.
Meets major sponsor through said role.
Makes major sponsor chairman of club by appointment not election.
Leaves long term employment to work for said major sponsor.
Major sponsor stands down to Sporting Director Role.
TS is made chairman of club.
Happy to be corrected in that timeline but there isn’t really any doubt about a monetary benefit being obtained through his in connections is there ?
He either gets paid by Beechdean or he does not.
That in itself isn’t an issue in my opinion.
Declaration is the key. Failure to declare is very serious for this very reason. It creates a perception of conflict at best.
Fine, if that is all that is being implied. I took it as something beyond that - I agree there is nothing wrong with being offered work by someone you happen to have met, which seems fairly obvious, so my interpretation was that it was something other than a repetition of what has been said many times before. Of course I also agree it should be declared if there is potential for a conflict of interest.
I think that @NiceCarrots could have phrased it in a clearer manner.
But the reason the monetisation of connections (i.e TRS Connections) has not been declared is precisely BECAUSE of the conflict of interest.
And we should be told the starting date, did it pre-date Mr Stroud becoming Chairman?
This has been happening for several years.
Thankyou @Steve_Peart for a very helpful summary
Morning.
The american hedge fund guys may be coming over shortly and look favourites at the moment, they'd want a majority stake, active investors, put their own people in etc, the investment in Derby didn't go well so it'd be interesting to see their plans as to how to make money out of WWFC.
When they do come over they should meet ALL the trust members not a bunch of hand-picked, hand-reared yes men and yes ladies. They would get more accurate feedback from a meeting with the trust members who actually own the club and the legacy members who they need 75% support to share the vision of 'wanting to make a fun journey.'
What are these people thinking? Firstly, misrepresenting the views of the consortia, then emailing members to allow them permission to ask for the slides from the presentation and now this...YCMIU
Very interesting info @NiceCarrots. Are the Americans the same people that were behind MICG Investment Management that ran into a spot of difficulty while running Derby?
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/feb/24/derby-county-shareholder-banned-investing
MICG are no longer operating according to this article: https://www.derbycountyblog.com/gse-associate-accused-of-fraud-as-derby-county-plummet/
Jeffrey A. Martinovich, the firm's CEO and majority owner, was banned for life for securities fraud, misusing investors' funds and causing false account statements.
I don't know if this is who NiceCarrots is talking about, and if he is, if he is right, but does this sound like the sort of people we want running WWFC?
Not sure why but I am not really believing the latest musings from @NiceCarrots
Doesn't seem to stack up with previous 'facts' given
I said it at the time, but to say at that meeting that one of the interested parties had bought about 1000 businesses, expecting that to somehow be of comfort to us was probably the biggest misstep of the entire presentation
That and mentioning Billericay as somehow something to aspire to
@NiceCarrots, not sure how any of the three parties can be considered favourites if none have pitched their case to the Trust Members yet.
A good point made by someone at the last Fans Council meeting was that the Members should be able to vote on all parties, not just on one put forward by the Trust Board.
@Steve_Peart Not only do I heartily agree. I am open to gifts and bribery from all parties.
Can’t say fairer than that @Wendoverman.
My barber asked me this afternoon if it was true that “that ice cream man” was one of the bidders. One of his “clients” this morning apparently said he’d heard he was. News to me and wholly unlikely, I’d have thought.
agree @micra Not sure why he would step down to step back up again. No doubt, like many cliffhangers, after all the arguments and conjecture when we finally get the answer, it may well be underwhelming.
If the original Gasroom was Danny Baker original 6-0-6, then we have very much entered the David Mellor era
Listened to the Mellor show a few times. The one I remember was some guy had a quite sensible 5min chat with him over some issue all very calm, then as he signed off said "by the way, you're a c@~t".
I always remember that!
A perceptive listener.