@ReadingMarginalista said: @EwanHoosaami - You might be getting errors saying that it there was an error when you click on 'edit', but it still edits it (last edit for you 1:08pm post is showing as 1:11pm). Something for @drcongo to work his coding magic on?
Cheers. Comes up with a charcoal box in bottom left corner & a load of hieroglyphics that I have no chance of translating into "idiot language". I use safari on a Mac, wondered if that had anything to do with it?
The same thing happens to me on Chrome, @EwanHoosaami - and as I have the same technological capabilities of an oak tree, I have no idea what the issue is.
It does help (me at least) understand things a little better.
Only thing I will take issue with is: “The former players approaches were not seriously entertained due to previously mentioned personal bias.” There should probably be an “I believe” in there unless you have firm evidence that does prove this, rather than “... said this to me.”
A lack of surety doesn’t undermine your arguments so don’t be afraid to state these things are your interpretation/understanding based on your analysis. This to me is intellectually honest and I will respect you more for it and be more inclined to think you have something worthwhile to say (which I do a lot of the time incidentally).
I appreciate your point sincerely. I understand but it’s difficult as I write what I know , I’m not familiar with writing in a speculative manner and qualifying my information with The disclaimers “ I believe “ or “ i understand “ etc .
I try sometimes but because it’s information I know to be true from first hand experience i tend not to .
No worries @marlowchair. And apologies for pulling you up on it all the time. But I will continue to do so I’m afraid. To me it’s like the £350m on the side of a bus/we’ll run out of clean water in days type of unsubstantiated nonsense that winds me up. Add a suitable qualification on it and the recipient can then make a rational assessment based on the weight of the various strands of evidence presented.
It may just be me.
And apologies to any of you who do actually read this stuff. I do understand it’s boring and niche in the extreme and in the real world we’d be told to disappear to a quiet corner of the pub out of earshot of everyone else to sort it out.
I think it is important to sort the wheat from the chaff, and I don't see how the debate on the club's future can ever sensibly be described as niche. At present however, we have a single proposal on the table, rumours of other bids having been rejected or at least not progressed and the most vociferous commentators providing unverifiable information with more than a little colour which may impact veracity or the presentation of that information. And I've still not seen a plan B being actively organised, or a bid to remove the incompetent board of which we read so much. Very puzzling.
All very worrying, losing control of club, Brexit, JJ only just discovering he's got a right peg after all these years. Just think of all those inswinging corners from the left we could have had.
I agree with your perspective, @bookertease. In circumstances like these, it is essential that those putting forward what they say are factual statements are clear about the basis for their belief in them. It is the only way a reader can hope to make any judgement of the worth or accuracy of those statements. For example, I heard something from a fellow poster this week about one matter that's been up for discussion here today. I've no reason to doubt his integrity, he has no axe to grind nor any dog in the fight and, though i don't know him very well, gives every appearance of being a fair-minded and critical thinker. Thus, I attach some weight to what he told me and I am interested to hear more about it at some point, though I reserve judgement on the matter because his knowledge is largely hearsay.
I know nothing of you, @marlowchair. While you do indeed appear to have something of an inside line on affairs, the fact that you rarely give support your position with any more than blunt statements of fact and that you so often resort to criticism and denigration cause me to give your views much less weight. I don't doubt that you believe what you are saying is correct. But I would welcome much more detail to support what you say so as to be able to figure out what the truth may be about all this. (And if it matters to you that others come around to your point of view, I would be likely to give more credence to your words if you were more objective and less harshly critical of those whose actions you wish to question.)
I've been a Gasroomer for a good while, and a regular reader of this particular post and other similar extremely long threads but, I may have missed it somewhere, have we ever actually found out how and why @marlowchair actually has access to all of this inside information? Perhaps that could shed a light on many of the 'personal' opinions and slants that others have accused him / her of allowing to slip into such commentary.
Ask him @MBS. I always tell fellow supporters that I’m micra but, unbelievably, most haven’t a clue what I’m talking about.
So much for the power of the Gasroom!
On the other hand, my openness has enabled me to identify many fellow Gasroomers and that seems to make for a more personal and empathetic style of (keyboard) interaction.
I realise of course that your reference to the guy who stands next to you was apocryphal. If not, I’m sure you would know by now whether or not he was @marlowchair !
