@marlowchair, so what exactly are your alternatives? Let us suppose that the club fail to get the 75% vote and the investors walk away, as they may not be interested in a minority stake?
I suspect you would want all the Board to resign, and then where do we go from there? Would we find suitable replacements for the vanquished Board members and how long would we survive without the investment?
Let us just suppose we did find suitable Board member replacements, you would then probably advocate that we perform a root and branch review of the club to establish what you anticipate being the real position, which will take some time to do. Then, what if that review establishes that we are in the brown stuff, which is exactly where the current board are telling us we will be if we do not acquire investment?
Your arguments that the club is badly run and under valued may be right or wrong, I really don’t know enough to say otherwise. I do agree that the rosey picture portrayed by the Board at the end of last year may have become clouded somewhat. However, there seem to be an awful lot of unanswered questions should we follow the path that you are advocating.
For me it will be a time to listen to our elected Board and analyse exactly what the proposed investor brings to the table. I certainly don’t want our club sinking back into non league obscurity to protect a vision of ownership that is no longer viable.
I preface this with the fact that I am no businessman but I am assuming the plan of a private equity company is to stabilise and develop a failing business in order to then make it a valuable asset to sell on. So though we're not looking necessarily at a short term fix the aim will always be to sell at which point we get a good football owner who finds a thriving business an attractive proposition or end up in another dodgy position in a few years time. It's definately a tricky position and I'm still no clearer on what I think is the best path...they both look pretty to pay!!
I did not say that everything you have posted was rumour or accusation, but much of it was. Some things are clearly beyond dispute but the manner in which you and Nicecarrots have conducted your campaign has clearly alienated a lot of posters and you can’t deny that.
I just feel that you would have gained more support for your views if you’d stuck to the facts and been less personal in some of your attacks.
@Blue_since_1990 said: @marlowchair, so what exactly are your alternatives? Let us suppose that the club fail to get the 75% vote and the investors walk away, as they may not be interested in a minority stake?
I suspect you would want all the Board to resign, and then where do we go from there? Would we find suitable replacements for the vanquished Board members and how long would we survive without the investment?
This is also my biggest concern in the short/medium term.
There's not an unlimited supply of capable people waiting in the wings.
I'm sure the local area has a lot of good business people, but do many of them have any desire to get involved in the football club?
Most people who want to dedicate their time probably already are.
I'd rather take outside investment than end up with a trust being run by a bunch of people who have been drafted in on an emergency basis with no experience because the old guard have walked out en masse.
@Blue_since_1990 said: @marlowchair, so what exactly are your alternatives? Let us suppose that the club fail to get the 75% vote and the investors walk away, as they may not be interested in a minority stake?
I suspect you would want all the Board to resign, and then where do we go from there? Would we find suitable replacements for the vanquished Board members and how long would we survive without the investment?
Let us just suppose we did find suitable Board member replacements, you would then probably advocate that we perform a root and branch review of the club to establish what you anticipate being the real position, which will take some time to do. Then, what if that review establishes that we are in the brown stuff, which is exactly where the current board are telling us we will be if we do not acquire investment?
Your arguments that the club is badly run and under valued may be right or wrong, I really don’t know enough to say otherwise. I do agree that the rosey picture portrayed by the Board at the end of last year may have become clouded somewhat. However, there seem to be an awful lot of unanswered questions should we follow the path that you are advocating.
For me it will be a time to listen to our elected Board and analyse exactly what the proposed investor brings to the table. I certainly don’t want our club sinking back into non league obscurity to protect a vision of ownership that is no longer viable.
Great post .
I don’t propose waiting until 75% vote either way is at all prudent ,
We have investors at the table . If they are good and proper investors interested in our supporter ethos and due dilligence they will respect and encourage the root and branch review prior to members choosing which option is best for their club .
If our leadership push forward without getting an objective and comprehensive positional audit of our club and tabling all offers and barker options to our members , failure of the strategy is more likely that success.
