It is difficult for the normal supporter to ascertain the real situation when there are two posters with such diametrical extreme views. One has a beef with the current Board and the other has an apparent close relationship with the existing cabal.
If you don’t like discussion on the gasroom , undet the conditions it provides , don’t participate . But don’t try and dismiss others views and information because it doesn’t suit you
I’ve offered to meet marlowchair face to face to discuss his opinions, how is that a threat? He,predictably, prefers to throw stones from a distance behind a cloak of anonymity. Anyway, I’m off to Adams Park now.
What an ironic response! As some posters will know...
Marlow Chair's depiction is entirely accurate which is why some posters would rather discuss this in person rather than on this public forum.
It's common knowledge with staff and Trust board directors etc. and has been for years.
What we need is transparency to allow others to make their own minds up before they vote with what is actually going on rather than what the Beechdean spokesman says.
Mr. Stroud for several years has earnt most of his money from Beechdean.
Yet, this is nowhere in the public domain. Why?
Hence it was Mr. Howard and the creditors' spokesman who met the Americans in Skirmett for lunch on the day we were introduced to the Americans.
I'm glad the team on the pitch did so well today, well done to everyone.
Hi @NiceCarrots please could you answer my question, how is the stadium at risk.
Any other long term gasroomer wondering what is going on with these two posters
There do seem to be two questions here
1) do we want outside investment at all?
IF so
2) who should this investment come from?
Today seems to be focussing on the second question.
Has to be said if we want investment, the Americans offer a compelling case. They have the resources and importantly an impressive track record.
Against seems to be a rumour of a bid from an ex-player. Not entirely clear why his ex player status is relevant but his case is put forcefully by his presumed associates Marlow and Carrots.
But it really doesn’t seem to stack up.
He has presumably encouraged (or at least failed to discourage) his associates to present his case in a bizarre personal mudslinging way. Why?
The case relies on Howard and Stroud acting against the best interests of WWFC. It is never explained why they would do so.
The case relies on 12 trust board members, all of whom are keen supporters of the club, all intelligent guys, not being bothered to investigate what options the club has. Why would they behave in such a way?
If Mr Harman is keen to be involved but feels he has been unfairly discarded, why would he not email the trust directors to ensure they were aware of his interest?
There was an open Trust Meeting a couple of weeks ago. Harman, Marlow and carrots could have asked some difficult questions. They failed to do so.
There is an election next week for trust board. Harman, Marlow and/or carrots could have stood to put their case to the membership. They have not.
There is another meeting this week. Another opportunity to demonstrate that Harman’s Interest is serious.
For me if this rumoured interest is to be taken remotely seriously, time to abandon weird social media muckraking and communicate clearly and unequivocally what this option is.
There is a serious decision to be made very soon now. If alternative options exist, they need to break cover very soon.
@RogertheBandito said:
Worboys micra, is there another Andy you have in mind?
That naughty of me, taking advantage of a missing comma to deliberately (and very obviously) feign to have misinterpreted what you were saying. But, in truth, I am as frustrated as anyone by the rejection (allegedly for personal reasons but perhaps on more substantial grounds) of a bid from a wealthy former player.
Are we saying that these two newly arrived posters have links to an interested party ?.
After brexit I’m not too happy about being sold a line. @DevC I’ve read your posts for years and that’s probably your best.
I’m hardly newly arrived.I’ve met the former player but haven’t spoken to him about any of this and he certainly hasn’t approached me to push his case.
Frankly @marlowchair I’m not sure about you. If you were an @arnos_grove or a @micra or even @eric_plant I would appreciate that you have the best interests of the club at heart but I think you have an agenda and that worries me. I was quite happy supporting a fan owned club and being told that it’s unsustainable is bad enough without being sold a line.
@eric_plant we have not agreed on football but I acknowledge you support the same football club as me and want the best for it so if you said something dodgy was going on I would take notice
@DevC said:
This does seem to be getting seriously weird.
There do seem to be two questions here
1) do we want outside investment at all?
IF so
2) who should this investment come from?
Today seems to be focussing on the second question.
Has to be said if we want investment, the Americans offer a compelling case. They have the resources and importantly an impressive track record.
Against seems to be a rumour of a bid from an ex-player. Not entirely clear why his ex player status is relevant but his case is put forcefully by his presumed associates Marlow and Carrots.
But it really doesn’t seem to stack up.
He has presumably encouraged (or at least failed to discourage) his associates to present his case in a bizarre personal mudslinging way. Why?
The case relies on Howard and Stroud acting against the best interests of WWFC. It is never explained why they would do so.
The case relies on 12 trust board members, all of whom are keen supporters of the club, all intelligent guys, not being bothered to investigate what options the club has. Why would they behave in such a way?
