@glasshalffull said:
Whatever people feel about how the Trust board has handled this situation-and some very harsh and unsubstantiated accusations have been made-this should not reflect on the suitability or otherwise of the Americans seeking to invest in the club. Even if you believe that the Trust board could have done better, there’s not a shred of evidence to suggest that their intentions have been anything other than honourable. They are, after all, fans like the rest of us.
I would implore Legacy members to put aside any reservations they may have about the Trust board and treat the Americans’ offer purely on merit.
So speaks Mr Parry, the man who said Sharkey would lead our club to the promised land!
Please can you remind us all of the unsubstantiated accusations posted today?
I can see your point Mr Parry, but sorry they are not more of a fan of WWFC than me, or any other fan who posts on here, im guessing 20 years ago they didnt even know the club existed.... they are, business men.
@HolmerBlue said:
I can see your point Mr Parry, but sorry they are not more of a fan of WWFC than me, or any other fan who posts on here, im guessing 20 years ago they didnt even know the club existed.... they are, business men.
Let me correct myself there, you didnt say they were more of a fan.... what you said was they are fans just like us, we are definitely more of a fan of Wycombe than they are... if you know what I mean ?
@mooneyman said:
So speaks Mr Parry, the man who said Sharkey would lead our club to the promised land!
Please can you remind us all of the unsubstantiated accusations posted today?
I don’t suppose there’s any point in debating with someone who has such deeply entrenched views, but I will give you the courtesy of a reply. I never said that Steve Hayes would ‘lead us to the promised land’ (whatever that means) but I did support his offer to invest because, at the time, it was the only one on the table when the club faced a serious situation similar to the one we face now. There have been several unproven accusations about the motives of Mr.Stroud and I will not dignify them by repeating them again. I care about the future of the club as much as you do and I sincerely believe that the Americans deserve to be given a fair hearing as I’ve heard nothing but good things about them from people in the game whose opinions I trust.
Alan...you always tow the company line, always. The trust could have handled it differently...well that’s one way of putting it...surely you accept that by not coming clean straight away about the loan to the Americans and it’s subesquent charge on Adams Park, it makes people suspicious, and rightly so it my opinion. Surely if there is a No Vote they can hand hold a gun to our head and demand the repayment of that loan within the next 10 months. If we can’t stump up £500,000 then the stadium is at risk isn’t it?? Could you help out!!!
I do wish the Trust would stop saying that the Americans will invest in the club - they will OWN the club. It's not like they are buying £250k work of shares and will sit in the USA hoping their investment brings dividend payments or capital growth - they will be the OWNERS of the club, just like Steve Hayes was. They will make decisions about the name, the location, the playing surface, the training ground, the transfers in (and out), the manager, the Direcctors and everything to do with their club (company).
I'm not sure that the Trust have shown enough evidence of why they can't run the club and to leap to the point of just giving up and selling it seems a step too far, too soon for me.
Two questions please Mr Parry, just yes or no. Firstly, do you think it is sensible to take a £500k loan from a prospective purchaser prior to the details of the purchase being agreed? Secondly, do you consider it ok to agree to a notice of charge being registered on Adams Park without member approval contrary to the Trust's rules.
@mooneyman said:
You could argue that Stroud and Beeks have been very clever (albeit underhand) to steer the club in to a position where we all have no option but to vote for the takeover.
Unless someone comes along with a spare £500k by around the beginning of November we won't be able to repay the loan so the Americans will be able to take possession of Adams Park.
I just hope that Stroud has no active role in the running of the club post the takeover.
Personally I thing we would be better off taking our chances on finding an alternative lender to pay off the loan from these guys by November rather than simply throwing in the towel and capitulating to these guys. Having seen this kind of thing happen in the business world before now I suspect that their strategy is to get the club into even more debt after they take over, so that it will make it even more difficult to pay off the loans by their repayment date. This would then make it inevitable that Adams Park would fall into their hands, and the stadium and surrounding land sold off probably for property re-development at a tidy profit. Is that what you'd really like to see?