If the Americans want our club they would be wise to ask Stroud to ensure all options are tabled to members in the confidence that theirs is best.
Because without that , the first question of them next week should be one they cannot answer -
“ can you assure us that your proposal is the best available investment offer and terms for our club at the present time ?”
@Blue_since_1990 said: @marlowchair, so what exactly are your alternatives? Let us suppose that the club fail to get the 75% vote and the investors walk away, as they may not be interested in a minority stake?
I suspect you would want all the Board to resign, and then where do we go from there? Would we find suitable replacements for the vanquished Board members and how long would we survive without the investment?
This is also my biggest concern in the short/medium term.
There's not an unlimited supply of capable people waiting in the wings.
I'm sure the local area has a lot of good business people, but do many of them have any desire to get involved in the football club?
Most people who want to dedicate their time probably already are.
I'd rather take outside investment than end up with a trust being run by a bunch of people who have been drafted in on an emergency basis with no experience because the old guard have walked out en masse.
@OxfordBlue, I replied to Trevor Stroud's email last night, asking how this leaves the other parties. He said they will continue dialogue with them during this process. So there are still two other parties waiting in the wings.
I would much prefer to have all three making their case, I doubt I can sensibly vote on one, without knowing what else is on offer. Supposing the Americans fail to get the 75%, does that mean the other two come forward for a new vote?
@glasshalffull said:
I did not say that everything you have posted was rumour or accusation, but much of it was. Some things are clearly beyond dispute but the manner in which you and Nicecarrots have conducted your campaign has clearly alienated a lot of posters and you can’t deny that.
I just feel that you would have gained more support for your views if you’d stuck to the facts and been less personal in some of your attacks.
“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.”
You could write opening paragraphs for important trust correspondence with such talent !
@Steve_Peart said: @OxfordBlue, I replied to Trevor Stroud's email last night, asking how this leaves the other parties. He said they will continue dialogue with them during this process. So there are still two other parties waiting in the wings.
I would much prefer to have all three making their case, I doubt I can sensibly vote on one, without knowing what else is on offer. Supposing the Americans fail to get the 75%, does that mean the other two come forward for a new vote?
That’s a ridiculous premise by our chairman. He should just be open and say “ the Americans are not interested in a minority stake so we are going for broke and trying to get a majority passed by members but we ain’t confident ...”
Mbuzz are not pleased with being played for second fiddle on this at all and nor is the third investor who now is at their third attempt to place meaningful investment into Wwfc.
It’s being royally messed up by our leadership.
By giving their blessing and public preference for the Americans we have butchered this.
Does anyone think the same terms will be available from the other two interested parties when Stroud calls them cap in hand saying “ well bills bid didn’t get through the vote so how about we take your minor share holding offer to the members ??”
The ONLY right way to do this was a private tender process , announcing we were on the market , inviting proposals , doing due diligence on them
, and tabling the best 2 or 3 to members on an objective and unbiased fashion with pros and cons and full financial details of the offers .
If bidders don’t want that then they are not right for us.
Instead we’ve thought we were clever and capable but are actually floundering out of our depth
We’re in trouble here and those accountable have much to answer for.
@Steve_Peart said: @OxfordBlue, I replied to Trevor Stroud's email last night, asking how this leaves the other parties. He said they will continue dialogue with them during this process. So there are still two other parties waiting in the wings.
I would much prefer to have all three making their case, I doubt I can sensibly vote on one, without knowing what else is on offer. Supposing the Americans fail to get the 75%, does that mean the other two come forward for a new vote?
That’s a ridiculous premise by our chairman. He should just be open and say “ the Americans are not interested in a minority stake so we are going for broke and trying to get a majority passed by members but we ain’t confident ...”
Mbuzz are not pleased with being played for second fiddle on this at all and nor is the third investor who now is at their third attempt to place meaningful investment into Wwfc.
It’s being royally messed up by our leadership.
By giving their blessing and public preference for the Americans we have butchered this.