If Mr Harman is keen to be involved but feels he has been unfairly discarded, why would he not email the trust directors to ensure they were aware of his interest?
There was an open Trust Meeting a couple of weeks ago. Harman, Marlow and carrots could have asked some difficult questions. They failed to do so.
There is an election next week for trust board. Harman, Marlow and/or carrots could have stood to put their case to the membership. They have not.
There is another meeting this week. Another opportunity to demonstrate that Harman’s Interest is serious.
For me if this rumoured interest is to be taken remotely seriously, time to abandon weird social media muckraking and communicate clearly and unequivocally what this option is.
There is a serious decision to be made very soon now. If alternative options exist, they need to break cover very soon.
I will have a go at answering your Faragesque post
1) I am against it personally but open minded (obviously not a black and white question)
@DevC said:
This does seem to be getting seriously weird.
There do seem to be two questions here
1) do we want outside investment at all?
IF so
2) who should this investment come from?
Today seems to be focussing on the second question.
Has to be said if we want investment, the Americans offer a compelling case. They have the resources and importantly an impressive track record.
Against seems to be a rumour of a bid from an ex-player. Not entirely clear why his ex player status is relevant but his case is put forcefully by his presumed associates Marlow and Carrots.
But it really doesn’t seem to stack up.
He has presumably encouraged (or at least failed to discourage) his associates to present his case in a bizarre personal mudslinging way. Why?
The case relies on Howard and Stroud acting against the best interests of WWFC. It is never explained why they would do so.
The case relies on 12 trust board members, all of whom are keen supporters of the club, all intelligent guys, not being bothered to investigate what options the club has. Why would they behave in such a way?
If Mr Harman is keen to be involved but feels he has been unfairly discarded, why would he not email the trust directors to ensure they were aware of his interest?
There was an open Trust Meeting a couple of weeks ago. Harman, Marlow and carrots could have asked some difficult questions. They failed to do so.
There is an election next week for trust board. Harman, Marlow and/or carrots could have stood to put their case to the membership. They have not.
There is another meeting this week. Another opportunity to demonstrate that Harman’s Interest is serious.
For me if this rumoured interest is to be taken remotely seriously, time to abandon weird social media muckraking and communicate clearly and unequivocally what this option is.
There is a serious decision to be made very soon now. If alternative options exist, they need to break cover very soon.
I will have a go at answering your Faragesque post
1) I am against it personally but open minded (obviously not a black and white question)
2) any investment should come from a fully vetted source approved by the membership of the Trust
@marlowchair said:
I’m hardly newly arrived.I’ve met the former player but haven’t spoken to him about any of this and he certainly hasn’t approached me to push his case.
This to me is one of the key issues. You say you haven’t spoken to him about any of this but I seem to think that you are the primary source of the ‘fact’ that he has put a bid in.
You then state as fact that he’s adhering to an NDA. How do you know this given your stated lack of dialogue or ‘approach’ with him on the subject?
Do you see how this apparent contradiction makes me question your facts and motives?
I do actually agree if there was a genuine and realistic bid from Harman that the Trust should answer some questions about why it was not progressed, but I have read or heard nothing yet that has said such a bid has actually been made.
The minutes from the Fans Council meeting on 8 November were circulated around the bars yesterday. I can't find them online yet, it's not obvious to me where they are kept, but a new Fans Council web site is coming very soon, so they should become easier to find.
They include a section on a discussion had about the proposed investors, when a Trust Director said about the other two parties, that one was interested in a minority stake, the other only wanted to provide loans. The club do not think a loans only deal is what is needed, which I can understand, getting ever deeper into debt. A minority stake has not been ruled out, it seems, but is not first choice. The club would have preferred all parties to propose the same type of deal.
Not in the minutes but intimated on the night by the Trust Board was that, although Trevor Stroud said at the Trust meeting that there was no Plan B in the event of a "no" vote, that we would carry on as we are, he had to say that with the Americans sat next to him. In practice, discussions would continue with the other parties.
To me that means that we should not have a gun put to our heads and be presented with a "this deal or no deal" scenario. Nor do I want to hear the words "trust me", sincere as they were at the time of the last handover, but we know how that ended.
At the Ex-players dinner on Friday Trevor Stroud said that there would be a presentation of the Amercans' financials proposals in early January, with a voting meeting late January. Presumably that gap would be used to galvanise members to turn out and vote.
@HolmerBlue said:
IF the club have refused to consider any bid because of personal issues, that is totally unacceptable ! The club comes first, not their feelings.
Getting very concerned that some of the mud slung by @marlowchair is beginning to stick. His postings on here are the only evidence I have seen of any refusal to look at a bid. No-one else is telling me anything other than that they have read it on here. Whilst it can't be discounted as a possibility I have to balance it against the clear grudge of the poster.
