Wouldnt it be a gross miscarriage of process if the board/ americans upped or changed their bid now that the Harman bid has been made public?
They have progressed with the US bid to date saying they have weighed and measured all offers and this is the best one.
Trevor and the Trust board were presented Harmans bid by Harman himself last week. They told him thanks but no thanks.
So they have gone on record and as a group, as a board, stated that the US offer is best for the club.
If they were in someway to try and reformat or increase the american bid now to try and respond and make it look much better than Harmans bid, it would be an even lower and deceitful miscarriage of process and dereliction of duties as company directors and representatives of the Trust members than they have demonstrated thus far.
As the trust board is not unanimous, the opportunity for them to secretly try and re-form the american bid now is minimal without it getting out publicly, and rest assured, I will be policing the process and ensuring any attempts are made public here.
I agree...as I think I posted on another thread...I hope some notice has been taken of the new bid and reaction to it. They cannot just rest on their laurels now and perhaps some tweaking might be taking place.
@marlowchair said:
Wouldnt it be a gross miscarriage of process if the board/ americans upped or changed their bid now that the Harman bid has been made public?
They have progressed with the US bid to date saying they have weighed and measured all offers and this is the best one.
Trevor and the Trust board were presented Harmans bid by Harman himself last week. They told him thanks but no thanks.
So they have gone on record and as a group, as a board, stated that the US offer is best for the club.
If they were in someway to try and reformat or increase the american bid now to try and respond and make it look much better than Harmans bid, it would be an even lower and deceitful miscarriage of process and dereliction of duties as company directors and representatives of the Trust members than they have demonstrated thus far.
As the trust board is not unanimous, the opportunity for them to secretly try and re-form the american bid now is minimal without it getting out publicly, and rest assured, I will be policing the process and ensuring any attempts are made public here.
Surely getting an improved bid would be good negotiating wouldn't it? In showing his hand Harman has given 'the guys' a decision. If the bid is truly the best available they will be fine. If not they will not get the votes.
But Andy Harman has no interest in using the ground as collateral in any deal. The American lot obviously do. That's key for me. Look not being funny but Derby are in exactly the same place they were when they floated in and floated out and took £10,000,000 on the way out. You can say the earned it but looking at players in and out, I'm looking at Ton Ince and Will Hughes as examples raised £20,000,000 on there own. I need to know what's in it for them as not fans just investment bods.
I would suspect they think it is an easy and (relatively) cheap fix to stabilise the club in League One (or possibly Championship )and reorganise the business thus making it an attractive proposition to move on. If they get a bit of fun along the way that's a bonus.
@marlowchair said:
As the trust board is not unanimous, the opportunity for them to secretly try and re-form the american bid now is minimal without it getting out publicly, and rest assured, I will be policing the process and ensuring any attempts are made public here.
How dare you contradict Dev? Our West country expert has repeatedly advised you that the decision to recommend the American's bid was UNANIMOUS. I have no reason to doubt the man with his hand on the Trust pulse.
@Chris said:
It would be good for WWFC, wouldn’t it? Unless your main agenda was promoting the Harman bid rather than getting the best deal for the club.
Yes of course it would be good. So would it be better if Harman came back with a counter offer....
Exactly how it should have been from the start.
There are others who whave made contact who were never considered alongside Harman so I fully encourage a fully open process , going to market and having an arms length tender process to identify the best bids for presentation.
I don't support the board and american bid making it up as they go along reacting everytime the real truth comes to light. I hope that clears it up for you,
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
Surely getting an improved bid would be good negotiating wouldn't it? In showing his hand Harman has given 'the guys' a decision. If the bid is truly the best available they will be fine. If not they will not get the votes.
I agree. But the board are on record as saying they have strongly considered all offers and the americans is the best and only one worthy of tabling to members.
My fear is they will table a bid Monday that isn't in anyway clearly superior to Harmans bid, making it nearly impossible for members to vote it through. What then ?
@marlowchair said:
As the trust board is not unanimous, the opportunity for them to secretly try and re-form the american bid now is minimal without it getting out publicly, and rest assured, I will be policing the process and ensuring any attempts are made public here.
How dare you contradict Dev? Our West country expert has repeatedly advised you that the decision to recommend the American's bid was UNANIMOUS. I have no reason to doubt the man with his hand on the Trust pulse.
