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.
Utter Garbage
I agree with @MarlowChair on this one. My immediate response on reading the opening paragraph of the Trust e-mail was the same. The statement that, at the September meeting, "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." is, to my recollection, somewhat stretching the truth. Trust members indicated agreement with the board continuing to investigate options, but certainly did not agree to investors taking a share of the club.
How? They asked for a show of hands to go away and look at options to present, here they are introducing an option and mention the threshold for a vote. Am i missing something?
Yes i am . Re-read that " agreed in principle that the Club should seek external investment" is a stretch for me. Apologies Marlow, even if your tone is ott as usual.
I still cannot envisage any possibility whatsoever that a proposed majority investment would get the necessary 75% majority membership vote.
In any vote, whether national, local or club, there will be a proportion of eligible voters that for whatever reason aren't able or simply don't bother to exercise their right. These abstainers will be recorded as being AGAINST any proposal in accordance with the club's Rules.
@mooneyman There is always the possibility that, between now and any vote on sale of shares and majority ownership, someone will table a motion at the AGM or an EGM for a change to the current voting rules.
@marlowchair said:
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.
Now in what way isn’t this personal? I can’t see where Trevor Stroud has said that this is other than the Trust Board putting a proposal, that they back, to the electorate.
I know I will be accused of bringing politics back into it but it is little different (to me) to Cameron and the EU Referendum. He did not have to resign following the result but chose to through honour/cowardice (take your pick). Similarly Trevor Stroud has the right to choose.
Your baying for his blood does absolutely nothing to endear you or your arguments to me and it smacks of a personal vendetta.
@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...
You know I was thinking the same thing, reading n the first few jibes by these two posters I started to feel quite sympathetic towards TS and the board then I thought am I being manipulated .
The majority investment will never get a 75% approval through. It is as close to impossible to not be an option.
The persecution of Trevor Stroud is the only way it could happen. Please stop it for the clubs sake. It is becoming this issues 350 million on the side of a bus.
@aloysius said:
What possible motivation could there be for anyone to make a minority investment in the club? That's just throwing away money for none of the fun.
It looks to me (judging merely from the information provided on this thread) that the board are doing that classic manoeuvre of looking like they're providing lots of options when really it's only ever just one.
First option, status quo - they've just spent all night explaining why that won't work.
Fourth option, complete takeover - placed there to be rejected, allowing it to look like they're responding to opinion and moderating their proposal.
Second option, minority investment - why would investors want that and how would it deliver us the financial stability we need?
So that leaves the third option, majority investment - gives us the new ownership we need to open up new funding streams, provides a fig leaf of supporter involvement to make it palatable and, I would warrant, is the only option these three consortia are pursuing.
Very prescient. An excellent reading of the position back on 12 September
I also agree that the overwhelming vote on the 12th September was for the Board to proceed in establishing if there were candidates who might invest in the club. It was certainly not a vote to proceed to sell any shares, either a minor or major share. Regarding a possible vote there are issues regarding this to sort out. Such as when will the deadline be for Season ticket holders to join and become Legacy members. Who will conduct the voting, internal or an outside agency? Certainly it is unlikely to be before our AGM and probably well into 2019 before we would be ready to sort these issues out.
@marlowchair said:
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.
Now in what way isn’t this personal? I can’t see where Trevor Stroud has said that this is other than the Trust Board putting a proposal, that they back, to the electorate.
I know I will be accused of bringing politics back into it but it is little different (to me) to Cameron and the EU Referendum. He did not have to resign following the result but chose to through honour/cowardice (take your pick). Similarly Trevor Stroud has the right to choose.
Your baying for his blood does absolutely nothing to endear you or your arguments to me and it smacks of a personal vendetta.
I have to ask. Is he shagging your wife?
A disgraceful post.apalling bad taste.
It’s not personal because it’s not about Stroud it’s about a chairman and his political validity to run club should his strategic proposition be rejected by the electorate.
@marlowchair said:
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.
Now in what way isn’t this personal? I can’t see where Trevor Stroud has said that this is other than the Trust Board putting a proposal, that they back, to the electorate.
I know I will be accused of bringing politics back into it but it is little different (to me) to Cameron and the EU Referendum. He did not have to resign following the result but chose to through honour/cowardice (take your pick). Similarly Trevor Stroud has the right to choose.
Your baying for his blood does absolutely nothing to endear you or your arguments to me and it smacks of a personal vendetta.
I have to ask. Is he shagging your wife?
