@RogertheBandito said:
Lets not derail this thread anymore, just ignore the aforementioned tosspot
I believe your accusation that Dev is a habitual drinker is totally unsubstantiated. Unless you have information to the contrary I would suggest that you withdraw that allegation!
@drcongo No laughing here, DOFL doesn't mean that.
Just bemused that you've suddenly started having a crack at Dev after all this time. He hasn't changed his wind up approach. You have the power, just cut him off for a bit.
It’s an interesting fact that every person who has been in a position of authority at WWFC over the last 30-odd years (Messrs Beeks, Hayes, Woodward and Stroud) has been roundly criticised on this and other forums.
I guess it’s the price of being in power-you are open to criticism from people who know all the questions but not necessarily the answers. It’s easy to throw stones from a distance, not so easy to stand up and be counted by volunteering to do what is a very difficult job,ie trying to keep a small club afloat in difficult circumstances.
@glasshalffull , the football industry breeds that attitude though doesn't it.
People regularly criticise refs, players and managers, many believing they can do better. It's inevitable it'll extend to club management too.
Wendoverman, I believed that the whole project-an hotel, retail development, sporting and recreational facilities etc-would have benefited the whole community. I was less convinced that a new stadium would have been in the interests of WWFC unless the right provisions were put in place. I was certainly not happy about WWFC becoming tenants with Wasps as landlords.
@Steve_Peart said: @glasshalffull, if you are familiar, for example, with Oxford City's disastrous encounter with an American backer, you will understand the need for extreme caution with any outsiders taking control.
When did I ever suggest that we should display anything less than extreme caution? You quote the example of Oxford City but there are countless examples of clubs where outside investment has been a huge success.
All I’ve ever said is let’s wait and see what proposals are on the table before dismissing the concept out of hand.
completely agree that football ownership/leadership is a steaming crock most of the time @glasshalffull but I refer you to my previous question to you, which, as a mainstay of the club at the time, you probably have more insight into than we do/did.
I suspect, it is one of the main reasons people are suspicious with regard to ownership. We all know why a Jack Walker or a Dave Whelan or even an Andrew Howard, might be motivated to invest in a small, struggling provincial club (no insult intended Chairboys)and we all have a very jaded view of what might have motivated a recent owner...so the pushing forward of a faceless consortium is bound to raise eyebrows. With that in mind - Did you think the Hayesowaspadrome plan was a good one at the time? Do you in hindsight?
@glasshalffull sorry our posts must have passed in the night...so thanks for that. Not questioning anyone's commitment to the club by the way, and I've also got no real beef with part ownership if, as you say, it is clear what the proposals are and that there are plenty of safeguards. Having said that, unless a rich man or group is really looking forward to an exciting sporting journey with no great financial rewards, I find it hard to believe a plan would be on the table that will satisfy both parties. (Something which sounds quite familiar in general at the moment...)
@glasshalffull, you made the "hysterical outpourings" comments immediately after some comments I made about caution needed. I thought I was in the firing line and had better respond, but I wasn't suggesting a lack of extreme caution on your part.
I'm off to Blues Bar Tring for a second night of Blues music, to wash this thread out of my tiny mind. The great Robert Cray last night was a sight and sound to behold.
@mooneyman said: @glasshalffull - I note that you have yet to answer my question (and @Wendoverman's) as to whether you supported the sale of our club to Hayes.
The circumstances surrounding the takeover by Steve Hayes were not dissimilar to the situation the club finds itself in now. Then-as now-it became clear that WWFC needed major investment in order to progress. This was explained to the shareholders who voted to allow that investment to take place. Steve Hayes was the only person prepared to put his money where his mouth is.
His investment was in the form of interest free loans and it was always clear that these would have to be repaid eventually. Although I disagreed with many of Steve’s ideas and always told him so to his face, never behind his back, I also respected the fact that he put cash into the club at a time when it was badly needed. Accordingly, I always supported him publicly.
@Steve_Peart said: @glasshalffull, you made the "hysterical outpourings" comments immediately after some comments I made about caution needed. I thought I was in the firing line and had better respond, but I wasn't suggesting a lack of extreme caution on your part.