@marlowchair it's back to the drawing board, I suppose. Yanks asked to make a better offer...Harman resubmits his bid. We get to watch football in peace for a few weeks before it all starts again?
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
Surely getting an improved bid would be good negotiating wouldn't it? In showing his hand Harman has given 'the guys' a decision. If the bid is truly the best available they will be fine. If not they will not get the votes.
I agree. But the board are on record as saying they have strongly considered all offers and the americans is the best and only one worthy of tabling to members.
My fear is they will table a bid Monday that isn't in anyway clearly superior to Harmans bid, making it nearly impossible for members to vote it through. What then ?
What happens is that all potential bids are back on the table and up for change. Maybe there will be some changes on the Trust board? The bid has been labelled as the best available so lets wait and see
@marlowchair said:
As the trust board is not unanimous, the opportunity for them to secretly try and re-form the american bid now is minimal without it getting out publicly, and rest assured, I will be policing the process and ensuring any attempts are made public here.
How dare you contradict Dev? Our West country expert has repeatedly advised you that the decision to recommend the American's bid was UNANIMOUS. I have no reason to doubt the man with his hand on the Trust pulse.
He's wrong. basically.
Wasn't unanimous used in the open letter or the meeting invite?
@Wendoverman said: @marlowchair it's back to the drawing board, I suppose. Yanks asked to make a better offer...Harman resubmits his bid. We get to watch football in peace for a few weeks before it all starts again?
I actually think that would be a really good outcome. It wouldn't discard all the hard work and time Harman or the Americans have invested to date.
I would suggest the board must disband and a new board installed, or the very least Trevor must stand aside along with Cook. they should be replaced with independently appointed directors until an election can be held. The independent deirectors must be appointed with the task of overseeing the bidding process, investigating ALL options and tabling a report to the trust board. This would not take long. 4 weeks.
@marlowchair said:
As the trust board is not unanimous, the opportunity for them to secretly try and re-form the american bid now is minimal without it getting out publicly, and rest assured, I will be policing the process and ensuring any attempts are made public here.
How dare you contradict Dev? Our West country expert has repeatedly advised you that the decision to recommend the American's bid was UNANIMOUS. I have no reason to doubt the man with his hand on the Trust pulse.
He's wrong. basically.
Wasn't unanimous used in the open letter or the meeting invite?
Fair enough. We do know the details of Andrew Harman's proposal though and they are in the public domain. Perhaps you haven't had the chance to look at them yet.
Sorry, I meant to say I’ve not seen anything beyond what is already here on the Gasroom.
I’m really at a quandary, as the key question is and has always been why do you want to invest in a lower league football club when they lose money. I understand that Andrew Harman has a local, emotional and playing connection with the club, so maybe that is enough. I’m not entirely encouraged (as I mentioned elsewhere) with Andrew’s interview with Phil where he seems to focus on non-football income, which is always an easy answer to give, but in reality is there a great deal of money to be made? The mention of stadium tours (which, not having attended, may have been a light hearted comment) doesn’t convince me in the slightest.
From looking at the finances, and listening to the board, we are in a position where we need money. But also in a position where we should question the motives of anyone who wants to invest.
I think the only hope is for someone to provide some short term investment to stabilise the club while it restructures to stop the yearly losses.
I'm sure this will be seen as unambitious but the purpose of the Trust is to safeguard the future existence of the club in this town, not to risk it all by spending more than it has or expecting some poor bloke to come in, spend all his money and get dogs abuse when the team don't get promoted.
We need to focus on the community aspect and growing support, etc but the club shouldn't be in a position whereby if the crowds don't grow then the future is threatened.
I wholeheartedly agree with @Chris. Just because the current Trust Board are thoroughly out of their depth and deeply conflicted in terms of their interests, does not mean that we can wave through any seemingly viable alternative plan without the same level of scrutiny. To do so would be hypocritical and counterproductive. As it stands, Andrew Harman has provided only the broadest of outlines of his proposal with nothing yet committed on paper in the public domain. We owe it to him to take his prosposal seriously - and that involves treating it with a healthy dose of scepitism until thoroughly scrutinised.
I Totally agree in the need for a thorough and robust due dilligence based investigative financial modelling of all and any proposals for investment whether majority or minority stake, Harmans included.
It's nothing more than we should deserve and expect from our board.
One aspect of Harmans model ( and the americans model which you will see Monday) which is positive from both sides, is their proposal to remove the current operational management from the club and install their own.