A disgraceful post.apalling bad taste.
It’s not personal because it’s not about Stroud it’s about a chairman and his political validity to run club should his strategic proposition be rejected by the electorate.
Balls, @marlowchair. Self-serving, self-absorbed balls. I'm fed up of the increasingly sniping, whispering-campaign style of some posts on this subject.
I have said before that I hate the way social media so often degenerates into personal insults and vile language that people would never use face-to-face. I think Bookertease was wrong to include the final sentence of his post but I understand how marlowchair’s incessant campaign can goad people into writing things they might later regret.
As fed up as we members are of the lack of governance, planning, transparency and thoroughness around the most important issue in our clubs history since last time the same men with the same methods coaxed our membership into selling to S Hayes?
Even those who disagree with me often concede the opening paragraph in the trust statement yesterday is false and misleading in that it doesn’t at all represent what members at the meeting agreed and understood they were showing support for. An incredibly brazen and deliberate breach of process by the board , or a very regrettable error by the person who penned the statement ? Clarification is urgently required, @AlanCecil ?
I’ll stand up for what is right whether you like it or not @hcblue but I won’t stoop so low as to bring wives into the arguement to try and win cheap points. Disgraceful effort from booker.
Address the point not the person , do you think Stroud As chairman is appropriate given his lack of declaration of conflict of interest since he began working for our clubs major sponsor ? Do you think it should have been made public if there is no issue with it in the interests of transparency ? Do you think he should have informed his colleagues on the trust board he had taken a full time role with our major sponsor and then chair of the football club board at which Stroud was to be representing the Trust board and members position and interests on?
All maybe bit the greatest faults by a volunteer director trying his best, but oversights that when Reviewed against recent admissions that our club has floundered badly financially since he took over as chairman take on far more relevance and significance...
Do you think that having led and driven this sell strategy and represented the club in all negotiations and due diligence to date , that a failure of the strategy due to either the membership not supporting it with a vote , or a satisfactory financial deal and structure be tabled by bidders , that Stroud’s position as chairman and director is tenable ?
All very legitimate questions . You say it’s personal I say he chairs the club by choice and accepts the responsibility and questions that come his way as a result. I extend the questions to the entire football club board - they are equally as liable and responsible for their choices on behalf of our club . That means Cook as far as I am aware as the only other elected director remaining.
Do you forget that two directors in Howard and Burrell who were fully supportive and eager for this sale strategy mere months ago have since tossed in their resignations?
If you want to believe all is rosy and this is a unanimous and supported push by the chairman given all the circumstantial and demonstrable evidence at hand that’s up to you , but don’t try and shut down those who choose to care a little more about the effect current machinations and performance of our leadership is having on our chances of a stable and successful future , regardless of what model and structure we end up with .
That we come to the end of a so called 5 year plan in political turmoil , under self described financial mess despite claiming a thriving financial position 11 months ago, and with a single preferred future option being proposed by a chairman who recently lost his two hardest working and loyal directors, is extremely regrettable and a very unstable platform indeed . It wastes and reduces the impact and legacy of the Excellent work Andrew Howard did at our club and he must be furious.
Again, just to be very clear. I don’t care whether our future is wholly trust owned or not. I do however care very much that we are in no position whatsoever to be able to objectively and confidently make decisions knowing we have all information and our clubs current performance capabilities and potential performance capabilities
Once again I feel the need to come on and defend Marlow Chair and Nice Carrots. Despite most people accepting that they both now know a lot more about what is going on behind the scenes than most on here; despite their gobbets of info genuinely illuminating a very opaque, murky sales process and driving debate on, they are both regularly lambasted for doing so, regularly subjected to accusations that they're not true supporters if they're willing to criticise the board so ardently and regularly. Well, balls to that my friends.
1) if a board oversees a switch from what they described as a sustainable business model to one that a year later they say is in dire peril then that board smacks of incompetency
2) if, in a vital piece of communication to its shareholders, a board manipulates the meaning of a previous vote to suggest it has been given permission to effect a sale of its assets when in fact it hasn't then that is, in my opinion, a resigning matter
3) if there's a conflict of interest with the chairman of the board due to his employment by his predecessor, who happens to still be a major shareholder in the club and consequently may potentially benefit more from one offer than another (ie he MAY get more of a return on his investment if the club is bought outright rather than a minority stake is taken) then that chairman should recuse himself from the whole process, not lead it
4) and here's the personal attack guys - if the chairman is both chair of the club and the trust, who refuses to acknowledge that's not a healthy position and resign from one of them to provide some independent oversight of this process, is a fruit and nut salesman and now a middle manager in the Beechdean emporium, I fail to see how he has the particular skill set or experience to lead negotiations with international conglomerates, especially given the club has already said it cannot afford independent advice from professionals experienced in this field
The psychology of people on this board is fascinating. So many people seem to think that being a supporter of WWFC means offering blind support to whoever runs the club, both on and off the pitch. I've always taken the view that true supporters are critical friends - and that's never more important than now. Some of the people lining up against Mr Carrots and Mr Chair are clearly friends of the current board members and their criticisms should be discounted unless they come with disclaimers stating such; some simply don't like their tone; others don't like the boat to be rocked at a time it's already traversing a choppy sea.