Two questions please Mr Parry, just yes or no. Firstly, do you think it is sensible to take a £500k loan from a prospective purchaser prior to the details of the purchase being agreed? Secondly, do you consider it ok to agree to a notice of charge being registered on Adams Park without member approval contrary to the Trust's rules.
This is not a courtroom where you can order people to answer questions in a way that suits your agenda. I have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the loan and therefore I am unable to shed any light on the matter. What I do know is that the Trust board consists of decent, honourable people who I trust to do what they believe to be right thing to safeguard the future of the club.
Fair enough, I will take it that you are quite happy with the conduct of the Board.
You cannot however dispute the FACT that a charge in favour of the Americans has been registered at Company House putting the future of Adams Park at risk.
@MBS said:
Alan...you always tow the company line, always. The trust could have handled it differently...well that’s one way of putting it...surely you accept that by not coming clean straight away about the loan to the Americans and it’s subesquent charge on Adams Park, it makes people suspicious, and rightly so it my opinion. Surely if there is a No Vote they can hand hold a gun to our head and demand the repayment of that loan within the next 10 months. If we can’t stump up £500,000 then the stadium is at risk isn’t it?? Could you help out!!!
I do not always toe the company line. I publicly criticised the re-naming of Adams Park and I publicly criticised the appointment of Alan Smith as manager, both against the wishes of my fellow directors at the time. I have also disagreed with decisions at board meetings many times during my time as a director. However, I have first hand knowledge of the difficulties of running a football club at our level so I sympathise with the position that the Trust board find themselves in. No one who has criticised them has come up with a remotely viable alternative to solving our financial problems.
I do wish the Trust would stop saying that the Americans will invest in the club - they will OWN the club. It's not like they are buying £250k work of shares and will sit in the USA hoping their investment brings dividend payments or capital growth - they will be the OWNERS of the club, just like Steve Hayes was. They will make decisions about the name, the location, the playing surface, the training ground, the transfers in (and out), the manager, the Direcctors and everything to do with their club (company).
I'm not sure that the Trust have shown enough evidence of why they can't run the club and to leap to the point of just giving up and selling it seems a step too far, too soon for me.
Absolutely correct, plainly & simply its a worrying & uncertain time for the future of the club as I think most of us thought the ground was protected and safe, as it now alarmingly seems this is not so.
I do worry that the people pulling the strings in the background now are the very same that in the past have possibly put their own interests before the club, and I fear this is a done deal whatever way the vote goes.
Can’t say I’m surprised how messy this seems to have got. I don’t doubt for one moment that pretty much everyone involved (from within the club) has the best interests of WWFC at heart but different perspectives of what this actually means.
Whichever way we look at it however the figures all suggest remaining sustainabie and competitive at this (and probably Div 4) level is difficult if not impossible (although as Notts County seem determined to prove having money is not the only answer).
As a fan-owned club could we lose less money optimally managed? Probably a bit but probably not enough to not have to resort to borrowing money from somewhere. Those around the club (fans or puppet masters or a bit of both dependent on your view) who could and have, seem to have decided they can’t continue doing so indefinitely (I can’t say I blame them).
So Trust Board go off into the big bad world and try and woo some suitors, flirting with the Saudis (how glad am I that didn’t lead anywhere), turning their nose up (allegedly) at the local ‘rough’ before settling their eye on those nice smart Americans with their fancy wads of money.
They then enter a courtship ritual which is probably best not to dwell on but from afar looks pretty embarrassing and if the Americans had any self-respect they should have probably have run for the hills. But i’ll be generous and put it down to a combination of naivety and desperation.
They are now bringing their ‘prize’ blushingly to us for our approval.
So, as proud custodians, what do/should we do?