My personal view is that it is the boards job to present to the voters the best option and not to just present all options. This would make it even harder to get anything passed at a vote and just makes everything less clear to all.
I don't like the Stroud threats of this deal or no deal. There has to be a plan B, C and even D. Please don't go down the bullying path. It clouds the issues even more.
January is going to be an interesting month with Ainsworths comments yesterday about worrying about the transfer window. Our best chance of success this season is to get players secured early and keep picking up points. I worry though that the timing and very real uncertainty about the US bid will mean we miss out, lose key players and end up treading water for the rest of the season.
Whilst I can't agree with all of @marlowchair postings. I also disagree with @Right_in_the_Middle on his point that it is the boards job to present the best deal. I would counter argue that as a legacy voter, that each deal should be presented/sold to me so I can decide which gets my vote. I have battled for years to get my lad to understand the importance of supporting a lower league club in his town. Against the "lure" of the Premiership and his mates at school. Now, at 14 years of age he gets it. As such I want what is best for the long-term so he has a football club to support and possibly any children he may want to take. I would prefer to weigh up the options myself thanks and will be mighty miffed if I'm given an ultimatum vote only.
Comments
you’d prefer to keep the discussion in-house and controlled rather than where the wider trust membership who elect office holders can be informed ?
No thanks.
@glasshalffull - What parts of @marlowchair's "accusations" today are untrue?
It is difficult for the normal supporter to ascertain the real situation when there are two posters with such diametrical extreme views. One has a beef with the current Board and the other has an apparent close relationship with the existing cabal.
If you don’t like discussion on the gasroom , undet the conditions it provides , don’t participate . But don’t try and dismiss others views and information because it doesn’t suit you
Sounds more like a threat to me.
I’ve offered to meet marlowchair face to face to discuss his opinions, how is that a threat? He,predictably, prefers to throw stones from a distance behind a cloak of anonymity. Anyway, I’m off to Adams Park now.
What an ironic response! As some posters will know...
Marlow Chair's depiction is entirely accurate which is why some posters would rather discuss this in person rather than on this public forum.
It's common knowledge with staff and Trust board directors etc. and has been for years.
What we need is transparency to allow others to make their own minds up before they vote with what is actually going on rather than what the Beechdean spokesman says.
Mr. Stroud for several years has earnt most of his money from Beechdean.
Yet, this is nowhere in the public domain. Why?
Hence it was Mr. Howard and the creditors' spokesman who met the Americans in Skirmett for lunch on the day we were introduced to the Americans.
I'm glad the team on the pitch did so well today, well done to everyone.
Besides which, they only want to "out" Marlow Chair.
Hi @NiceCarrots please could you answer my question, how is the stadium at risk.
Any other long term gasroomer wondering what is going on with these two posters
@NiceCarrots , I dare say all of the forum want to "Out" the chap. Often once someone's interest is known, everything makes sense.
This does seem to be getting seriously weird.
There do seem to be two questions here
1) do we want outside investment at all?
IF so
2) who should this investment come from?
Today seems to be focussing on the second question.
Has to be said if we want investment, the Americans offer a compelling case. They have the resources and importantly an impressive track record.
Against seems to be a rumour of a bid from an ex-player. Not entirely clear why his ex player status is relevant but his case is put forcefully by his presumed associates Marlow and Carrots.
But it really doesn’t seem to stack up.
He has presumably encouraged (or at least failed to discourage) his associates to present his case in a bizarre personal mudslinging way. Why?
The case relies on Howard and Stroud acting against the best interests of WWFC. It is never explained why they would do so.
The case relies on 12 trust board members, all of whom are keen supporters of the club, all intelligent guys, not being bothered to investigate what options the club has. Why would they behave in such a way?
If Mr Harman is keen to be involved but feels he has been unfairly discarded, why would he not email the trust directors to ensure they were aware of his interest?
There was an open Trust Meeting a couple of weeks ago. Harman, Marlow and carrots could have asked some difficult questions. They failed to do so.
There is an election next week for trust board. Harman, Marlow and/or carrots could have stood to put their case to the membership. They have not.
There is another meeting this week. Another opportunity to demonstrate that Harman’s Interest is serious.
For me if this rumoured interest is to be taken remotely seriously, time to abandon weird social media muckraking and communicate clearly and unequivocally what this option is.
There is a serious decision to be made very soon now. If alternative options exist, they need to break cover very soon.
Good post @DevC. Encapsulates the smoke and mirrors game very well. All good fun isn’t it!
That naughty of me, taking advantage of a missing comma to deliberately (and very obviously) feign to have misinterpreted what you were saying. But, in truth, I am as frustrated as anyone by the rejection (allegedly for personal reasons but perhaps on more substantial grounds) of a bid from a wealthy former player.