@ValleyWanderer said:
I think @marlowchair may have blown a fuse following his earlier outbursts. I'd like to think he'll recover in time to attend the AGM and stand up and actually tell us all in the flesh what be clearly passionately believes. Although I am interested in his perspective, I personally mistrust anonymous keyboard warriors, as I like to see a real person in my mind when considering crucial issues. Anonymity is fine for a bit of banter on a football (or other) forum but certainly not when the stakes are so high. The Board are not hiding so why should anyone else? Unless there is something or some reason to hide. Sorry but just my view.
I think your view on this would carry more weight if you weren't also acting as an 'anonymous keyboard warrior'. I suspect you have a very close relationship to Mr Stroud. My evidence, from Oct 31:
@ValleyWanderer said:
Anyone thought that Mr Stroud might have been in his wife's 4x4 as I believe she's been away on business?
So, @ValleyWanderer, isn't it time you declared an interest? Who exactly are ya?
@aloysius, in my view, not quite the same thing in my posts as the high stakes I was speaking of. My point is that I'm interested in the wider view but I don't understand where all the 'facts' and issues that are being so forcefully used in the debate are originating.
My comment on the 4x4 was an attempt at balance on the basis of something I heard TS jokingly say in the Vere several days before and I am still not aware if it was indeed the case.
As I've mentioned in other posts, I can't even vote as I'm not a Legacy member. Like many, many fans, I know Trevor Stroud and indeed most of the club directors and personnel reasonably well and I am a PALS volunteer. I can to some extent, understand your suspicions but I have no specific interest and am not banging any drum here except perhaps that of reasonableness, openness and a believably balanced debate for those who feel so passionately about the issue. @micra and @Shev can tell you who I am and I am usually be found propping up the Ale Bar in the Vere on match-day. I'll be happy to PM you if you wish. I've sometimes thought that it would be interesting to wear a 'ValleyWanderer' sticker/badge on match-day to see who say's hello and will do so if it helps.
Thus far, my feeling from what I have seen and learned from my glimpse inside the workings of the club as a PALS, is that we definitely need to significantly invest in the business to secure the future. I have a reasonably good feeling about the proposed investors and certainly they are unlikely to be 'bad' having been introduced by the agent Horowitz(?), as I understand he brokered several deals including Liverpool's owners. He certainly would not sully his reputation by messing up such a 'small' deal IMHO. There are several aspects of the situation that I am not totally comfortable with but I guess this is totally natural when the 'secrecy' attached to a high level of finance is involved. If he/she feels anything is going to turn sour over the potential investment, I really believe that to be fully persuasive in his/her argument at this crucial time, @marlowchair needs to be a real and genuine person in all our eyes and ears. The general clamor on here for his/her identity, to me at least, supports my contention. I hope this helps and clarifies a little.
Extraordinary synchronicity @ValleyWanderer. I am very much in sympathy with your views and you will recall that I posted on here last season that I thought it would be a good idea to wear a badge (basic self-adhesive paper) with our usernames on. As it happened, I think I identified myself by wearing an outlandish trombone tie at the 500 Club supper. Our paths have only crossed once since - at the Stevenage game I think - but it is nice to have a mental image of someone you are corresponding with.
I am getting increasingly puzzled by this forums handling of this issue.
I fully understand that many people are extremely reluctant to countenance any outside investment at all. I don't agree but I fully understand the POV.
If you get over that hurdle, it appears we MAY have a choice between two options
1) A proposition from a couple of guys with a long successful record of managing and improving sports teams
2) A rumoured bid that appears not to have been made that relies on Howard, Stroud and eleven (?) other elected Wycombe supporters all simultaneously deciding to act against the best interests of the club they have all given much time to at no cost and if this bid is to be believed the very keen bidder who considers himself wronged, has not quite been keen enough to contact the trust board directors directly, or ask questions at the meeting held to discuss the clubs future or stand or trust board membership. Instead he has sent a couple of mates in to wage an extremely unpleasant personal campaign on social media against the club's management. The gentleman himself appears to have no experience of running sports clubs.
The one plus point for this alleged putative bid is that the bidder played football for the club many years ago. I struggle to see why that is vaguely relevant.
If this "bidder" conducts himself in the same way as his two mates that have appeared here, I would have serious doubts about his suitability. if his two mates are simply pursuing their own grudges, if Mr Harman is serious and wishes to submit a proposal, let him do so now.
If not I suggest we should focus on the more important question perhaps of whether we want investment at all and ** if so**, whether the Luby consortium appear appropriate partners..
I agree the fact that Harman played for the club is irrelevant. However he is local, supports the club and has allegedly given the club loans in the past. He therefore has a positive reason for his interest.