What we should do is take the time to listen, ask questions, and try not to judge them on the actions they have taken as a response to our Boards inexperienced and clumsy fumblings.
They may indeed be charlatans out to take advantage or they could potentially be sincere and committed people who would allow our charge to blossom and grow.
And apologies for the (pretty appalling) metaphor. (Very nice bottle of merlot) but the point I am clumsily making is that we really need to judge these people on THEIR merits and not through the prism of our own Board’s many many missteps in their handling of the situation.
Making you mind up beforehand and without being in possession of as many facts and pieces of information, regardless of which ‘side’ we are own does a disservice to the legacy of our club.
In my view the Trust has a duty to provide us with as much information as they reasonably can (and boy are there some gaps that could do with filling) but equally importantly we have a duty to assess and consider this information with an open mind.
Lecture/rant over.
(The ‘ignore’ button is on the top right if you click on my name if you haven’t yet found it...)
@mooneyman said:
You could argue that Stroud and Beeks have been very clever (albeit underhand) to steer the club in to a position where we all have no option but to vote for the takeover.
Unless someone comes along with a spare £500k by around the beginning of November we won't be able to repay the loan so the Americans will be able to take possession of Adams Park.
I just hope that Stroud has no active role in the running of the club post the takeover.
Personally I thing we would be better off taking our chances on finding an alternative lender to pay off the loan from these guys by November rather than simply throwing in the towel and capitulating to these guys. Having seen this kind of thing happen in the business world before now I suspect that their strategy is to get the club into even more debt after they take over, so that it will make it even more difficult to pay off the loans by their repayment date. This would then make it inevitable that Adams Park would fall into their hands, and the stadium and surrounding land sold off probably for property re-development at a tidy profit. Is that what you'd really like to see?
You have absolutely no evidence that the Americans motives for wanting to invest are what you describe.
Their time at Derby County suggests the complete opposite. You then leap to the conclusion that they would sell Adams Park for property re-development despite historic proof that getting planning permission for this would be, at best, extremely difficult if not near impossible to achieve.
Thank goodness for your common sense post @bookertease. I'm not drinking just now, but if a good Merlot produces clarity like yours then I'm tempted to return. Night all, see you at AP tomorrow.
I would also like to commend Bookertease on his plea to give the Americans a chance to state their case before condemning them out of hand on the basis of unproven rumours and conspiracy theories. Any dissatisfaction with the way this has been handled should not impact on their right to a fair hearing.
I am absolutely gutted that the early indications,actions,and behaviours of those tasked with leading our club , which pointed clearly to the sad and avoidable situation we find ourselves in currently , have been allowed to manifest unchallenged and led us to arrive at such a low,unethical destination for our club.
Trust our board? They are all good fans like us who just want the best and honestly are making decisions for the best of the club? The chairman works for one of our largest creditors and perception is everything, as full of integrity as Mr Stroud is this fact lessens the chances of a yes vote.
The chairman failed to tell anyone that for months and didn’t go public with that info for more than 18 months . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
It has become a theme rather than an exception, this failure to disclose. The initial loan our board accepted from potential bidders was kept secret until it was discussed here and they had to tell trust members . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
The charge against our stadium was kept secret in the very same fashion . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
Yet we should trust them and their judgement on the merits of a proposal to buy our club ?
They may have good intentions , but they don’t have a good record of making good decisions or being open and honest . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
Nothing presented or said by the chairman can be used to make sound judgement on any bids with any confidence based on the track record of decision making and lack of willingness to tell us of major decisions they have done on trust members behalf .
The best and prudent thing to do if the board really believe the American bid is in the best interests of the club , is for Mr Stroud to stand down fully from the board and allow members to vote on the merit of the offer , free from the negative taint mr Stroud’s chairmanship casts.
This action would see mr Burrell , Howard and Stroud all removed from the process by time of voting , the three drivers of the American bid for two years . It makes sense to remove them from
The process because by nature they all are heavily invested in the American bid due to the time and hours they put in to the due diligence .