Does anyone think the same terms will be available from the other two interested parties when Stroud calls them cap in hand saying “ well bills bid didn’t get through the vote so how about we take your minor share holding offer to the members ??”
The ONLY right way to do this was a private tender process , announcing we were on the market , inviting proposals , doing due diligence on them
, and tabling the best 2 or 3 to members on an objective and unbiased fashion with pros and cons and full financial details of the offers .
If bidders don’t want that then they are not right for us.
Instead we’ve thought we were clever and capable but are actually floundering out of our depth
We’re in trouble here and those accountable have much to answer for.
Yesterday's Trust statement was a massive own goal for me. I can only think they are trying to impress the potential investors. Really can't see them getting 75% to vote positively now.
Does anyone have the recording of the meeting to hand? From memory it went something like this - Can we have an informal vote please to get an idea of the views of the membership in response to tonight's presentation? Please raise your hand if you are happy for us to continue talks with potential investors. Don't worry we won't come and find you if you don't raise your hand.
Although I do not condone the negativity aimed at the capabilities of our current Board, I do find the selection of a preferred investor to be somewhat premature. It is very unlikely that the other two will hang around once they know they are not the first choice.
I have personally gone through similar process a number of times prior to my retirement, both in acquisition and major supply line deals. We would certainly not have named the preferred supplier/partners et al until we were happy it was the very best deal both financially and from a long term relationship viewpoint. We also had to ensure that the Corporate Board and major investors/stakeholders were 100% behind the selection prior to any favoured activity taking place.
We certainly seem to have put all our eggs in one basket, which is a real shame and I hope doesn’t come back to bite us in the backside.
It is possibly this type of somewhat rushed approach is what alienates people such as @marlowchair.
@Steve_Peart said: @OxfordBlue, I replied to Trevor Stroud's email last night, asking how this leaves the other parties. He said they will continue dialogue with them during this process. So there are still two other parties waiting in the wings.
I would much prefer to have all three making their case, I doubt I can sensibly vote on one, without knowing what else is on offer. Supposing the Americans fail to get the 75%, does that mean the other two come forward for a new vote?
That’s a ridiculous premise by our chairman. He should just be open and say “ the Americans are not interested in a minority stake so we are going for broke and trying to get a majority passed by members but we ain’t confident ...”
Mbuzz are not pleased with being played for second fiddle on this at all and nor is the third investor who now is at their third attempt to place meaningful investment into Wwfc.
It’s being royally messed up by our leadership.
By giving their blessing and public preference for the Americans we have butchered this.
Does anyone think the same terms will be available from the other two interested parties when Stroud calls them cap in hand saying “ well bills bid didn’t get through the vote so how about we take your minor share holding offer to the members ??”
The ONLY right way to do this was a private tender process , announcing we were on the market , inviting proposals , doing due diligence on them
, and tabling the best 2 or 3 to members on an objective and unbiased fashion with pros and cons and full financial details of the offers .
If bidders don’t want that then they are not right for us.
Instead we’ve thought we were clever and capable but are actually floundering out of our depth
We’re in trouble here and those accountable have much to answer for.
Actually having a preferred bidder is not as unusual as some are suggesting, albeit that timing of that decision would normally be delayed until more is known. The issue here is different in that the board don't yet have permission to sell to anybody, so until then its more akin to inviting expressions of interest. If the team negotiating the potential deal have reached a preferred bidder position then that should only be because in their judgement that is the most realistic /bid most likely to satisfy the end decision makers. Unlike others I don't think you can necessarily vote on multiple bids. It isn't really IMHO that sort of deal where a beauty contest approach would work.
A beauty parade with each party presenting their proposal surely cannot be detrimental to any decision process? Also, it is very unusual to give a preferred status until the stakeholders are made aware of the options.
@marlowchair Your list of questions at the bottom of the previous page is the best post you've made on here. A clear and concise list of legitimate (some more than others) concerns.
