Following on from @NiceCarrots post. I feel now obliged to share some knowledge which I have been keeping. The meeting has been put back to the 28th. Also I'm now lead to understand that Andrew Harmon is content to have his interest in bidding for club made public.
Given the impending decision on the future ownership of the Club has anyone re-tabled the possible involvement of Andrew Harman as the new investor in Wycombe Wanderers? I saw that his name was referenced as an investor option on the Gasroom prior to Xmas but have heard nothing about him since. Andrew is an ex-player and lives locally. Having made a significant amount of money following the recent sale of his business, I know for a fact that he is prepared to invest in the club. He has a plan to re-create a Wanderers Academy to provide a pathway for young talent through to the first team (and help generate future football club revenues). He is extremely well connected with local businesses and would be able to increase commercial revenues for the club (via sponsorship, advertising, corporate box leases etc). He’s also got interesting ideas for how to integrate the club more effectively with local education authorities and the community. Given Andrew's local roots, the fact that he is an ex player and would evidently have the club's long term interests at heart....ought we not to give him the opportunity to present his vision and investment plan before we make a decision at the end of January/February?
I would like to reiterate that I am not championing Mr Harmans' cause nor putting down the interest of the American bid as I've not had an opportunity to study it. Either way to have two interested parties at least gives an option, as it stands it's currently USA or bust & feel it should be incumbent of the current board to put forward all the options not just their preferred option?
Ewan. Thanks for the update. 28th is a challenge for me to attend, but hopefully I can sort something out, the more notice I get the better the chance of me attending.
If the Americans' presentation meeting has indeed been postponed, I will expect a Trust Director at the Fans Council meeting this coming Thursday to explain why members were not informed of the postponement, at least 14 days before the previously advertised date, verbal though it was.
They just had to say that negotiations had not concluded, which would be perfectly understandable. Something has gone wrong with Trust communications, which is disappointing.
Communications to members appears to be the least important action the Trust performs. It is not only those supporters who attend the next Fans council who need to be informed. Are the Football Club Board and the Trust Board working together for the long term future or is it only the football Board who is running the show???
That might explain the failure to notify the changed situation.
Another point that should be clarified and communicated is whether the cut-off date to become a Trust legacy member to be able to vote on the proposed investment, which initially was set as Saturday 8th December, remains in place or if, given the apparent pushing back of the voting date, a new cut-off date for legacy membership with voting right will apply.
@SamB, I agree that any postponement should have been communicated to all members, email being the usual method, but the Council meeting always has at least one Trust Director present. So this is an ideal opportunity for the Trust to explain what has happened, and be minuted.
@mooneyman , your choice obviously but if there is a question in your head to which you would like to know the answer, probably best bet is to ask it - either at one of the many public meetings that have occurred (eg the AGM), or the fans council or indeed by just emailing say Stroud and politely asking.
If you attended any of these meetings you would be aware that if "awkward" questions are asked you either get prevarication or a refusal to discuss from the Board.
A prime example was a couple of years back when a question was raised about the training ground ownership. Andrew Howard got quite heated and simply said he wasn't going to reply.
Additionally, you are very lucky if you get the courtesy of a response to any email. Alan Cecil is the only director who listens and responds to enquiries.
Ah OK I understand now. You haven't had an answer to your question because you haven't asked it because you are afraid that if you did ask it, there is a possibility you wouldn't get an answer to it.
Anything can be raised on the gasroom, @Floyd, however if @mooneyman would genuinely like to know whether a bid was ever made or serious interest in doing so ever expressed by Mr Harman and if so on what criteria the trust board preferred an alternative, he is probably better off asking his question elsewhere where there is a chance those qualified may answer it for him.
@mooneyman don't come on here...a fans forum...with your questions and concerns about the club unless you've first addressed them with the proper authorities. If you can show the proper authenticated paperwork indicating you have already raised this with the correct party or parties and can prove he/she/they have not responded in a timely fashion then...and only then...you can come on here and say:
'I would also like to know why the Trust will not entertain any bid by Andy Harman.'
I'm with the school of thought that says you should direct your questions directly to those responsible even if in parallel you ask the questions here. As a volunteer administrator I've found disputes/issues I've been dealing with raised elsewhere and not been happy. In this case perfectly fair to hold the debate, but seeking direct information should at least be attempted directly.