I've been clear on the failings of the club from a commercial and operational management perspective over the past year or so, and I fully believe it has contributed to the poor financial performance of the club which has led to this situation we find ourselves in.
Regardless of which bid finally is accepted as our new way forward, the parachuting in of competent, adequately experienced and skilled CEO or General Manager will be one of the most important and beneficial aspects they bring, moreso than the brass numbers in terms of pounds.
@marlowchair said:
We are not dismissing or upsetting any loyal local backers because of giving them the cold shoulder for bigger nationals,we are upsetting them because of bad management. Our financial revenue is adversely affected directly due to these issues.
Very few , if any league clubs are refusing larger offers for shirt sponsors than currently received, and none do who are telling supporters they are broke and it’s impossible to stay in the league unless we go private.
Out of curiosity how do you know we upsetting local backers? Who exactly are upset?
And your second point can only be uninformed speculation. You may be right but what evidence can you posdibly have for that?
Where there is smoke there is ****fire****
Topical. I do tend to place rather glaring clues and choose words very carefully.
Does anyone know when the next trust meeting will be held to discuss and agree a way forward. Whilst we have other more important football related matters to deal with right now in the next couple of weeks, this matter shouldn't be dragged out unnecessarily and I am concerned that all we may get is radio silence from the Board for the foreseeable future
TS was asked last night, to have one, there was no commitment from him but strongly advised that Trust members would appreciate it. So watch this space. I believe he will.
@TruBlu, he agreed to have the meeting, but he seemed less keen to have it as soon as possible, as the Council Chairman asked. This whole investment process needs reviewing by all members, ASAP.
Comments
Wouldnt it be a gross miscarriage of process if the board/ americans upped or changed their bid now that the Harman bid has been made public?
They have progressed with the US bid to date saying they have weighed and measured all offers and this is the best one.
Trevor and the Trust board were presented Harmans bid by Harman himself last week. They told him thanks but no thanks.
So they have gone on record and as a group, as a board, stated that the US offer is best for the club.
If they were in someway to try and reformat or increase the american bid now to try and respond and make it look much better than Harmans bid, it would be an even lower and deceitful miscarriage of process and dereliction of duties as company directors and representatives of the Trust members than they have demonstrated thus far.
As the trust board is not unanimous, the opportunity for them to secretly try and re-form the american bid now is minimal without it getting out publicly, and rest assured, I will be policing the process and ensuring any attempts are made public here.
It would be good for WWFC, wouldn’t it? Unless your main agenda was promoting the Harman bid rather than getting the best deal for the club.
I agree...as I think I posted on another thread...I hope some notice has been taken of the new bid and reaction to it. They cannot just rest on their laurels now and perhaps some tweaking might be taking place.
Who said anything about changing it?
Surely getting an improved bid would be good negotiating wouldn't it? In showing his hand Harman has given 'the guys' a decision. If the bid is truly the best available they will be fine. If not they will not get the votes.
But Andy Harman has no interest in using the ground as collateral in any deal. The American lot obviously do. That's key for me. Look not being funny but Derby are in exactly the same place they were when they floated in and floated out and took £10,000,000 on the way out. You can say the earned it but looking at players in and out, I'm looking at Ton Ince and Will Hughes as examples raised £20,000,000 on there own. I need to know what's in it for them as not fans just investment bods.
I would suspect they think it is an easy and (relatively) cheap fix to stabilise the club in League One (or possibly Championship
)and reorganise the business thus making it an attractive proposition to move on. If they get a bit of fun along the way that's a bonus.
How dare you contradict Dev? Our West country expert has repeatedly advised you that the decision to recommend the American's bid was UNANIMOUS. I have no reason to doubt the man with his hand on the Trust pulse.
Yes of course it would be good. So would it be better if Harman came back with a counter offer....
Exactly how it should have been from the start.
There are others who whave made contact who were never considered alongside Harman so I fully encourage a fully open process , going to market and having an arms length tender process to identify the best bids for presentation.
I don't support the board and american bid making it up as they go along reacting everytime the real truth comes to light. I hope that clears it up for you,
'The 11' 'The 11' 'The 11'...read his posts...it's been Dev's theme for at least the last six or seven posts.
He know things.
I agree. But the board are on record as saying they have strongly considered all offers and the americans is the best and only one worthy of tabling to members.
My fear is they will table a bid Monday that isn't in anyway clearly superior to Harmans bid, making it nearly impossible for members to vote it through. What then ?
