Anyone thought that Mr Stroud might have been in his wife's 4x4 as I believe she's been away on business?
I don't really know how I feel about anything I read on here as I'm sometimes just incredulous at the banality and deeply personal nature of it. ??
If I was trying to convince a majority to vote for my fairly dodgy (or even perfectly reasonable) organisation I think i’d be very tempted to introduce a couple of anonymous(ish) characters to spread misplaced facts, opinions and personal vendettas in a clumsy and obvious smear campaign against my organisation to turn public opinion towards me out of a spirit of fair play.
@blucket said:
I go away a lot micra-I have a life?
How did you bypass the question on the registration form for this forum that asked: “Do you have a life? If no, proceed to next question, If yes, please feel free to resume it elsewhere.”
@bookertease said:
If I was trying to convince a majority to vote for my fairly dodgy (or even perfectly reasonable) organisation I think i’d be very tempted to introduce a couple of anonymous(ish) characters to spread misplaced facts, opinions and personal vendettas in a clumsy and obvious smear campaign against my organisation to turn public opinion towards me out of a spirit of fair play.
Just saying...
That's an interesting take on it @bookertease and, if what you are hinting at is true, would explain where @marlowchair is getting insider information from.
I have it on good authority that encouraging 'sleeper' voters to determine the ownership of Wycombe Wanderers is the first part of a major Russian operation to undermine our democratic instititutions with a view to first taking control of the Home Counties before moving on to a long-term plan for eventual world domination. Or at least Bucks, Herts and Beds. Or it's the Chinese. One of the two. Or John Lewis.
At the meeting held on 12th September, the Trust members agreed in principle that the Club should seek external investment, with investors taking either a majority or a minority interest in the club in exchange for the provision of a permanent capital solution.
After significant debate and further investigations, your Trust Board has decided that the best route for securing the financial future of the Club is to move to a position where external investors own a majority of the shares, with the Trust owning a significant minority shareholding, being involved in the day-to-day running of the Club and having control over items such as team colours, crest and where the team plays. We have therefore continued our discussions with one of the investor groups and feel it is time to introduce them to you.
The investors concerned are Bill Luby and Jim Collis. Bill and Jim are American financial professionals with tremendous experience in sports, especially football. We have known them for some time and are impressed not only with their acute understanding of the business of football, but also with their sensitivity to fan ownership and of the Trust’s continued participation in running the Club going forward. In addition, they appear to us to have the financial wherewithal to continue to carry forward the Club with the aspirations of becoming a stable, secure and competitive League 1 club and even, in time, competing at a higher level. We will continue to carry out due diligence on them, but our current view is that they will be valuable partners and proper stewards for the Club.
If this plan is to be implemented, the approval of 75% of Legacy Members will be required, and a formal meeting and ballot will be held in due course. However, to start the process, we have invited Bill and Jim to join us for our home game against Oxford on Tuesday 6th November. We will then hold an informal evening at Adams Park on Wednesday 7th November to introduce them to Trust members and to give everyone an opportunity to say hello in person and to ask questions in an informal setting.
It must be stressed – this evening is designed to help us get to know them and to have them begin to get to know the important stakeholders at the Club. There will be no formal presentations or votes that evening, as these will take place at a future date once the formal process has been agreed.
The evening will be held in the Caledonian Suite, starting at 7.30, and doors will open at 6.00 with food being available before the meeting starts.
This is the start of a hugely important part of Wycombe Wanderers’ history. The Trust board is very excited about the potential relationship with Bill and Jim and I would encourage all members, whether or not they are Legacy Members, to attend if they can. We plan to live stream the meeting again as we did for the last Members meeting for anyone unable to attend in person. More information on the streaming details will be forthcoming.
@bookertease , now that's proper conspiracy theory!
I'd imagine most people don't take the boy Carrots posts seriously after his outing, but it'd certainly be interesting to find out the other guy's angle.
I'm surprised our crack team of investigators haven't outed him by now.
The first question I would have is: what return do they expect for any money they put in? If the answer involves anything monetary or existing assets of the club, etc. I will take an awful lot of persuading to vote for it.
On the positive side I think the Trust Board deserve some credit for the way they have dealt with this following the missteps at the 12 September meeting.
We can (and have) argued the ethos that our elected representatives have decided that for WWFC to be sustainable at this sort of level we need outside investment, but having done so they do seem to have taken the right approach in both vetting potential suitors and introducing them to the electorate (and listened to the legitimate concerns about the initial limited audience).
Yes @bookertease Why is the question. I personally love the club it’s given me some of my favourite memories in my life and it’s got a good reputation for being a modest family club but why would anyone want to invest money and to what end.