I agree with Baldric and I also recall Trevor Stroud saying that more than one potential investor was considered (perhaps including Andy Harman, I don’t know) and it was duly decided that the Americans were, in the opinion of the Trust board, the most attractive proposition.
Incidentally, I have heard nothing but glowing reports of their time at Derby County.
Whatever anybody feels is the 'correct method' of making enquiries, it has to be said that the failure of the Trust to communicate any postponement/cancellation of a planned meeting to legacy members is quite extraordinary. What is going on?
Are we going round in circles here but the current offer on the table is for a majority, and the trust board were given mandate or said the majority was the preferred and that the ‘other2’ were for a minority, so do we really need to know why Harmans wasn’t put forward. I do believe and we were told that all were considered on there merits, so I don’t believe it was just dismissed as some might think. The board are just doing what they think is right, for the majority, and not what they think tge minority may want.
Wasn't there a suggestion NDAs were handed out sharpish to anyone who expressed any interest, doubt we'll get any more info unless the Americans pull out, are voted down, or the Trust want to explain themselves.
@TrueBlu said:
Are we going round in circles here but the current offer on the table is for a majority, and the trust board were given mandate or said the majority was the preferred and that the ‘other2’ were for a minority, so do we really need to know why Harmans wasn’t put forward. I do believe and we were told that all were considered on there merits, so I don’t believe it was just dismissed as some might think. The board are just doing what they think is right, for the majority, and not what they think tge minority may want.
I am probably wrong, but I thought a vote wasn't necessary for a minority sale.
Will Jim and Bill be at the meeting on the 28th? It's not explicitly clear from the article. Also, I think there was an informal meet and greet scheduled for the night after the vote - is that no longer happening?
Comments
Following on from @NiceCarrots post. I feel now obliged to share some knowledge which I have been keeping. The meeting has been put back to the 28th. Also I'm now lead to understand that Andrew Harmon is content to have his interest in bidding for club made public.
Given the impending decision on the future ownership of the Club has anyone re-tabled the possible involvement of Andrew Harman as the new investor in Wycombe Wanderers? I saw that his name was referenced as an investor option on the Gasroom prior to Xmas but have heard nothing about him since. Andrew is an ex-player and lives locally. Having made a significant amount of money following the recent sale of his business, I know for a fact that he is prepared to invest in the club. He has a plan to re-create a Wanderers Academy to provide a pathway for young talent through to the first team (and help generate future football club revenues). He is extremely well connected with local businesses and would be able to increase commercial revenues for the club (via sponsorship, advertising, corporate box leases etc). He’s also got interesting ideas for how to integrate the club more effectively with local education authorities and the community. Given Andrew's local roots, the fact that he is an ex player and would evidently have the club's long term interests at heart....ought we not to give him the opportunity to present his vision and investment plan before we make a decision at the end of January/February?
I would like to reiterate that I am not championing Mr Harmans' cause nor putting down the interest of the American bid as I've not had an opportunity to study it. Either way to have two interested parties at least gives an option, as it stands it's currently USA or bust & feel it should be incumbent of the current board to put forward all the options not just their preferred option?
Ewan. Thanks for the update. 28th is a challenge for me to attend, but hopefully I can sort something out, the more notice I get the better the chance of me attending.
@EwanHoosaami am I right in thinking that the body of your post, from the 2nd para on, is from an email you’ve received?
I wonder if anything’s gone wrong with the American bid.
If the Americans' presentation meeting has indeed been postponed, I will expect a Trust Director at the Fans Council meeting this coming Thursday to explain why members were not informed of the postponement, at least 14 days before the previously advertised date, verbal though it was.
They just had to say that negotiations had not concluded, which would be perfectly understandable. Something has gone wrong with Trust communications, which is disappointing.
Communications to members appears to be the least important action the Trust performs. It is not only those supporters who attend the next Fans council who need to be informed. Are the Football Club Board and the Trust Board working together for the long term future or is it only the football Board who is running the show???
That might explain the failure to notify the changed situation.
Another point that should be clarified and communicated is whether the cut-off date to become a Trust legacy member to be able to vote on the proposed investment, which initially was set as Saturday 8th December, remains in place or if, given the apparent pushing back of the voting date, a new cut-off date for legacy membership with voting right will apply.