Worth bearing in mind in all this that if you want to sell a business, you can't describe it as thriving otherwise potential buyers can't see a route to increased profit. Typically what you want to do is reduce your profit margin as much as possible while retaining a healthy turnover so that buyers can look for profit optimisations that can be made in order to make a return.
Having made the mistake of describing the club as thriving, they've now compounded it by updating that to holy shit we're screwed and need to sell, thus completely eradicating any bargaining position. The latest statement appears to suggest that we're now down to just one interested party, informing that interested party that there's no competition for whatever crumbs they would like to throw at us.
The people making these statements are clearly not the best people to be overseeing the sale of the club, and frankly, after all this, I wouldn't trust them to barter for a rug in a Moroccan souk.
I must admit I am uncomfortable at the idea and feel a bit railroaded by the statement saying it is majority investment that the Trust are moving with now.
It will be interesting to hear from the Americans whether a minority investment would be palatable for them or if they are only interested in a majority stake and if so why.
Suppose we will have to wait for the meeting on 7th to hear from them before judging further. They will rightly get a good grilling as this is too important an issue for all bases not to be covered.
I agree strongly with the previous poster that said a 75% vote in favour from the total number of legacy members will be extremely difficult to achieve, regardless of how good a pitch is put forward.
I do wonder what the fallback plan is if this doesn't come to fruition, particularly following the exit of 2 prominent Club Board Directors.
I fully understand that the Board will choose what they consider to be the best offer to place before we great unwashed and angry crisp/FA Cup ticket/no beer in the Vere Suite moaners...but I still think we should have been given the opportunity, if not to vote on each option - which I agree would be problematic - but to hear what they were and why they were rejected or considered inferior by our leadership.
Instinct really, hence the IMHO in the original post. Lining up three or more bidders to spin their case in succession at the same meeting doesn't strike me as a particularly effective way to get at the truth of the bids. I do wonder as an aside whether those conducting the negotiations have explained to bidders clearly enough the redlines which will largely determine success or failure.
I feel the major problem we have is that since the sad resignation of the excellent Mr Howard, the current Board are amateurs trying to negotiate and push through the acquisition of new investment and/or sale.
This is the most important matter since the Hayes acquisition, and what is worrying me, is that the major instigator of that debacle namely Ivor Beeks still has an prominent role in the running of our club.
An independent consultant should have been appointed to consider all options for the club and to open dialogue with interested parties, thoroughly check their suitability and submit a detailed report to the Trust with recommendations if appropriate. Yes it will cost money, but that will be a small price to pay if it avoids another Hayes disaster and potential oblivion. I personally am not prepared to go along with @glasshalffull's attitude that Stroud and Co have the necessary expertise and judgement and that everything will turn out for the best.
Of course there is no reason as yet to suppose that the board won't explain why the other bidders weren't preferred. Perhaps it is the lack of transparency that is unhelpful, but there is an awful lot of comment on possible ways to conduct these negotiations, without any real knowledge of how the process is being conducted. Having been involved in a complex franchising process with a diverse range of interested stakeholders I understand these things are complicated and often fluid. Good communication is crucially important for ultimate acceptance of the deal, but sometimes you just have to let negotiations take their place. Hence why the negotiating team need a clear remit.
I totally agree @mooneyman but the option of using an experienced and independent consultant as long since gone. As I said early, IMHO we must now at least be able to analyse the proposal to be tabled by the confirmed preferred partner. I cannot see any of us blindly following the opinion of any club officials without that proper analysis.
My worry is that we have a rushed meeting next Wednesday without being able to sit and read through the proposal.
To be honest and as it stands, I cannot see the Board acquiring the 75% they need without full disclosure.
@marlowchair Apologies for that final sentence. It was meant as a joke but i’m really not good at that at all.
I’ll stand by all the stuff I said beforehand.
And for info @glasshalffull it is an exact question I have used to someone in an investigatory interview, to attempt to understand somebody’s inexplicable antipathy to a colleague, so it’s not just social media’s fault.