@bookertease said:
If I was trying to convince a majority to vote for my fairly dodgy (or even perfectly reasonable) organisation I think i’d be very tempted to introduce a couple of anonymous(ish) characters to spread misplaced facts, opinions and personal vendettas in a clumsy and obvious smear campaign against my organisation to turn public opinion towards me out of a spirit of fair play.
Just saying...
That's an interesting take on it @bookertease and, if what you are hinting at is true, would explain where @marlowchair is getting insider information from.
Except that my entire arguement is anti-selling any portion of our club currently and I have explained in great detail why.
We are poorly run and have no idea of our potential or worth.
My arguement is that is absolutely no circumstance under which to sell a club.
I think our current FC board have done the best they can but have ultimately failed our club operationally and commercially. My opinion.
I have said clearly that ANY investor talk or consideration under the current climate is premature and that it would be negligent for those who have guided our club into our current financial state of desperation to have ANY input or influence on the next steps for our club. Not personal just objective leadership.
You can’t run a club into the ground just 12 months after saying it was thriving in front of the membership , and they purport to be the right people to negotiate and table a “solution” - which to date has been to give up on fixing basic failings such as food and bev and decreasing commercial revenues.
It just isn’t acceptable in any business or member owned organisation sorry .
My information is sound and comes from various sides of the proposition.
I’m no proponent of a sale , let alone to one group over another that we know nothing of what they plan.
What I am extremely confident of is the neither of the three serious bidders , or the few others who casually considered our club , were or are negotiating with anyone who is in my opinion even close to being experienced or skilled enough , or objective enough to apply unbiased business and strategic decision making theory from our clubs side .
Forget even my own opinion for a minute , their exposed conflict and bias of being the presiding management over the failing model alone is , by definition significant enough conflict to support my statement.
@micra said: @OxfordBlue - you’ve also been spying on me. Only this morning my daughter was speculating on what we’d had for dinner yesterday.
That sounds like "Dirty Dougies" where I've had many an egg & bacon bap. Never needed to ask Dougie what was on the menu, just look at his T shirt & the answer would be there somewhere!
Except that my entire arguement is anti-selling any portion of our club currently and I have explained in great detail why.
Well you would say that wouldn’t you!
I was only joking by the way. I don’t think for a minute that you are on the consortiums side.
My ‘joke’ however does have a point to it. If you read the posts before it there is definitely a flavour there that people on here find your and @NiceCarrots comments less than helpful and are generally dismissive of them.
This is actually dangerous (in my opinion) to the debate and perversely I think you are making it more likely that we sell the club than not as your counter-arguments come across as non-supported whinges (in many instances) peppered with personal bias, which means people on here are less inclined to listen.
An example?
Second paragraph:
“We are poorly run...”
That is your personal view that is unsubstantiated (may or may not be true, but that hardly the point). FFS say that you believe the club is poorly run rather than make false statements.
I can’t argue with you then and may be more inclined to listen to your point of view.
The statement from the trust is misleading and bordering on a lie
At the meeting on the 12th September it was agreed unofficially by the meeting that the board should PROGRESS the discussions of investors and different models in order that the membership could consider the clubs future model with all available options tabled .
At no time was it agree the board had a mandate to either sell some or all of the shares.
The first para of that statement today is a Shame on whoever penned it and extremely disingenuous . This type of bulldozing is exactly the reason such suspicion exists and why we must cease this process until an objective leadership is in place or an independent third party audit is undertaken.
If things were not serious before they certainly are now.
I would also expect Trevor Stroud to make clear that should this majority sale not be approved by members , he would accept his mandate from
The membership and not stand due re-election , or stand down immediately if he is in office .
You cannot push this type of huge reform , lose approval for it , and expect to continue to represent the membership.
And right on queue another copy and paste post from @marlowchair .
I really think @bookertease is on to something here. Such a hamfisted attempt at attacking the current board is going to bring more people towards them than against.
So it's carrots and chair versus Bill & Jim next week. The club should sell tickets
The statement from the trust is misleading and bordering on a lie
At the meeting on the 12th September it was agreed unofficially by the meeting that the board should PROGRESS the discussions of investors and different models in order that the membership could consider the clubs future model with all available options tabled .
At no time was it agree the board had a mandate to either sell some or all of the shares.
The first para of that statement today is a Shame on whoever penned it and extremely disingenuous . This type of bulldozing is exactly the reason such suspicion exists and why we must cease this process until an objective leadership is in place or an independent third party audit is undertaken.
If things were not serious before they certainly are now.
@Right_in_the_Middle shouldn't you also declare an interest, if one exists? Reading your and @ValleyWanderer's posts and one is left with the distinct impression you're both rather close to members of the Trust board.
If memory suffices, wasn't it reported after the meeting on Sep 12th that the favoured option for the Trust was to go for minority investment? If so what's changed? Given that and @NiceCarrots' info earlier about Trevor Stroud attending the last match with a member of the Saudi consortium, plus @eric_plant's astute observation that the Oxford game is the least attractive match to show off the club in a good light and a cynic night wonder if this American majority stake bid was set up to be rejected (or pulled), making a minority deal from the Saudis a few weeks down the line suddenly a much more palatable compromise.