He's wrong. basically.
@marlowchair it's back to the drawing board, I suppose. Yanks asked to make a better offer...Harman resubmits his bid. We get to watch football in peace for a few weeks before it all starts again?
What happens is that all potential bids are back on the table and up for change. Maybe there will be some changes on the Trust board? The bid has been labelled as the best available so lets wait and see
Wasn't unanimous used in the open letter or the meeting invite?
@Chris How have you concluded that the bid from Bill Luby and Jim Collis is the the best deal for the club?
I actually think that would be a really good outcome. It wouldn't discard all the hard work and time Harman or the Americans have invested to date.
I would suggest the board must disband and a new board installed, or the very least Trevor must stand aside along with Cook. they should be replaced with independently appointed directors until an election can be held. The independent deirectors must be appointed with the task of overseeing the bidding process, investigating ALL options and tabling a report to the trust board. This would not take long. 4 weeks.
I have done no such thing. I don’t know the details of either bid.
I believe youre correct yes.
Fair enough. We do know the details of Andrew Harman's proposal though and they are in the public domain. Perhaps you haven't had the chance to look at them yet.
I have not seen anything beyond what is in this thread. Is there a link to more detail available?
I would recommend reading this thread, from page 8...
https://gasroom.org/discussion/4502/andrew-harman-bid-for-wwfc#latest
Sorry, I meant to say I’ve not seen anything beyond what is already here on the Gasroom.
I’m really at a quandary, as the key question is and has always been why do you want to invest in a lower league football club when they lose money. I understand that Andrew Harman has a local, emotional and playing connection with the club, so maybe that is enough. I’m not entirely encouraged (as I mentioned elsewhere) with Andrew’s interview with Phil where he seems to focus on non-football income, which is always an easy answer to give, but in reality is there a great deal of money to be made? The mention of stadium tours (which, not having attended, may have been a light hearted comment) doesn’t convince me in the slightest.
From looking at the finances, and listening to the board, we are in a position where we need money. But also in a position where we should question the motives of anyone who wants to invest.
I think the only hope is for someone to provide some short term investment to stabilise the club while it restructures to stop the yearly losses.
I'm sure this will be seen as unambitious but the purpose of the Trust is to safeguard the future existence of the club in this town, not to risk it all by spending more than it has or expecting some poor bloke to come in, spend all his money and get dogs abuse when the team don't get promoted.
We need to focus on the community aspect and growing support, etc but the club shouldn't be in a position whereby if the crowds don't grow then the future is threatened.
I wholeheartedly agree with @Chris. Just because the current Trust Board are thoroughly out of their depth and deeply conflicted in terms of their interests, does not mean that we can wave through any seemingly viable alternative plan without the same level of scrutiny. To do so would be hypocritical and counterproductive. As it stands, Andrew Harman has provided only the broadest of outlines of his proposal with nothing yet committed on paper in the public domain. We owe it to him to take his prosposal seriously - and that involves treating it with a healthy dose of scepitism until thoroughly scrutinised.
I Totally agree in the need for a thorough and robust due dilligence based investigative financial modelling of all and any proposals for investment whether majority or minority stake, Harmans included.
It's nothing more than we should deserve and expect from our board.
One aspect of Harmans model ( and the americans model which you will see Monday) which is positive from both sides, is their proposal to remove the current operational management from the club and install their own.
I've been clear on the failings of the club from a commercial and operational management perspective over the past year or so, and I fully believe it has contributed to the poor financial performance of the club which has led to this situation we find ourselves in.
Regardless of which bid finally is accepted as our new way forward, the parachuting in of competent, adequately experienced and skilled CEO or General Manager will be one of the most important and beneficial aspects they bring, moreso than the brass numbers in terms of pounds.
Topical. I do tend to place rather glaring clues and choose words very carefully.
Does anyone know when the next trust meeting will be held to discuss and agree a way forward. Whilst we have other more important football related matters to deal with right now in the next couple of weeks, this matter shouldn't be dragged out unnecessarily and I am concerned that all we may get is radio silence from the Board for the foreseeable future
TS was asked last night, to have one, there was no commitment from him but strongly advised that Trust members would appreciate it. So watch this space. I believe he will.
@TruBlu, he agreed to have the meeting, but he seemed less keen to have it as soon as possible, as the Council Chairman asked. This whole investment process needs reviewing by all members, ASAP.