I'm off to Blues Bar Tring for a second night of Blues music, to wash this thread out of my tiny mind. The great Robert Cray last night was a sight and sound to behold.
Steve, I can assure you that my comments about hysterical outpourings were not directed at you even though I don’t share your tastes in music!
And @glasshalffull you are doing a fairly good job trying to defend the current board(s) and your comment about the meeting on 12th earlier was well-judged.
The problem however that really does need to be understood and addressed by the current board(s) is that of trust. A significant proportion of the legacy members are likely to remember how we were forced in the situation where we had no real choice but to sell to Steve Hayes and understandably nervous that some of the people who forced us into that position last time are still around and will be very reluctant to take the club in that direction again without a lot more transparency and understanding about why selling the club (again) would be a good idea.
I think you are probably right that the board have genuinely taken the view that we are unable to sustain our current level under our current operational/financial model, but to sell this to the members will, I think, require a lot more than the 'trust us' messages that we seem to be getting.
Common-sense would suggest that to compete at League 1 level requires an operational budget of £x million pounds but are only ever going to be able to generate £y million pounds on our current or reasonably foreseeable attendances and would therefore be reliant on windfall events like cup-runs, player sales, etc. to be able to break even or bridge the £x-y gap, but it would be nice to get some understanding of what 'x' and 'y' actually are.
Brew beer... make music... Excuse me whilst I disappear to New Zealand for a few months. Good luck with that old football lark. Try not to let the club go extinct whilst I’m gone...
I thought the whole beef between the Supporters Trust board directors who served on the football club board at the time and Messrs. Hayes, Beeks and Kane was the insistence by Messrs Beeks and Kane that Mr. Hayes' investment was a gift and not a loan?
Comments
I believe your accusation that Dev is a habitual drinker is totally unsubstantiated. Unless you have information to the contrary I would suggest that you withdraw that allegation!
'Oh do fuck off' is that an acronym @drcongo ?
@glasshalffull and this is a serious question. Did you think the Hayesodrome plan was a good one at the time? Do you in hindsight?
@drcongo No laughing here, DOFL doesn't mean that.
Just bemused that you've suddenly started having a crack at Dev after all this time. He hasn't changed his wind up approach. You have the power, just cut him off for a bit.
It’s an interesting fact that every person who has been in a position of authority at WWFC over the last 30-odd years (Messrs Beeks, Hayes, Woodward and Stroud) has been roundly criticised on this and other forums.
I guess it’s the price of being in power-you are open to criticism from people who know all the questions but not necessarily the answers. It’s easy to throw stones from a distance, not so easy to stand up and be counted by volunteering to do what is a very difficult job,ie trying to keep a small club afloat in difficult circumstances.
@glasshalffull , the football industry breeds that attitude though doesn't it.
People regularly criticise refs, players and managers, many believing they can do better. It's inevitable it'll extend to club management too.
Wendoverman, I believed that the whole project-an hotel, retail development, sporting and recreational facilities etc-would have benefited the whole community. I was less convinced that a new stadium would have been in the interests of WWFC unless the right provisions were put in place. I was certainly not happy about WWFC becoming tenants with Wasps as landlords.
@glasshalffull - I note that you have yet to answer my question (and @Wendoverman's) as to whether you supported the sale of our club to Hayes.
When did I ever suggest that we should display anything less than extreme caution? You quote the example of Oxford City but there are countless examples of clubs where outside investment has been a huge success.
All I’ve ever said is let’s wait and see what proposals are on the table before dismissing the concept out of hand.
completely agree that football ownership/leadership is a steaming crock most of the time @glasshalffull but I refer you to my previous question to you, which, as a mainstay of the club at the time, you probably have more insight into than we do/did.
I suspect, it is one of the main reasons people are suspicious with regard to ownership. We all know why a Jack Walker or a Dave Whelan or even an Andrew Howard, might be motivated to invest in a small, struggling provincial club (no insult intended Chairboys)and we all have a very jaded view of what might have motivated a recent owner...so the pushing forward of a faceless consortium is bound to raise eyebrows. With that in mind - Did you think the Hayesowaspadrome plan was a good one at the time? Do you in hindsight?
Who is Dev?