@Blue_since_1990 said:
I totally agree @mooneyman but the option of using an experienced and independent consultant as long since gone. As I said early, IMHO we must now at least be able to analyse the proposal to be tabled by the confirmed preferred partner. I cannot see any of us blindly following the opinion of any club officials without that proper analysis.
My worry is that we have a rushed meeting next Wednesday without being able to sit and read through the proposal.
To be honest and as it stands, I cannot see the Board acquiring the 75% they need without full disclosure.
Not being funny but I agitated here months ago , predicting this exact scenario and pleading the case to bring in a third party independent consulting to avoid this very cluster @&£)
I got pals and associates of the sitting board deriding me as paranoid and making things up in return.
Fao Micra - won’t copy and paste again I see your point and yes you were grumpy to early for you no doubt.
Chris - In relation to bullying it does go on certain individuals are constantly picked on. If you have ever been bullied then you would know the difference.
Comments
@marlowchair, so what exactly are your alternatives? Let us suppose that the club fail to get the 75% vote and the investors walk away, as they may not be interested in a minority stake?
I suspect you would want all the Board to resign, and then where do we go from there? Would we find suitable replacements for the vanquished Board members and how long would we survive without the investment?
Let us just suppose we did find suitable Board member replacements, you would then probably advocate that we perform a root and branch review of the club to establish what you anticipate being the real position, which will take some time to do. Then, what if that review establishes that we are in the brown stuff, which is exactly where the current board are telling us we will be if we do not acquire investment?
Your arguments that the club is badly run and under valued may be right or wrong, I really don’t know enough to say otherwise. I do agree that the rosey picture portrayed by the Board at the end of last year may have become clouded somewhat. However, there seem to be an awful lot of unanswered questions should we follow the path that you are advocating.
For me it will be a time to listen to our elected Board and analyse exactly what the proposed investor brings to the table. I certainly don’t want our club sinking back into non league obscurity to protect a vision of ownership that is no longer viable.
I preface this with the fact that I am no businessman but I am assuming the plan of a private equity company is to stabilise and develop a failing business in order to then make it a valuable asset to sell on. So though we're not looking necessarily at a short term fix the aim will always be to sell at which point we get a good football owner who finds a thriving business an attractive proposition or end up in another dodgy position in a few years time. It's definately a tricky position and I'm still no clearer on what I think is the best path...they both look pretty to pay!!
Pretty ropey
I did not say that everything you have posted was rumour or accusation, but much of it was. Some things are clearly beyond dispute but the manner in which you and Nicecarrots have conducted your campaign has clearly alienated a lot of posters and you can’t deny that.
I just feel that you would have gained more support for your views if you’d stuck to the facts and been less personal in some of your attacks.
This is also my biggest concern in the short/medium term.
There's not an unlimited supply of capable people waiting in the wings.
I'm sure the local area has a lot of good business people, but do many of them have any desire to get involved in the football club?
Most people who want to dedicate their time probably already are.
I'd rather take outside investment than end up with a trust being run by a bunch of people who have been drafted in on an emergency basis with no experience because the old guard have walked out en masse.
Great post .
I don’t propose waiting until 75% vote either way is at all prudent ,
We have investors at the table . If they are good and proper investors interested in our supporter ethos and due dilligence they will respect and encourage the root and branch review prior to members choosing which option is best for their club .
If our leadership push forward without getting an objective and comprehensive positional audit of our club and tabling all offers and barker options to our members , failure of the strategy is more likely that success.
If the Americans want our club they would be wise to ask Stroud to ensure all options are tabled to members in the confidence that theirs is best.
Because without that , the first question of them next week should be one they cannot answer -
“ can you assure us that your proposal is the best available investment offer and terms for our club at the present time ?”
The old guard with all their experience ????
@OxfordBlue, I replied to Trevor Stroud's email last night, asking how this leaves the other parties. He said they will continue dialogue with them during this process. So there are still two other parties waiting in the wings.