The general concern here seems to be whether his bid has been largely discounted due to alleged personal issues with Howard/Beeks. Unfortunately we will probably never know.
One of your worst posts Dev. You accuse others of making unfounded allegations yet don’t hesitate to accuse me and others with direct accusation that we are mates of Harmin and he had directed us to promote his case and undermine the club board and other bids .
That, is disgraceful and it is wrong.
I’m no friend of Harmin and my opinion and information on this comes from the club side of things not his or any other bidders .
You clearly have no idea if you think all the trust board are ok with how this has played out and been handled
If you were a potential bidder and you found out the Chairman of the Trust and the Football club board is the same guy who is financially dependent on one of the ex-directors as a "consultant" and put this together with Beeks being head of the governance committee (see last year's AGM minutes) and how another of the football club creditors sits on the Group Finance Committee, two of whom have snaffled the training ground then you might think that it is something of a closed shop with no corporate governance whatsoever.
WWFC is owned by the fans but run by its creditors.
I have no beef with the Americans they are extremely smart guys who have become embroiled in a thirty year attempt to remove the club from the members for the benefit of the few and not the members themselves.
Please read the excellent Chairboys on the net to put all this in a historical perspective.
@devc the choice is as presented by the club...this deal or no deal...which is what this forum has been discussing. A bit like brexit but with football games in between.
To be fair @HCblue , you are right (partially at least).
@Marlowchair has described on more than one occasion how Mr Harman is feeling, information that could only be known to him if he is an associate of Mr Harman. It is very possible though that @marlowchair has just made those feelings up. It is also possible to be fair that @marlowchair is making assumptions as to how Mr Harman is feeling and then presenting those assumptions as fact. While it is undoubtedly the case that if mr Harman conducted himself as Marlow and Carrots have, it would give me at least considerable doubts as to his suitability, if Mr Harman does bid we should give him the benefit of the doubt and listen to him with an open mind.
Meanwhile the facts seem to be
1) All of the Trust Board believe that we need outside investment
2) All of the trust board are recommending Luby as the best option.
3) Harman, marlow and Carrots did not take the opportunity to ask difficult questions at the recent trust meeting (denying Stroud the opportunity to answer the slurs head-on)
4) Harman, marlow and Carrots have not taken the opportunity to stand for trust board membership
5) If Harman feels he has been unfairly treated, he has presumably not contacted the trust board members to complain (or if he has, they have dismissed those concerns).
6) As it is, we have one firm bid to consider
If Harman wants to bid, he needs to make that public soon IMHO.
As I’ve stated previous. A minority share of say £100.000 I don’t think is in our interest, perhaps even detrimental, leaving us in a position of still needing to find cash.
Your statement as a FACT that all the Board is in agreement with the proposed sale to the Americans can only be an ASSUMPTION, unless you have access to the Board minutes. It could very well be just a majority of directors voted in favour, in fact, it could even have come down to the Chairman having the casting vote.
Reading between the varying lines and making a lot of assumptions of my own, Mr Harman does appear to have been involved with some part of the potential investor discussions to the effect that he (or his consortium) is one of the three potential investors that was being taken, at least on face value, seriously.
As a best guess on what has been said on here, this seems to have manifested itself as a minority share bid.
If (I know its a big 'if') this is the case he has been effectively (knowingly or otherwise) trumped by the decision of the Trust board (albeit unanimously or via majority vote) to have decided that a majority share bid would be the most beneficial for the club.
Where I struggle with this is that for Mr Harman to have got to this stage it doesn't really seem to demonstrate a breakdown of relationships between "alpha males" or at least it does show that parties who are reported to dislike each other are willing to continue to work together in some way.
In this scenario, it would be interesting to know if the Harman consortium had the rug pulled from under their feet so to speak and would have been prepared to develop a viable majority bid (certainly I would guess from previous discussion on here this is the Marlow/Carrots view of things). My guess is that we may find out if and when the legacy members fail to vote through the American deal.
A statement has gone out in the name of the trust board supporting the Luby investment.
Are you seriously suggesting that on the most important issue that this board will ever consider, if you disagreed with the statement, you would allow that to happen and not resign?