Well Aloysius says fie to those people; all power to your elbows Marlow and Nice. Uncomfortable truths need to be heard at this time and need to be repeated until they sink in. It doesn't stop you being a supporter of Wycombe Wanderers to want a new chairman of the Club and / or Trust - in fact, in my opinion, it makes you a much truer one.
@aloysius said:
Once again I feel the need to come on and defend Marlow Chair and Nice Carrots. Despite most people accepting that they both now know a lot more about what is going on behind the scenes than most on here; despite their gobbets of info genuinely illuminating a very opaque, murky sales process and driving debate on, they are both regularly lambasted for doing so, regularly subjected to accusations that they're not true supporters if they're willing to criticise the board so ardently and regularly. Well, balls to that my friends.
1) if a board oversees a switch from what they described as a sustainable business model to one that a year later they say is in dire peril then that board smacks of incompetency
2) if, in a vital piece of communication to its shareholders, a board manipulates the meaning of a previous vote to suggest it has been given permission to effect a sale of its assets when in fact it hasn't then that is, in my opinion, a resigning matter
3) if there's a conflict of interest with the chairman of the board due to his employment by his predecessor, who happens to still be a major shareholder in the club and consequently may potentially benefit more from one offer than another (ie he MAY get more of a return on his investment if the club is bought outright rather than a minority stake is taken) then that chairman should recuse himself from the whole process, not lead it
4) and here's the personal attack guys - if the chairman is both chair of the club and the trust, who refuses to acknowledge that's not a healthy position and resign from one of them to provide some independent oversight of this process, is a fruit and nut salesman and now a middle manager in the Beechdean emporium, I fail to see how he has the particular skill set or experience to lead negotiations with international conglomerates, especially given the club has already said it cannot afford independent advice from professionals experienced in this field
The psychology of people on this board is fascinating. So many people seem to think that being a supporter of WWFC means offering blind support to whoever runs the club, both on and off the pitch. I've always taken the view that true supporters are critical friends - and that's never more important than now. Some of the people lining up against Mr Carrots and Mr Chair are clearly friends of the current board members and their criticisms should be discounted unless they come with disclaimers stating such; some simply don't like their tone; others don't like the boat to be rocked at a time it's already traversing a choppy sea.
Well Aloysius says fie to those people; all power to your elbows Marlow and Nice. Uncomfortable truths need to be heard at this time and need to be repeated until they sink in. It doesn't stop you being a supporter of Wycombe Wanderers to want a new chairman of the Club and / or Trust - in fact, in my opinion, it makes you a much better one.
Good one Aloysius in general there is a lot of bullying on this website especially against the people who dare to go against the main contributors probally why most people refrain to comment.
Just one important point Aloysius: there’s a massive difference between facts and rumours/accusations/innuendo etc. So far we’ve had very little of the former but plenty of the latter.
@glassful, can you confirm if you think that items 1 & 2 of Aloysius comments are facts or a rumour. I refer to the statement rather than his opinion which follows.
Whilst broadly in favour of a change of ownership structure - would love to keep the current one but I'm afraid for a club of our size it simply can't work in the long term.
However.... I do have issues with these new investors. I fear a SISU MK2 situation could well happen.
There is a but to that statement though.
SISU purchased Coventry whilst they were in the Premier League and have ended up with a reduced value asset.
These guys are however buying in whilst we are lower down and with sensible, reasonable investment in the playing staff they could easily more than make their money if we were to become an established Championship side
The question we all have to ask ourselves is do we trust them. also if this investment is turned down is there another one in the background?