Not that one should ever be cynical when it comes to the inner workings of this Trust / Club board(s). Heaven forfend, no.
Comments
Anyone thought that Mr Stroud might have been in his wife's 4x4 as I believe she's been away on business?
I don't really know how I feel about anything I read on here as I'm sometimes just incredulous at the banality and deeply personal nature of it. ??
"Wycombe Chairman Begins Taking The Bus After Transportation Scandal"
Mr Stroud should get on his bike and save the planet.
Yes, I want the Gasroom of the old days...when we were young, the future looked bright, good manners ruled and all this was fields.
And Christmas lights
@chris It's the 1st November tomorrow not December.
If I was trying to convince a majority to vote for my fairly dodgy (or even perfectly reasonable) organisation I think i’d be very tempted to introduce a couple of anonymous(ish) characters to spread misplaced facts, opinions and personal vendettas in a clumsy and obvious smear campaign against my organisation to turn public opinion towards me out of a spirit of fair play.
Just saying...
How did you bypass the question on the registration form for this forum that asked: “Do you have a life? If no, proceed to next question, If yes, please feel free to resume it elsewhere.”
That's an interesting take on it @bookertease and, if what you are hinting at is true, would explain where @marlowchair is getting insider information from.
I have it on good authority that encouraging 'sleeper' voters to determine the ownership of Wycombe Wanderers is the first part of a major Russian operation to undermine our democratic instititutions with a view to first taking control of the Home Counties before moving on to a long-term plan for eventual world domination. Or at least Bucks, Herts and Beds. Or it's the Chinese. One of the two. Or John Lewis.
So it's a private equity company then...
Full message from the Trust:
At the meeting held on 12th September, the Trust members agreed in principle that the Club should seek external investment, with investors taking either a majority or a minority interest in the club in exchange for the provision of a permanent capital solution.
After significant debate and further investigations, your Trust Board has decided that the best route for securing the financial future of the Club is to move to a position where external investors own a majority of the shares, with the Trust owning a significant minority shareholding, being involved in the day-to-day running of the Club and having control over items such as team colours, crest and where the team plays. We have therefore continued our discussions with one of the investor groups and feel it is time to introduce them to you.
The investors concerned are Bill Luby and Jim Collis. Bill and Jim are American financial professionals with tremendous experience in sports, especially football. We have known them for some time and are impressed not only with their acute understanding of the business of football, but also with their sensitivity to fan ownership and of the Trust’s continued participation in running the Club going forward. In addition, they appear to us to have the financial wherewithal to continue to carry forward the Club with the aspirations of becoming a stable, secure and competitive League 1 club and even, in time, competing at a higher level. We will continue to carry out due diligence on them, but our current view is that they will be valuable partners and proper stewards for the Club.
If this plan is to be implemented, the approval of 75% of Legacy Members will be required, and a formal meeting and ballot will be held in due course. However, to start the process, we have invited Bill and Jim to join us for our home game against Oxford on Tuesday 6th November. We will then hold an informal evening at Adams Park on Wednesday 7th November to introduce them to Trust members and to give everyone an opportunity to say hello in person and to ask questions in an informal setting.
It must be stressed – this evening is designed to help us get to know them and to have them begin to get to know the important stakeholders at the Club. There will be no formal presentations or votes that evening, as these will take place at a future date once the formal process has been agreed.
The evening will be held in the Caledonian Suite, starting at 7.30, and doors will open at 6.00 with food being available before the meeting starts.
This is the start of a hugely important part of Wycombe Wanderers’ history. The Trust board is very excited about the potential relationship with Bill and Jim and I would encourage all members, whether or not they are Legacy Members, to attend if they can. We plan to live stream the meeting again as we did for the last Members meeting for anyone unable to attend in person. More information on the streaming details will be forthcoming.
Trevor Stroud
Chairman
This answers the great crisp shortage mystery anyway. We’ve no doubt got boxes full of ‘chips’ by mistake.
Thinking caps on everybody
@bookertease , now that's proper conspiracy theory!
I'd imagine most people don't take the boy Carrots posts seriously after his outing, but it'd certainly be interesting to find out the other guy's angle.
I'm surprised our crack team of investigators haven't outed him by now.
The first question I would have is: what return do they expect for any money they put in? If the answer involves anything monetary or existing assets of the club, etc. I will take an awful lot of persuading to vote for it.
On the positive side I think the Trust Board deserve some credit for the way they have dealt with this following the missteps at the 12 September meeting.