@DevC: The desire to have an ownership stake in the club is not synonymous with wishing to be part of the Trust board nor would you or I think it right for a slighted suitor with a proper sense of right and wrong to raise awkward questions at a meeting in order to muddy the waters for the bidders preferred over him. I thus continue to question your inclusion of Andrew Harman in your comments. Meanwhile, I understand and, in principle at least, agree with what I take to be your main point that it would be preferable for those seeking to undermine the board here to show their faces publicly and/or give a clearer exposition of the basis for their assertions if such a thing is in fact possible.
Comments
The same thing happens to me on Chrome, @EwanHoosaami - and as I have the same technological capabilities of an oak tree, I have no idea what the issue is.
Thanks for the response @marlowchair
It does help (me at least) understand things a little better.
Only thing I will take issue with is: “The former players approaches were not seriously entertained due to previously mentioned personal bias.” There should probably be an “I believe” in there unless you have firm evidence that does prove this, rather than “... said this to me.”
A lack of surety doesn’t undermine your arguments so don’t be afraid to state these things are your interpretation/understanding based on your analysis. This to me is intellectually honest and I will respect you more for it and be more inclined to think you have something worthwhile to say (which I do a lot of the time incidentally).
I appreciate your point sincerely. I understand but it’s difficult as I write what I know , I’m not familiar with writing in a speculative manner and qualifying my information with The disclaimers “ I believe “ or “ i understand “ etc .
I try sometimes but because it’s information I know to be true from first hand experience i tend not to .
No worries @marlowchair. And apologies for pulling you up on it all the time. But I will continue to do so I’m afraid. To me it’s like the £350m on the side of a bus/we’ll run out of clean water in days type of unsubstantiated nonsense that winds me up. Add a suitable qualification on it and the recipient can then make a rational assessment based on the weight of the various strands of evidence presented.
It may just be me.
And apologies to any of you who do actually read this stuff. I do understand it’s boring and niche in the extreme and in the real world we’d be told to disappear to a quiet corner of the pub out of earshot of everyone else to sort it out.
I think it is important to sort the wheat from the chaff, and I don't see how the debate on the club's future can ever sensibly be described as niche. At present however, we have a single proposal on the table, rumours of other bids having been rejected or at least not progressed and the most vociferous commentators providing unverifiable information with more than a little colour which may impact veracity or the presentation of that information. And I've still not seen a plan B being actively organised, or a bid to remove the incompetent board of which we read so much. Very puzzling.
All very worrying, losing control of club, Brexit, JJ only just discovering he's got a right peg after all these years. Just think of all those inswinging corners from the left we could have had.
I agree with your perspective, @bookertease. In circumstances like these, it is essential that those putting forward what they say are factual statements are clear about the basis for their belief in them. It is the only way a reader can hope to make any judgement of the worth or accuracy of those statements. For example, I heard something from a fellow poster this week about one matter that's been up for discussion here today. I've no reason to doubt his integrity, he has no axe to grind nor any dog in the fight and, though i don't know him very well, gives every appearance of being a fair-minded and critical thinker. Thus, I attach some weight to what he told me and I am interested to hear more about it at some point, though I reserve judgement on the matter because his knowledge is largely hearsay.
I know nothing of you, @marlowchair. While you do indeed appear to have something of an inside line on affairs, the fact that you rarely give support your position with any more than blunt statements of fact and that you so often resort to criticism and denigration cause me to give your views much less weight. I don't doubt that you believe what you are saying is correct. But I would welcome much more detail to support what you say so as to be able to figure out what the truth may be about all this. (And if it matters to you that others come around to your point of view, I would be likely to give more credence to your words if you were more objective and less harshly critical of those whose actions you wish to question.)
I've been a Gasroomer for a good while, and a regular reader of this particular post and other similar extremely long threads but, I may have missed it somewhere, have we ever actually found out how and why @marlowchair actually has access to all of this inside information? Perhaps that could shed a light on many of the 'personal' opinions and slants that others have accused him / her of allowing to slip into such commentary.
Who is Marlow Chair. an intriguing mystery. I wonder if its actually the guy I stand next to in the Valley End.
Ask him @MBS. I always tell fellow supporters that I’m micra but, unbelievably, most haven’t a clue what I’m talking about.
So much for the power of the Gasroom!
On the other hand, my openness has enabled me to identify many fellow Gasroomers and that seems to make for a more personal and empathetic style of (keyboard) interaction.
I realise of course that your reference to the guy who stands next to you was apocryphal. If not, I’m sure you would know by now whether or not he was @marlowchair !
@aloysius, in my view, not quite the same thing in my posts as the high stakes I was speaking of. My point is that I'm interested in the wider view but I don't understand where all the 'facts' and issues that are being so forcefully used in the debate are originating.