The bottom line is the potential investors are businessmen, they clearly think they can run the club better to make a profit. If not why get involved? They will have zero affection for Wycombe Wanderers, why would they? Stan Kronke bought Arsenal to make money, these people want to buy the club want to make money. Just how they think they can achieve that with a small Lg 1 club is debateable and that is where the biggest concern will always be. What happens if the club does not return profits, what happens when they become fed up with losing money.? A minority option was never an option, why would you pump money in and not have the whip hand. The only way they will get 75% of the vote is to have a very compelling argument and the promise of serious money being spent on the ground and playing budget. The Trust on the other hand will continue to state we are not financially viable so the status quo is not an option.
One other quick point for Aloysius. No-one I have seen has suggested that anyone is not
"true supporters if they're willing to criticise the board".
The club faces a crossroads. There are differing paths to take and supporters of the club faced with the same facts and uncertainties will draw different conclusions as to the correct path to take and then be passionate in their views about that correct path. That applies to Aloysius, me, Marlowchair, Glasshalffull, Trevor Stroud, other board members etc.
Is it really to be beyond the capability of social media to discuss differences of opinion amicably and respectfully, recognising that contrary views are honestly held with the clubs best interests at heart, without resorting to personal attacks?
They can’t be seen as facts as they are clearly opinions, as stated by Aloysius himself. However, I was really referring to our erstwhile contributors Nicecarrots and marlowchair. For the record, I was also under the impression that the show of hands on September 12 was a vote for the Trust Board to continue talks with potential investors.
@OX66 said:
Good one Aloysius in general there is a lot of bullying on this website especially against the people who dare to go against the main contributors probally why most people refrain to comment.
There’s plenty of healthy disagreement but little bullying.
Comments
I agree with @MarlowChair on this one. My immediate response on reading the opening paragraph of the Trust e-mail was the same. The statement that, at the September meeting, "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." is, to my recollection, somewhat stretching the truth. Trust members indicated agreement with the board continuing to investigate options, but certainly did not agree to investors taking a share of the club.
How? They asked for a show of hands to go away and look at options to present, here they are introducing an option and mention the threshold for a vote. Am i missing something?
Yes i am . Re-read that " agreed in principle that the Club should seek external investment" is a stretch for me. Apologies Marlow, even if your tone is ott as usual.
I still cannot envisage any possibility whatsoever that a proposed majority investment would get the necessary 75% majority membership vote.
In any vote, whether national, local or club, there will be a proportion of eligible voters that for whatever reason aren't able or simply don't bother to exercise their right. These abstainers will be recorded as being AGAINST any proposal in accordance with the club's Rules.
@mooneyman There is always the possibility that, between now and any vote on sale of shares and majority ownership, someone will table a motion at the AGM or an EGM for a change to the current voting rules.
I must admit i thought the vote had been to give them a mandate to see what offers were on the table and present them.
Now in what way isn’t this personal? I can’t see where Trevor Stroud has said that this is other than the Trust Board putting a proposal, that they back, to the electorate.
I know I will be accused of bringing politics back into it but it is little different (to me) to Cameron and the EU Referendum. He did not have to resign following the result but chose to through honour/cowardice (take your pick). Similarly Trevor Stroud has the right to choose.
Your baying for his blood does absolutely nothing to endear you or your arguments to me and it smacks of a personal vendetta.
I have to ask. Is he shagging your wife?
You know I was thinking the same thing, reading n the first few jibes by these two posters I started to feel quite sympathetic towards TS and the board then I thought am I being manipulated .
The majority investment will never get a 75% approval through. It is as close to impossible to not be an option.
The persecution of Trevor Stroud is the only way it could happen. Please stop it for the clubs sake. It is becoming this issues 350 million on the side of a bus.
Thanks @Right_in_the_Middle. So much clearer than I’ve ever managed to put it!
I'm no fan of @marlowchair's approach, but he's right on this one.
Very prescient. An excellent reading of the position back on 12 September
I also agree that the overwhelming vote on the 12th September was for the Board to proceed in establishing if there were candidates who might invest in the club. It was certainly not a vote to proceed to sell any shares, either a minor or major share. Regarding a possible vote there are issues regarding this to sort out. Such as when will the deadline be for Season ticket holders to join and become Legacy members. Who will conduct the voting, internal or an outside agency? Certainly it is unlikely to be before our AGM and probably well into 2019 before we would be ready to sort these issues out.
Where is Eddie Monsoon when you need him ? Can some one wake him up from his Gasroom retirement please.
A disgraceful post.apalling bad taste.
It’s not personal because it’s not about Stroud it’s about a chairman and his political validity to run club should his strategic proposition be rejected by the electorate.