For the American bid to be in anyway acceptable or palatable to members , given the incompetence and debacle this entire process has been , there must be included in the proposal a guarantee that mr Stroud or any other current director ,will have no role in the club officially should they be successful .
This removes the concern that the “kingmaker” or any other directors ,may have pushed this option and manufactured this as the preferred bid in order to secure themselves directorships or officials in the new era of the club .
I got blasted on here for telling you what was happening and what was going to happen . Yes , I was snide and yes I had to imply and hint at times . I certainly was annoying as a result. Maybe now my detractors may see why I was so indignant and frustrated knowing how serious the errors and lack of good governance and process was in terms of where it was going and leading to .
Now even glasshalffull , who defended every move by the voard I was critical of , has backtracked to “ don’t vote against the deal just because the board for the process so very wrong “
Apology accepted Alan , I won’t hold my breath .
If I wanted a no vote and was a “ fully fan ownership at all costs “ campaigner , I could not have done a better job to undermine the yes vote than the total mismanagement and lack of nouse and leadership our club has demonstrated in the past 12 months .
Just to clarify from my semi rants last night... I'm not against outside investment, I do think we will need it to continue as we are going forward. What I'm against is the way the board have gone about everything so far.
@marlowchair said:
I am absolutely gutted that the early indications,actions,and behaviours of those tasked with leading our club , which pointed clearly to the sad and avoidable situation we find ourselves in currently , have been allowed to manifest unchallenged and led us to arrive at such a low,unethical destination for our club.
Trust our board? They are all good fans like us who just want the best and honestly are making decisions for the best of the club? The chairman works for one of our largest creditors and perception is everything, as full of integrity as Mr Stroud is this fact lessens the chances of a yes vote.
The chairman failed to tell anyone that for months and didn’t go public with that info for more than 18 months . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
It has become a theme rather than an exception, this failure to disclose. The initial loan our board accepted from potential bidders was kept secret until it was discussed here and they had to tell trust members . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
The charge against our stadium was kept secret in the very same fashion . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
Yet we should trust them and their judgement on the merits of a proposal to buy our club ?
They may have good intentions , but they don’t have a good record of making good decisions or being open and honest . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
Nothing presented or said by the chairman can be used to make sound judgement on any bids with any confidence based on the track record of decision making and lack of willingness to tell us of major decisions they have done on trust members behalf .
The best and prudent thing to do if the board really believe the American bid is in the best interests of the club , is for Mr Stroud to stand down fully from the board and allow members to vote on the merit of the offer , free from the negative taint mr Stroud’s chairmanship casts.
This action would see mr Burrell , Howard and Stroud all removed from the process by time of voting , the three drivers of the American bid for two years . It makes sense to remove them from
The process because by nature they all are heavily invested in the American bid due to the time and hours they put in to the due diligence .
For the American bid to be in anyway acceptable or palatable to members , given the incompetence and debacle this entire process has been , there must be included in the proposal a guarantee that mr Stroud or any other current director ,will have no role in the club officially should they be successful .
This removes the concern that the “kingmaker” or any other directors ,may have pushed this option and manufactured this as the preferred bid in order to secure themselves directorships or officials in the new era of the club .
I got blasted on here for telling you what was happening and what was going to happen . Yes , I was snide and yes I had to imply and hint at times . I certainly was annoying as a result. Maybe now my detractors may see why I was so indignant and frustrated knowing how serious the errors and lack of good governance and process was in terms of where it was going and leading to .
Now even glasshalffull , who defended every move by the voard I was critical of , has backtracked to “ don’t vote against the deal just because the board for the process so very wrong “
Apology accepted Alan , I won’t hold my breath .
If I wanted a no vote and was a “ fully fan ownership at all costs “ campaigner , I could not have done a better job to undermine the yes vote than the total mismanagement and lack of nouse and leadership our club has demonstrated in the past 12 months .