That was naughty.......
Are we saying that these two newly arrived posters have links to an interested party ?.
After brexit I’m not too happy about being sold a line.
@DevC I’ve read your posts for years and that’s probably your best.
I’m hardly newly arrived.I’ve met the former player but haven’t spoken to him about any of this and he certainly hasn’t approached me to push his case.
He’s adhering to the NDA
Frankly @marlowchair I’m not sure about you. If you were an @arnos_grove or a @micra or even @eric_plant I would appreciate that you have the best interests of the club at heart but I think you have an agenda and that worries me. I was quite happy supporting a fan owned club and being told that it’s unsustainable is bad enough without being sold a line.
"even" me?
Goodness....
@eric_plant we have not agreed on football but I acknowledge you support the same football club as me and want the best for it so if you said something dodgy was going on I would take notice
I will have a go at answering your Faragesque post
1) I am against it personally but open minded (obviously not a black and white question)
2) any investment should come from a fully vetted source approved by the membership of the Trust
The rest of your post is opinion. I would summarise 'given these opinions, why have the board refused to comment?'
This to me is one of the key issues. You say you haven’t spoken to him about any of this but I seem to think that you are the primary source of the ‘fact’ that he has put a bid in.
You then state as fact that he’s adhering to an NDA. How do you know this given your stated lack of dialogue or ‘approach’ with him on the subject?
Do you see how this apparent contradiction makes me question your facts and motives?
I do actually agree if there was a genuine and realistic bid from Harman that the Trust should answer some questions about why it was not progressed, but I have read or heard nothing yet that has said such a bid has actually been made.
And if the club has refused to consider any Harman bid, why would he sign a NDA?
The minutes from the Fans Council meeting on 8 November were circulated around the bars yesterday. I can't find them online yet, it's not obvious to me where they are kept, but a new Fans Council web site is coming very soon, so they should become easier to find.
They include a section on a discussion had about the proposed investors, when a Trust Director said about the other two parties, that one was interested in a minority stake, the other only wanted to provide loans. The club do not think a loans only deal is what is needed, which I can understand, getting ever deeper into debt. A minority stake has not been ruled out, it seems, but is not first choice. The club would have preferred all parties to propose the same type of deal.
Not in the minutes but intimated on the night by the Trust Board was that, although Trevor Stroud said at the Trust meeting that there was no Plan B in the event of a "no" vote, that we would carry on as we are, he had to say that with the Americans sat next to him. In practice, discussions would continue with the other parties.
To me that means that we should not have a gun put to our heads and be presented with a "this deal or no deal" scenario. Nor do I want to hear the words "trust me", sincere as they were at the time of the last handover, but we know how that ended.
At the Ex-players dinner on Friday Trevor Stroud said that there would be a presentation of the Amercans' financials proposals in early January, with a voting meeting late January. Presumably that gap would be used to galvanise members to turn out and vote.
IF the club have refused to consider any bid because of personal issues, that is totally unacceptable ! The club comes first, not their feelings.
Seems like a big if given marlows post above.
I wonder if marlowchair attended the meeting when we were introduced to the Americans and if so did he ask any questions?
Getting very concerned that some of the mud slung by @marlowchair is beginning to stick. His postings on here are the only evidence I have seen of any refusal to look at a bid. No-one else is telling me anything other than that they have read it on here. Whilst it can't be discounted as a possibility I have to balance it against the clear grudge of the poster.
My personal view is that it is the boards job to present to the voters the best option and not to just present all options. This would make it even harder to get anything passed at a vote and just makes everything less clear to all.
I don't like the Stroud threats of this deal or no deal. There has to be a plan B, C and even D. Please don't go down the bullying path. It clouds the issues even more.
January is going to be an interesting month with Ainsworths comments yesterday about worrying about the transfer window. Our best chance of success this season is to get players secured early and keep picking up points. I worry though that the timing and very real uncertainty about the US bid will mean we miss out, lose key players and end up treading water for the rest of the season.
@Right_in_the_Middle surely we have to stop buying/adding more players to the wage bill, with the financial situation as it is?
Whilst I can't agree with all of @marlowchair postings. I also disagree with @Right_in_the_Middle on his point that it is the boards job to present the best deal. I would counter argue that as a legacy voter, that each deal should be presented/sold to me so I can decide which gets my vote. I have battled for years to get my lad to understand the importance of supporting a lower league club in his town. Against the "lure" of the Premiership and his mates at school. Now, at 14 years of age he gets it. As such I want what is best for the long-term so he has a football club to support and possibly any children he may want to take. I would prefer to weigh up the options myself thanks and will be mighty miffed if I'm given an ultimatum vote only.