Balls, @marlowchair. Self-serving, self-absorbed balls. I'm fed up of the increasingly sniping, whispering-campaign style of some posts on this subject.
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/seaport-capital-partners-closes-fifth-fund-at-230-million-2230940.htm
I have said before that I hate the way social media so often degenerates into personal insults and vile language that people would never use face-to-face. I think Bookertease was wrong to include the final sentence of his post but I understand how marlowchair’s incessant campaign can goad people into writing things they might later regret.
As fed up as we members are of the lack of governance, planning, transparency and thoroughness around the most important issue in our clubs history since last time the same men with the same methods coaxed our membership into selling to S Hayes?
Even those who disagree with me often concede the opening paragraph in the trust statement yesterday is false and misleading in that it doesn’t at all represent what members at the meeting agreed and understood they were showing support for. An incredibly brazen and deliberate breach of process by the board , or a very regrettable error by the person who penned the statement ? Clarification is urgently required, @AlanCecil ?
I’ll stand up for what is right whether you like it or not @hcblue but I won’t stoop so low as to bring wives into the arguement to try and win cheap points. Disgraceful effort from booker.
Address the point not the person , do you think Stroud As chairman is appropriate given his lack of declaration of conflict of interest since he began working for our clubs major sponsor ? Do you think it should have been made public if there is no issue with it in the interests of transparency ? Do you think he should have informed his colleagues on the trust board he had taken a full time role with our major sponsor and then chair of the football club board at which Stroud was to be representing the Trust board and members position and interests on?
All maybe bit the greatest faults by a volunteer director trying his best, but oversights that when Reviewed against recent admissions that our club has floundered badly financially since he took over as chairman take on far more relevance and significance...
Do you think that having led and driven this sell strategy and represented the club in all negotiations and due diligence to date , that a failure of the strategy due to either the membership not supporting it with a vote , or a satisfactory financial deal and structure be tabled by bidders , that Stroud’s position as chairman and director is tenable ?
All very legitimate questions . You say it’s personal I say he chairs the club by choice and accepts the responsibility and questions that come his way as a result. I extend the questions to the entire football club board - they are equally as liable and responsible for their choices on behalf of our club . That means Cook as far as I am aware as the only other elected director remaining.
Do you forget that two directors in Howard and Burrell who were fully supportive and eager for this sale strategy mere months ago have since tossed in their resignations?
If you want to believe all is rosy and this is a unanimous and supported push by the chairman given all the circumstantial and demonstrable evidence at hand that’s up to you , but don’t try and shut down those who choose to care a little more about the effect current machinations and performance of our leadership is having on our chances of a stable and successful future , regardless of what model and structure we end up with .
That we come to the end of a so called 5 year plan in political turmoil , under self described financial mess despite claiming a thriving financial position 11 months ago, and with a single preferred future option being proposed by a chairman who recently lost his two hardest working and loyal directors, is extremely regrettable and a very unstable platform indeed . It wastes and reduces the impact and legacy of the Excellent work Andrew Howard did at our club and he must be furious.
Again, just to be very clear. I don’t care whether our future is wholly trust owned or not. I do however care very much that we are in no position whatsoever to be able to objectively and confidently make decisions knowing we have all information and our clubs current performance capabilities and potential performance capabilities
Once again I feel the need to come on and defend Marlow Chair and Nice Carrots. Despite most people accepting that they both now know a lot more about what is going on behind the scenes than most on here; despite their gobbets of info genuinely illuminating a very opaque, murky sales process and driving debate on, they are both regularly lambasted for doing so, regularly subjected to accusations that they're not true supporters if they're willing to criticise the board so ardently and regularly. Well, balls to that my friends.
1) if a board oversees a switch from what they described as a sustainable business model to one that a year later they say is in dire peril then that board smacks of incompetency
2) if, in a vital piece of communication to its shareholders, a board manipulates the meaning of a previous vote to suggest it has been given permission to effect a sale of its assets when in fact it hasn't then that is, in my opinion, a resigning matter
3) if there's a conflict of interest with the chairman of the board due to his employment by his predecessor, who happens to still be a major shareholder in the club and consequently may potentially benefit more from one offer than another (ie he MAY get more of a return on his investment if the club is bought outright rather than a minority stake is taken) then that chairman should recuse himself from the whole process, not lead it
4) and here's the personal attack guys - if the chairman is both chair of the club and the trust, who refuses to acknowledge that's not a healthy position and resign from one of them to provide some independent oversight of this process, is a fruit and nut salesman and now a middle manager in the Beechdean emporium, I fail to see how he has the particular skill set or experience to lead negotiations with international conglomerates, especially given the club has already said it cannot afford independent advice from professionals experienced in this field
The psychology of people on this board is fascinating. So many people seem to think that being a supporter of WWFC means offering blind support to whoever runs the club, both on and off the pitch. I've always taken the view that true supporters are critical friends - and that's never more important than now. Some of the people lining up against Mr Carrots and Mr Chair are clearly friends of the current board members and their criticisms should be discounted unless they come with disclaimers stating such; some simply don't like their tone; others don't like the boat to be rocked at a time it's already traversing a choppy sea.