My comment on the 4x4 was an attempt at balance on the basis of something I heard TS jokingly say in the Vere several days before and I am still not aware if it was indeed the case.
As I've mentioned in other posts, I can't even vote as I'm not a Legacy member. Like many, many fans, I know Trevor Stroud and indeed most of the club directors and personnel reasonably well and I am a PALS volunteer. I can to some extent, understand your suspicions but I have no specific interest and am not banging any drum here except perhaps that of reasonableness, openness and a believably balanced debate for those who feel so passionately about the issue. @micra and @Shev can tell you who I am and I am usually be found propping up the Ale Bar in the Vere on match-day. I'll be happy to PM you if you wish. I've sometimes thought that it would be interesting to wear a 'ValleyWanderer' sticker/badge on match-day to see who say's hello and will do so if it helps.
Thus far, my feeling from what I have seen and learned from my glimpse inside the workings of the club as a PALS, is that we definitely need to significantly invest in the business to secure the future. I have a reasonably good feeling about the proposed investors and certainly they are unlikely to be 'bad' having been introduced by the agent Horowitz(?), as I understand he brokered several deals including Liverpool's owners. He certainly would not sully his reputation by messing up such a 'small' deal IMHO. There are several aspects of the situation that I am not totally comfortable with but I guess this is totally natural when the 'secrecy' attached to a high level of finance is involved. If he/she feels anything is going to turn sour over the potential investment, I really believe that to be fully persuasive in his/her argument at this crucial time, @marlowchair needs to be a real and genuine person in all our eyes and ears. The general clamor on here for his/her identity, to me at least, supports my contention. I hope this helps and clarifies a little.
Extraordinary synchronicity @ValleyWanderer. I am very much in sympathy with your views and you will recall that I posted on here last season that I thought it would be a good idea to wear a badge (basic self-adhesive paper) with our usernames on. As it happened, I think I identified myself by wearing an outlandish trombone tie at the 500 Club supper. Our paths have only crossed once since - at the Stevenage game I think - but it is nice to have a mental image of someone you are corresponding with.
PS I have changed a little from the ten year old in the school cap in the profile picture taken in 1948, alongside my poser of an older brother.
I can verify I have had the pleasure of meeting @ValleyWanderer - an absolute gent of the first water!
I am getting increasingly puzzled by this forums handling of this issue.
I fully understand that many people are extremely reluctant to countenance any outside investment at all. I don't agree but I fully understand the POV.
If you get over that hurdle, it appears we MAY have a choice between two options
1) A proposition from a couple of guys with a long successful record of managing and improving sports teams
2) A rumoured bid that appears not to have been made that relies on Howard, Stroud and eleven (?) other elected Wycombe supporters all simultaneously deciding to act against the best interests of the club they have all given much time to at no cost and if this bid is to be believed the very keen bidder who considers himself wronged, has not quite been keen enough to contact the trust board directors directly, or ask questions at the meeting held to discuss the clubs future or stand or trust board membership. Instead he has sent a couple of mates in to wage an extremely unpleasant personal campaign on social media against the club's management. The gentleman himself appears to have no experience of running sports clubs.
The one plus point for this alleged putative bid is that the bidder played football for the club many years ago. I struggle to see why that is vaguely relevant.
If this "bidder" conducts himself in the same way as his two mates that have appeared here, I would have serious doubts about his suitability. if his two mates are simply pursuing their own grudges, if Mr Harman is serious and wishes to submit a proposal, let him do so now.
If not I suggest we should focus on the more important question perhaps of whether we want investment at all and ** if so**, whether the Luby consortium appear appropriate partners..
"this forums handling of this issue"
Jesus wept....
I have handled it superbly
I agree the fact that Harman played for the club is irrelevant. However he is local, supports the club and has allegedly given the club loans in the past. He therefore has a positive reason for his interest.
The general concern here seems to be whether his bid has been largely discounted due to alleged personal issues with Howard/Beeks. Unfortunately we will probably never know.
One of your worst posts Dev. You accuse others of making unfounded allegations yet don’t hesitate to accuse me and others with direct accusation that we are mates of Harmin and he had directed us to promote his case and undermine the club board and other bids .
That, is disgraceful and it is wrong.
I’m no friend of Harmin and my opinion and information on this comes from the club side of things not his or any other bidders .