You’ll be getting no apology from me and I object to being misquoted. I never said ‘don’t vote against the deal just because the board for the process (sic) so very wrong’. I said that those with concerns about the way the board has handled the process-and I am not one of them-should not let that influence their assessment of the Americans. You pat yourself on the back for being right all along (your perception) but your personal vendetta against Mr Stroud has clearly influenced your views.
A lot of frustration is around process and detail, the statement from Trevor Stroud is more doubling down than adding any real information, people would love to judge the American proposal when / if it turns up. Perception certainly isn't everything and many of the charges above are still rumour and inuendo. Whilst some level of commercial secrecy required we could reasonably expect more input if they've been so interested in joining our journey over nearly 2 years.
Comments
Well said Glasshalffull. Seems your glass is full right now
So speaks Mr Parry, the man who said Sharkey would lead our club to the promised land!
Please can you remind us all of the unsubstantiated accusations posted today?
I can see your point Mr Parry, but sorry they are not more of a fan of WWFC than me, or any other fan who posts on here, im guessing 20 years ago they didnt even know the club existed.... they are, business men.
I was talking about the Trust board.
Let me correct myself there, you didnt say they were more of a fan.... what you said was they are fans just like us, we are definitely more of a fan of Wycombe than they are... if you know what I mean ?
Ahh ok... my mistake then, misread it, my apologies
I don’t suppose there’s any point in debating with someone who has such deeply entrenched views, but I will give you the courtesy of a reply. I never said that Steve Hayes would ‘lead us to the promised land’ (whatever that means) but I did support his offer to invest because, at the time, it was the only one on the table when the club faced a serious situation similar to the one we face now. There have been several unproven accusations about the motives of Mr.Stroud and I will not dignify them by repeating them again. I care about the future of the club as much as you do and I sincerely believe that the Americans deserve to be given a fair hearing as I’ve heard nothing but good things about them from people in the game whose opinions I trust.
Alan...you always tow the company line, always. The trust could have handled it differently...well that’s one way of putting it...surely you accept that by not coming clean straight away about the loan to the Americans and it’s subesquent charge on Adams Park, it makes people suspicious, and rightly so it my opinion. Surely if there is a No Vote they can hand hold a gun to our head and demand the repayment of that loan within the next 10 months. If we can’t stump up £500,000 then the stadium is at risk isn’t it?? Could you help out!!!
I do wish the Trust would stop saying that the Americans will invest in the club - they will OWN the club. It's not like they are buying £250k work of shares and will sit in the USA hoping their investment brings dividend payments or capital growth - they will be the OWNERS of the club, just like Steve Hayes was. They will make decisions about the name, the location, the playing surface, the training ground, the transfers in (and out), the manager, the Direcctors and everything to do with their club (company).
I'm not sure that the Trust have shown enough evidence of why they can't run the club and to leap to the point of just giving up and selling it seems a step too far, too soon for me.
wj
Two questions please Mr Parry, just yes or no. Firstly, do you think it is sensible to take a £500k loan from a prospective purchaser prior to the details of the purchase being agreed? Secondly, do you consider it ok to agree to a notice of charge being registered on Adams Park without member approval contrary to the Trust's rules.
Personally I thing we would be better off taking our chances on finding an alternative lender to pay off the loan from these guys by November rather than simply throwing in the towel and capitulating to these guys. Having seen this kind of thing happen in the business world before now I suspect that their strategy is to get the club into even more debt after they take over, so that it will make it even more difficult to pay off the loans by their repayment date. This would then make it inevitable that Adams Park would fall into their hands, and the stadium and surrounding land sold off probably for property re-development at a tidy profit. Is that what you'd really like to see?
Do you anyone with a spare £500k to give us?
Honest Ivor ?