I would much prefer to have all three making their case, I doubt I can sensibly vote on one, without knowing what else is on offer. Supposing the Americans fail to get the 75%, does that mean the other two come forward for a new vote?
“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.”
You could write opening paragraphs for important trust correspondence with such talent !
That’s a ridiculous premise by our chairman. He should just be open and say “ the Americans are not interested in a minority stake so we are going for broke and trying to get a majority passed by members but we ain’t confident ...”
Mbuzz are not pleased with being played for second fiddle on this at all and nor is the third investor who now is at their third attempt to place meaningful investment into Wwfc.
It’s being royally messed up by our leadership.
By giving their blessing and public preference for the Americans we have butchered this.
Does anyone think the same terms will be available from the other two interested parties when Stroud calls them cap in hand saying “ well bills bid didn’t get through the vote so how about we take your minor share holding offer to the members ??”
The ONLY right way to do this was a private tender process , announcing we were on the market , inviting proposals , doing due diligence on them
, and tabling the best 2 or 3 to members on an objective and unbiased fashion with pros and cons and full financial details of the offers .
If bidders don’t want that then they are not right for us.
Instead we’ve thought we were clever and capable but are actually floundering out of our depth
We’re in trouble here and those accountable have much to answer for.
Who is the third party @marlowchair ?
Yesterday's Trust statement was a massive own goal for me. I can only think they are trying to impress the potential investors. Really can't see them getting 75% to vote positively now.
Does anyone have the recording of the meeting to hand? From memory it went something like this - Can we have an informal vote please to get an idea of the views of the membership in response to tonight's presentation? Please raise your hand if you are happy for us to continue talks with potential investors. Don't worry we won't come and find you if you don't raise your hand.
Although I do not condone the negativity aimed at the capabilities of our current Board, I do find the selection of a preferred investor to be somewhat premature. It is very unlikely that the other two will hang around once they know they are not the first choice.
I have personally gone through similar process a number of times prior to my retirement, both in acquisition and major supply line deals. We would certainly not have named the preferred supplier/partners et al until we were happy it was the very best deal both financially and from a long term relationship viewpoint. We also had to ensure that the Corporate Board and major investors/stakeholders were 100% behind the selection prior to any favoured activity taking place.
We certainly seem to have put all our eggs in one basket, which is a real shame and I hope doesn’t come back to bite us in the backside.
It is possibly this type of somewhat rushed approach is what alienates people such as @marlowchair.
Others have named them as bidders
Do you mean Annodata?
Or their now very rich ex-owners?
Actually having a preferred bidder is not as unusual as some are suggesting, albeit that timing of that decision would normally be delayed until more is known. The issue here is different in that the board don't yet have permission to sell to anybody, so until then its more akin to inviting expressions of interest. If the team negotiating the potential deal have reached a preferred bidder position then that should only be because in their judgement that is the most realistic /bid most likely to satisfy the end decision makers. Unlike others I don't think you can necessarily vote on multiple bids. It isn't really IMHO that sort of deal where a beauty contest approach would work.
Why not @Baldric?
A beauty parade with each party presenting their proposal surely cannot be detrimental to any decision process? Also, it is very unusual to give a preferred status until the stakeholders are made aware of the options.
@marlowchair Your list of questions at the bottom of the previous page is the best post you've made on here. A clear and concise list of legitimate (some more than others) concerns.
Worth bearing in mind in all this that if you want to sell a business, you can't describe it as thriving otherwise potential buyers can't see a route to increased profit. Typically what you want to do is reduce your profit margin as much as possible while retaining a healthy turnover so that buyers can look for profit optimisations that can be made in order to make a return.
Having made the mistake of describing the club as thriving, they've now compounded it by updating that to holy shit we're screwed and need to sell, thus completely eradicating any bargaining position. The latest statement appears to suggest that we're now down to just one interested party, informing that interested party that there's no competition for whatever crumbs they would like to throw at us.