We can (and have) argued the ethos that our elected representatives have decided that for WWFC to be sustainable at this sort of level we need outside investment, but having done so they do seem to have taken the right approach in both vetting potential suitors and introducing them to the electorate (and listened to the legitimate concerns about the initial limited audience).
Exactly the issue @bookertease. it's hard to imagine anyone making money out of wycombe wanderers without changing the fabric of the club.
We must be mad to even consider this.
Yes @bookertease Why is the question. I personally love the club it’s given me some of my favourite memories in my life and it’s got a good reputation for being a modest family club but why would anyone want to invest money and to what end.
Except that my entire arguement is anti-selling any portion of our club currently and I have explained in great detail why.
We are poorly run and have no idea of our potential or worth.
My arguement is that is absolutely no circumstance under which to sell a club.
I think our current FC board have done the best they can but have ultimately failed our club operationally and commercially. My opinion.
I have said clearly that ANY investor talk or consideration under the current climate is premature and that it would be negligent for those who have guided our club into our current financial state of desperation to have ANY input or influence on the next steps for our club. Not personal just objective leadership.
You can’t run a club into the ground just 12 months after saying it was thriving in front of the membership , and they purport to be the right people to negotiate and table a “solution” - which to date has been to give up on fixing basic failings such as food and bev and decreasing commercial revenues.
It just isn’t acceptable in any business or member owned organisation sorry .
My information is sound and comes from various sides of the proposition.
I’m no proponent of a sale , let alone to one group over another that we know nothing of what they plan.
What I am extremely confident of is the neither of the three serious bidders , or the few others who casually considered our club , were or are negotiating with anyone who is in my opinion even close to being experienced or skilled enough , or objective enough to apply unbiased business and strategic decision making theory from our clubs side .
Forget even my own opinion for a minute , their exposed conflict and bias of being the presiding management over the failing model alone is , by definition significant enough conflict to support my statement.
That sounds like "Dirty Dougies" where I've had many an egg & bacon bap. Never needed to ask Dougie what was on the menu, just look at his T shirt & the answer would be there somewhere!
What a dreadful game to invite them to
A competition no one cares about and a match no one will attend
Well you would say that wouldn’t you!
I was only joking by the way. I don’t think for a minute that you are on the consortiums side.
My ‘joke’ however does have a point to it. If you read the posts before it there is definitely a flavour there that people on here find your and @NiceCarrots comments less than helpful and are generally dismissive of them.
This is actually dangerous (in my opinion) to the debate and perversely I think you are making it more likely that we sell the club than not as your counter-arguments come across as non-supported whinges (in many instances) peppered with personal bias, which means people on here are less inclined to listen.
An example?
Second paragraph:
“We are poorly run...”
That is your personal view that is unsubstantiated (may or may not be true, but that hardly the point). FFS say that you believe the club is poorly run rather than make false statements.
I can’t argue with you then and may be more inclined to listen to your point of view.
The statement from the trust is misleading and bordering on a lie
At the meeting on the 12th September it was agreed unofficially by the meeting that the board should PROGRESS the discussions of investors and different models in order that the membership could consider the clubs future model with all available options tabled .
At no time was it agree the board had a mandate to either sell some or all of the shares.
The first para of that statement today is a Shame on whoever penned it and extremely disingenuous . This type of bulldozing is exactly the reason such suspicion exists and why we must cease this process until an objective leadership is in place or an independent third party audit is undertaken.
If things were not serious before they certainly are now.
I would also expect Trevor Stroud to make clear that should this majority sale not be approved by members , he would accept his mandate from
The membership and not stand due re-election , or stand down immediately if he is in office .
You cannot push this type of huge reform , lose approval for it , and expect to continue to represent the membership.
And right on queue another copy and paste post from @marlowchair .
I really think @bookertease is on to something here. Such a hamfisted attempt at attacking the current board is going to bring more people towards them than against.
So it's carrots and chair versus Bill & Jim next week. The club should sell tickets
@marlowchair said:
Utter Garbage
I thought exactly the same
@Right_in_the_Middle shouldn't you also declare an interest, if one exists? Reading your and @ValleyWanderer's posts and one is left with the distinct impression you're both rather close to members of the Trust board.
If memory suffices, wasn't it reported after the meeting on Sep 12th that the favoured option for the Trust was to go for minority investment? If so what's changed? Given that and @NiceCarrots' info earlier about Trevor Stroud attending the last match with a member of the Saudi consortium, plus @eric_plant's astute observation that the Oxford game is the least attractive match to show off the club in a good light and a cynic night wonder if this American majority stake bid was set up to be rejected (or pulled), making a minority deal from the Saudis a few weeks down the line suddenly a much more palatable compromise.
Not that one should ever be cynical when it comes to the inner workings of this Trust / Club board(s). Heaven forfend, no.
@StrongestTeam I have to agree with @marlowchair, that was my immediate thought. i would say it is a lie