Realistically the club needs £3m extra a season to be a real success in my opinion
This is not a courtroom where you can order people to answer questions in a way that suits your agenda. I have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the loan and therefore I am unable to shed any light on the matter. What I do know is that the Trust board consists of decent, honourable people who I trust to do what they believe to be right thing to safeguard the future of the club.
Fair enough, I will take it that you are quite happy with the conduct of the Board.
You cannot however dispute the FACT that a charge in favour of the Americans has been registered at Company House putting the future of Adams Park at risk.
I do not always toe the company line. I publicly criticised the re-naming of Adams Park and I publicly criticised the appointment of Alan Smith as manager, both against the wishes of my fellow directors at the time. I have also disagreed with decisions at board meetings many times during my time as a director. However, I have first hand knowledge of the difficulties of running a football club at our level so I sympathise with the position that the Trust board find themselves in. No one who has criticised them has come up with a remotely viable alternative to solving our financial problems.
@wandering_jock said:
Absolutely correct, plainly & simply its a worrying & uncertain time for the future of the club as I think most of us thought the ground was protected and safe, as it now alarmingly seems this is not so.
I do worry that the people pulling the strings in the background now are the very same that in the past have possibly put their own interests before the club, and I fear this is a done deal whatever way the vote goes.
Can’t say I’m surprised how messy this seems to have got. I don’t doubt for one moment that pretty much everyone involved (from within the club) has the best interests of WWFC at heart but different perspectives of what this actually means.
Whichever way we look at it however the figures all suggest remaining sustainabie and competitive at this (and probably Div 4) level is difficult if not impossible (although as Notts County seem determined to prove having money is not the only answer).
As a fan-owned club could we lose less money optimally managed? Probably a bit but probably not enough to not have to resort to borrowing money from somewhere. Those around the club (fans or puppet masters or a bit of both dependent on your view) who could and have, seem to have decided they can’t continue doing so indefinitely (I can’t say I blame them).
So Trust Board go off into the big bad world and try and woo some suitors, flirting with the Saudis (how glad am I that didn’t lead anywhere), turning their nose up (allegedly) at the local ‘rough’ before settling their eye on those nice smart Americans with their fancy wads of money.
They then enter a courtship ritual which is probably best not to dwell on but from afar looks pretty embarrassing and if the Americans had any self-respect they should have probably have run for the hills. But i’ll be generous and put it down to a combination of naivety and desperation.
They are now bringing their ‘prize’ blushingly to us for our approval.
So, as proud custodians, what do/should we do?
What we should do is take the time to listen, ask questions, and try not to judge them on the actions they have taken as a response to our Boards inexperienced and clumsy fumblings.
They may indeed be charlatans out to take advantage or they could potentially be sincere and committed people who would allow our charge to blossom and grow.
And apologies for the (pretty appalling) metaphor. (Very nice bottle of merlot) but the point I am clumsily making is that we really need to judge these people on THEIR merits and not through the prism of our own Board’s many many missteps in their handling of the situation.
Making you mind up beforehand and without being in possession of as many facts and pieces of information, regardless of which ‘side’ we are own does a disservice to the legacy of our club.
In my view the Trust has a duty to provide us with as much information as they reasonably can (and boy are there some gaps that could do with filling) but equally importantly we have a duty to assess and consider this information with an open mind.
Lecture/rant over.
(The ‘ignore’ button is on the top right if you click on my name if you haven’t yet found it...)
POTD from you @bookertease
Good bottle of wine there too @Brownie? Cheers
You have absolutely no evidence that the Americans motives for wanting to invest are what you describe.
Their time at Derby County suggests the complete opposite. You then leap to the conclusion that they would sell Adams Park for property re-development despite historic proof that getting planning permission for this would be, at best, extremely difficult if not near impossible to achieve.
It's that time of the week. Think a few around here could do with a bottle or three as well.
Thank goodness for your common sense post @bookertease. I'm not drinking just now, but if a good Merlot produces clarity like yours then I'm tempted to return. Night all, see you at AP tomorrow.