You clearly have no idea if you think all the trust board are ok with how this has played out and been handled
It seems out of character for you to make so many unevidenced assumptions to support a conclusion, @DevC. I'm used to better from you.
If you were a potential bidder and you found out the Chairman of the Trust and the Football club board is the same guy who is financially dependent on one of the ex-directors as a "consultant" and put this together with Beeks being head of the governance committee (see last year's AGM minutes) and how another of the football club creditors sits on the Group Finance Committee, two of whom have snaffled the training ground then you might think that it is something of a closed shop with no corporate governance whatsoever.
WWFC is owned by the fans but run by its creditors.
I have no beef with the Americans they are extremely smart guys who have become embroiled in a thirty year attempt to remove the club from the members for the benefit of the few and not the members themselves.
Please read the excellent Chairboys on the net to put all this in a historical perspective.
@devc the choice is as presented by the club...this deal or no deal...which is what this forum has been discussing. A bit like brexit but with football games in between.
To be fair @HCblue , you are right (partially at least).
@Marlowchair has described on more than one occasion how Mr Harman is feeling, information that could only be known to him if he is an associate of Mr Harman. It is very possible though that @marlowchair has just made those feelings up. It is also possible to be fair that @marlowchair is making assumptions as to how Mr Harman is feeling and then presenting those assumptions as fact. While it is undoubtedly the case that if mr Harman conducted himself as Marlow and Carrots have, it would give me at least considerable doubts as to his suitability, if Mr Harman does bid we should give him the benefit of the doubt and listen to him with an open mind.
Meanwhile the facts seem to be
1) All of the Trust Board believe that we need outside investment
2) All of the trust board are recommending Luby as the best option.
3) Harman, marlow and Carrots did not take the opportunity to ask difficult questions at the recent trust meeting (denying Stroud the opportunity to answer the slurs head-on)
4) Harman, marlow and Carrots have not taken the opportunity to stand for trust board membership
5) If Harman feels he has been unfairly treated, he has presumably not contacted the trust board members to complain (or if he has, they have dismissed those concerns).
6) As it is, we have one firm bid to consider
If Harman wants to bid, he needs to make that public soon IMHO.
As I’ve stated previous. A minority share of say £100.000 I don’t think is in our interest, perhaps even detrimental, leaving us in a position of still needing to find cash.
That list of "facts" is beyond parody
Your statement as a FACT that all the Board is in agreement with the proposed sale to the Americans can only be an ASSUMPTION, unless you have access to the Board minutes. It could very well be just a majority of directors voted in favour, in fact, it could even have come down to the Chairman having the casting vote.
Reading between the varying lines and making a lot of assumptions of my own, Mr Harman does appear to have been involved with some part of the potential investor discussions to the effect that he (or his consortium) is one of the three potential investors that was being taken, at least on face value, seriously.
As a best guess on what has been said on here, this seems to have manifested itself as a minority share bid.
If (I know its a big 'if') this is the case he has been effectively (knowingly or otherwise) trumped by the decision of the Trust board (albeit unanimously or via majority vote) to have decided that a majority share bid would be the most beneficial for the club.
Where I struggle with this is that for Mr Harman to have got to this stage it doesn't really seem to demonstrate a breakdown of relationships between "alpha males" or at least it does show that parties who are reported to dislike each other are willing to continue to work together in some way.
In this scenario, it would be interesting to know if the Harman consortium had the rug pulled from under their feet so to speak and would have been prepared to develop a viable majority bid (certainly I would guess from previous discussion on here this is the Marlow/Carrots view of things). My guess is that we may find out if and when the legacy members fail to vote through the American deal.
A statement has gone out in the name of the trust board supporting the Luby investment.
Are you seriously suggesting that on the most important issue that this board will ever consider, if you disagreed with the statement, you would allow that to happen and not resign?
@DevC: The desire to have an ownership stake in the club is not synonymous with wishing to be part of the Trust board nor would you or I think it right for a slighted suitor with a proper sense of right and wrong to raise awkward questions at a meeting in order to muddy the waters for the bidders preferred over him. I thus continue to question your inclusion of Andrew Harman in your comments. Meanwhile, I understand and, in principle at least, agree with what I take to be your main point that it would be preferable for those seeking to undermine the board here to show their faces publicly and/or give a clearer exposition of the basis for their assertions if such a thing is in fact possible.
Why would you resign Dev. Surely you would stay to help try and get the best deal you can from the Americans.
Not wishing to bring politics in again, but our revered leader was a firm remainer but still agreed to lead the Brexit deal.