@glasshalffull sorry our posts must have passed in the night...so thanks for that. Not questioning anyone's commitment to the club by the way, and I've also got no real beef with part ownership if, as you say, it is clear what the proposals are and that there are plenty of safeguards. Having said that, unless a rich man or group is really looking forward to an exciting sporting journey with no great financial rewards, I find it hard to believe a plan would be on the table that will satisfy both parties. (Something which sounds quite familiar in general at the moment...)
We're not getting any better are we.
Accusations, inferences, insults.
Anyone able to add anything actually constructive to this debate? (Don't look at me. I'm just enjoying the view from this here high horse...)
I'm looking forward to Saturday and Tuesday @bookertease if that helps?
@glasshalffull, you made the "hysterical outpourings" comments immediately after some comments I made about caution needed. I thought I was in the firing line and had better respond, but I wasn't suggesting a lack of extreme caution on your part.
I'm off to Blues Bar Tring for a second night of Blues music, to wash this thread out of my tiny mind. The great Robert Cray last night was a sight and sound to behold.
The circumstances surrounding the takeover by Steve Hayes were not dissimilar to the situation the club finds itself in now. Then-as now-it became clear that WWFC needed major investment in order to progress. This was explained to the shareholders who voted to allow that investment to take place. Steve Hayes was the only person prepared to put his money where his mouth is.
His investment was in the form of interest free loans and it was always clear that these would have to be repaid eventually. Although I disagreed with many of Steve’s ideas and always told him so to his face, never behind his back, I also respected the fact that he put cash into the club at a time when it was badly needed. Accordingly, I always supported him publicly.
Thanks @Wendoverman. But why? Is something happening?
Oh and I do take it back. The 14.08 post by @Its_Cold_Up_North was actually informative and helpful.
(And so am I. But if the beer is off in the Vere by the time I get there on Saturday...)
don't be afraid of the dark @Steve_Peart
Steve, I can assure you that my comments about hysterical outpourings were not directed at you even though I don’t share your tastes in music!
Looks like we all need to buy our Euromillions tickets, win and go on a sporting journey.
Fast Forward to Gasroom.2035: 'Have you heard what that **** Wendoverman is planning NOW???'
And @glasshalffull you are doing a fairly good job trying to defend the current board(s) and your comment about the meeting on 12th earlier was well-judged.
The problem however that really does need to be understood and addressed by the current board(s) is that of trust. A significant proportion of the legacy members are likely to remember how we were forced in the situation where we had no real choice but to sell to Steve Hayes and understandably nervous that some of the people who forced us into that position last time are still around and will be very reluctant to take the club in that direction again without a lot more transparency and understanding about why selling the club (again) would be a good idea.
I think you are probably right that the board have genuinely taken the view that we are unable to sustain our current level under our current operational/financial model, but to sell this to the members will, I think, require a lot more than the 'trust us' messages that we seem to be getting.
Common-sense would suggest that to compete at League 1 level requires an operational budget of £x million pounds but are only ever going to be able to generate £y million pounds on our current or reasonably foreseeable attendances and would therefore be reliant on windfall events like cup-runs, player sales, etc. to be able to break even or bridge the £x-y gap, but it would be nice to get some understanding of what 'x' and 'y' actually are.
And I was sort of on your side up until that last comment. How can you not like Robert Cray!
So you're saying you'll need a strong persuader @bookertease?
Do Elgoods brew Persuader?
Not sure. You hum it and I'll play it, son.
No, the Yeastie Boys do!
https://beerisyourfriend.org/2014/09/28/persuader/
Brew beer... make music... Excuse me whilst I disappear to New Zealand for a few months. Good luck with that old football lark. Try not to let the club go extinct whilst I’m gone...
Brilliant link thanks @mooneyman.
"His investment was in the form of interest free loans and it was always clear that these would have to be repaid eventually."
Am I imagining that he said "don't worry about the debt"?
I thought the whole beef between the Supporters Trust board directors who served on the football club board at the time and Messrs. Hayes, Beeks and Kane was the insistence by Messrs Beeks and Kane that Mr. Hayes' investment was a gift and not a loan?
Just remind me again what proportion of Hayes debt arising from his period of sole ownership were ever repaid?