Well Aloysius says fie to those people; all power to your elbows Marlow and Nice. Uncomfortable truths need to be heard at this time and need to be repeated until they sink in. It doesn't stop you being a supporter of Wycombe Wanderers to want a new chairman of the Club and / or Trust - in fact, in my opinion, it makes you a much truer one.
Good one Aloysius in general there is a lot of bullying on this website especially against the people who dare to go against the main contributors probally why most people refrain to comment.
Just one important point Aloysius: there’s a massive difference between facts and rumours/accusations/innuendo etc. So far we’ve had very little of the former but plenty of the latter.
@glassful, can you confirm if you think that items 1 & 2 of Aloysius comments are facts or a rumour. I refer to the statement rather than his opinion which follows.
Whilst broadly in favour of a change of ownership structure - would love to keep the current one but I'm afraid for a club of our size it simply can't work in the long term.
However.... I do have issues with these new investors. I fear a SISU MK2 situation could well happen.
There is a but to that statement though.
SISU purchased Coventry whilst they were in the Premier League and have ended up with a reduced value asset.
These guys are however buying in whilst we are lower down and with sensible, reasonable investment in the playing staff they could easily more than make their money if we were to become an established Championship side
The question we all have to ask ourselves is do we trust them. also if this investment is turned down is there another one in the background?
The bottom line is the potential investors are businessmen, they clearly think they can run the club better to make a profit. If not why get involved? They will have zero affection for Wycombe Wanderers, why would they? Stan Kronke bought Arsenal to make money, these people want to buy the club want to make money. Just how they think they can achieve that with a small Lg 1 club is debateable and that is where the biggest concern will always be. What happens if the club does not return profits, what happens when they become fed up with losing money.? A minority option was never an option, why would you pump money in and not have the whip hand. The only way they will get 75% of the vote is to have a very compelling argument and the promise of serious money being spent on the ground and playing budget. The Trust on the other hand will continue to state we are not financially viable so the status quo is not an option.
One other quick point for Aloysius. No-one I have seen has suggested that anyone is not
"true supporters if they're willing to criticise the board".
The club faces a crossroads. There are differing paths to take and supporters of the club faced with the same facts and uncertainties will draw different conclusions as to the correct path to take and then be passionate in their views about that correct path. That applies to Aloysius, me, Marlowchair, Glasshalffull, Trevor Stroud, other board members etc.
Is it really to be beyond the capability of social media to discuss differences of opinion amicably and respectfully, recognising that contrary views are honestly held with the clubs best interests at heart, without resorting to personal attacks?
@OX66 - PLEASE don’t copy down lengthy comments (however articulate and perceptive) posted 10 minutes before your own. Thanks.
Whilst in grumpy mood could I just say how fed up I am with “fed up of” (in two posts earlier this morning).
They can’t be seen as facts as they are clearly opinions, as stated by Aloysius himself. However, I was really referring to our erstwhile contributors Nicecarrots and marlowchair. For the record, I was also under the impression that the show of hands on September 12 was a vote for the Trust Board to continue talks with potential investors.
There’s plenty of healthy disagreement but little bullying.
That’s not true Glasshalffull you just choose to cherry pick those instances .
My most recent posts about conflict and process are clearly about widely accepted facts .
Did Trevor and mark state our club was thriving financially in November 2017?
Have they since admitted they were trying to find a buyer at the very same time ?
Have they now , 11 months later said the financial position of the club is poor and a sale is our only hope?
Does Trevor work for Beechdean ?
Did he declare that to the board before they found out accidentally ?
Have mark and Andrew resigned from the board ? We’re they key proponents of the sale Strategy?
Does the first paragraph of the Trust’s statement yesterday respect the true question and outcome of the meeting on 12th September ?
Are these questions valid in context of our clubs stable future ?