I would also like to know why the Trust will not entertain any bid by Andy Harman.
@SamB, I agree that any postponement should have been communicated to all members, email being the usual method, but the Council meeting always has at least one Trust Director present. So this is an ideal opportunity for the Trust to explain what has happened, and be minuted.
@mooneyman , your choice obviously but if there is a question in your head to which you would like to know the answer, probably best bet is to ask it - either at one of the many public meetings that have occurred (eg the AGM), or the fans council or indeed by just emailing say Stroud and politely asking.
If you attended any of these meetings you would be aware that if "awkward" questions are asked you either get prevarication or a refusal to discuss from the Board.
A prime example was a couple of years back when a question was raised about the training ground ownership. Andrew Howard got quite heated and simply said he wasn't going to reply.
Additionally, you are very lucky if you get the courtesy of a response to any email. Alan Cecil is the only director who listens and responds to enquiries.
Ah OK I understand now. You haven't had an answer to your question because you haven't asked it because you are afraid that if you did ask it, there is a possibility you wouldn't get an answer to it.
Why shouldn’t anyone raise a question of public interest on a public forum?
It's made me feel happy tonight knowing you understand something Dev!
Anything can be raised on the gasroom, @Floyd, however if @mooneyman would genuinely like to know whether a bid was ever made or serious interest in doing so ever expressed by Mr Harman and if so on what criteria the trust board preferred an alternative, he is probably better off asking his question elsewhere where there is a chance those qualified may answer it for him.
And his experience, and those of others, seems to suggest that the Gasroom represents the best chance of that.
The gasroom presents no chance of getting an answer to that question.
If you genuinely want an answer to a question, ask it and then complain if you don't get an answer.
if you don't ask it, you will not get an answer. If you do ask it, you may.
@mooneyman don't come on here...a fans forum...with your questions and concerns about the club unless you've first addressed them with the proper authorities. If you can show the proper authenticated paperwork indicating you have already raised this with the correct party or parties and can prove he/she/they have not responded in a timely fashion then...and only then...you can come on here and say:
'I would also like to know why the Trust will not entertain any bid by Andy Harman.'
I totally agree with everything @EwanHoosaami has said, if he's interested we > @mooneyman said:
100% totally agree with this !! They need to explain, I think if there are 2 options we should know
I'm with the school of thought that says you should direct your questions directly to those responsible even if in parallel you ask the questions here. As a volunteer administrator I've found disputes/issues I've been dealing with raised elsewhere and not been happy. In this case perfectly fair to hold the debate, but seeking direct information should at least be attempted directly.
I agree with Baldric and I also recall Trevor Stroud saying that more than one potential investor was considered (perhaps including Andy Harman, I don’t know) and it was duly decided that the Americans were, in the opinion of the Trust board, the most attractive proposition.
Incidentally, I have heard nothing but glowing reports of their time at Derby County.
Whatever anybody feels is the 'correct method' of making enquiries, it has to be said that the failure of the Trust to communicate any postponement/cancellation of a planned meeting to legacy members is quite extraordinary. What is going on?
As Dev would say, if you want to know what is going on email a Board Director!!!
@EwanHoosaami Am I allowed to ask where the information in your post came from? Not doubting any of it, just curious.
Are we going round in circles here but the current offer on the table is for a majority, and the trust board were given mandate or said the majority was the preferred and that the ‘other2’ were for a minority, so do we really need to know why Harmans wasn’t put forward. I do believe and we were told that all were considered on there merits, so I don’t believe it was just dismissed as some might think. The board are just doing what they think is right, for the majority, and not what they think tge minority may want.
Wasn't there a suggestion NDAs were handed out sharpish to anyone who expressed any interest, doubt we'll get any more info unless the Americans pull out, are voted down, or the Trust want to explain themselves.
I am probably wrong, but I thought a vote wasn't necessary for a minority sale.
I think @TrueBlu might be confusing the show of hands at the meeting with something that actually means something.
http://www.wycombewandererstrust.com/2019/01/legacy-members-meeting-28th-january
Gotta love Trev's sense of irony.
Thanks @AlanCecil.
Will Jim and Bill be at the meeting on the 28th? It's not explicitly clear from the article. Also, I think there was an informal meet and greet scheduled for the night after the vote - is that no longer happening?