The people making these statements are clearly not the best people to be overseeing the sale of the club, and frankly, after all this, I wouldn't trust them to barter for a rug in a Moroccan souk.
I must admit I am uncomfortable at the idea and feel a bit railroaded by the statement saying it is majority investment that the Trust are moving with now.
It will be interesting to hear from the Americans whether a minority investment would be palatable for them or if they are only interested in a majority stake and if so why.
Suppose we will have to wait for the meeting on 7th to hear from them before judging further. They will rightly get a good grilling as this is too important an issue for all bases not to be covered.
I agree strongly with the previous poster that said a 75% vote in favour from the total number of legacy members will be extremely difficult to achieve, regardless of how good a pitch is put forward.
I do wonder what the fallback plan is if this doesn't come to fruition, particularly following the exit of 2 prominent Club Board Directors.
I fully understand that the Board will choose what they consider to be the best offer to place before we great unwashed and angry crisp/FA Cup ticket/no beer in the Vere Suite moaners...but I still think we should have been given the opportunity, if not to vote on each option - which I agree would be problematic - but to hear what they were and why they were rejected or considered inferior by our leadership.
Instinct really, hence the IMHO in the original post. Lining up three or more bidders to spin their case in succession at the same meeting doesn't strike me as a particularly effective way to get at the truth of the bids. I do wonder as an aside whether those conducting the negotiations have explained to bidders clearly enough the redlines which will largely determine success or failure.
Spot on @Wendoverman.
I feel the major problem we have is that since the sad resignation of the excellent Mr Howard, the current Board are amateurs trying to negotiate and push through the acquisition of new investment and/or sale.
This is the most important matter since the Hayes acquisition, and what is worrying me, is that the major instigator of that debacle namely Ivor Beeks still has an prominent role in the running of our club.
An independent consultant should have been appointed to consider all options for the club and to open dialogue with interested parties, thoroughly check their suitability and submit a detailed report to the Trust with recommendations if appropriate. Yes it will cost money, but that will be a small price to pay if it avoids another Hayes disaster and potential oblivion. I personally am not prepared to go along with @glasshalffull's attitude that Stroud and Co have the necessary expertise and judgement and that everything will turn out for the best.
Of course there is no reason as yet to suppose that the board won't explain why the other bidders weren't preferred. Perhaps it is the lack of transparency that is unhelpful, but there is an awful lot of comment on possible ways to conduct these negotiations, without any real knowledge of how the process is being conducted. Having been involved in a complex franchising process with a diverse range of interested stakeholders I understand these things are complicated and often fluid. Good communication is crucially important for ultimate acceptance of the deal, but sometimes you just have to let negotiations take their place. Hence why the negotiating team need a clear remit.
I totally agree @mooneyman but the option of using an experienced and independent consultant as long since gone. As I said early, IMHO we must now at least be able to analyse the proposal to be tabled by the confirmed preferred partner. I cannot see any of us blindly following the opinion of any club officials without that proper analysis.
My worry is that we have a rushed meeting next Wednesday without being able to sit and read through the proposal.
To be honest and as it stands, I cannot see the Board acquiring the 75% they need without full disclosure.
@marlowchair Apologies for that final sentence. It was meant as a joke but i’m really not good at that at all.
I’ll stand by all the stuff I said beforehand.
And for info @glasshalffull it is an exact question I have used to someone in an investigatory interview, to attempt to understand somebody’s inexplicable antipathy to a colleague, so it’s not just social media’s fault.
Not being funny but I agitated here months ago , predicting this exact scenario and pleading the case to bring in a third party independent consulting to avoid this very cluster @&£)
I got pals and associates of the sitting board deriding me as paranoid and making things up in return.
Fao Micra - won’t copy and paste again I see your point and yes you were grumpy to early for you no doubt.
Chris - In relation to bullying it does go on certain individuals are constantly picked on. If you have ever been bullied then you would know the difference.