I would also like to commend Bookertease on his plea to give the Americans a chance to state their case before condemning them out of hand on the basis of unproven rumours and conspiracy theories. Any dissatisfaction with the way this has been handled should not impact on their right to a fair hearing.
I am absolutely gutted that the early indications,actions,and behaviours of those tasked with leading our club , which pointed clearly to the sad and avoidable situation we find ourselves in currently , have been allowed to manifest unchallenged and led us to arrive at such a low,unethical destination for our club.
Trust our board? They are all good fans like us who just want the best and honestly are making decisions for the best of the club? The chairman works for one of our largest creditors and perception is everything, as full of integrity as Mr Stroud is this fact lessens the chances of a yes vote.
The chairman failed to tell anyone that for months and didn’t go public with that info for more than 18 months . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
It has become a theme rather than an exception, this failure to disclose. The initial loan our board accepted from potential bidders was kept secret until it was discussed here and they had to tell trust members . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
The charge against our stadium was kept secret in the very same fashion . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
Yet we should trust them and their judgement on the merits of a proposal to buy our club ?
They may have good intentions , but they don’t have a good record of making good decisions or being open and honest . This lessens the chance of a yes vote
Nothing presented or said by the chairman can be used to make sound judgement on any bids with any confidence based on the track record of decision making and lack of willingness to tell us of major decisions they have done on trust members behalf .
The best and prudent thing to do if the board really believe the American bid is in the best interests of the club , is for Mr Stroud to stand down fully from the board and allow members to vote on the merit of the offer , free from the negative taint mr Stroud’s chairmanship casts.
This action would see mr Burrell , Howard and Stroud all removed from the process by time of voting , the three drivers of the American bid for two years . It makes sense to remove them from
The process because by nature they all are heavily invested in the American bid due to the time and hours they put in to the due diligence .
For the American bid to be in anyway acceptable or palatable to members , given the incompetence and debacle this entire process has been , there must be included in the proposal a guarantee that mr Stroud or any other current director ,will have no role in the club officially should they be successful .
This removes the concern that the “kingmaker” or any other directors ,may have pushed this option and manufactured this as the preferred bid in order to secure themselves directorships or officials in the new era of the club .
I got blasted on here for telling you what was happening and what was going to happen . Yes , I was snide and yes I had to imply and hint at times . I certainly was annoying as a result. Maybe now my detractors may see why I was so indignant and frustrated knowing how serious the errors and lack of good governance and process was in terms of where it was going and leading to .
Now even glasshalffull , who defended every move by the voard I was critical of , has backtracked to “ don’t vote against the deal just because the board for the process so very wrong “
Apology accepted Alan , I won’t hold my breath .
If I wanted a no vote and was a “ fully fan ownership at all costs “ campaigner , I could not have done a better job to undermine the yes vote than the total mismanagement and lack of nouse and leadership our club has demonstrated in the past 12 months .
Booker's post was excellent. The bid should be judged on its own merits, but equally, we should not be allowed to be bent over a barrel
Just to clarify from my semi rants last night... I'm not against outside investment, I do think we will need it to continue as we are going forward. What I'm against is the way the board have gone about everything so far.
You’ll be getting no apology from me and I object to being misquoted. I never said ‘don’t vote against the deal just because the board for the process (sic) so very wrong’. I said that those with concerns about the way the board has handled the process-and I am not one of them-should not let that influence their assessment of the Americans. You pat yourself on the back for being right all along (your perception) but your personal vendetta against Mr Stroud has clearly influenced your views.
A lot of frustration is around process and detail, the statement from Trevor Stroud is more doubling down than adding any real information, people would love to judge the American proposal when / if it turns up. Perception certainly isn't everything and many of the charges above are still rumour and inuendo. Whilst some level of commercial secrecy required we could reasonably expect more input if they've been so interested in joining our journey over nearly 2 years.