Amazing how our first win (and WHAT a win) in 5 has changed the tone of this thread! Long may it continue.? Hope any potential investors were watching.
@glasshalffull
With regard to your quote you made on hear Saturday.
"I do not always toe the company line.... I publicly criticised the appointment of Alan Smith as manager,..... against the wishes of my fellow directors at the time."
Here's what you actually said in Blues News in July 1995
"When the Chairman told me that Alan Smith was among the interested parties, I was as thrilled as he obviously was. This is the start of a new era at Wycombe Wanderers. We are fortunate that a man with his outstanding track record in the game was both available and interested. I don't believe we could have made a better choice."
"I do not always toe the company line.... I publicly criticised the appointment of Alan Smith as manager,..... against the wishes of my fellow directors at the time."
Here's what you actually said in Blues News in July 1995
"When the Chairman told me that Alan Smith was among the interested parties, I was as thrilled as he obviously was. This is the start of a new era at Wycombe Wanderers. We are fortunate that a man with his outstanding track record in the game was both available and interested. I don't believe we could have made a better choice."
Mr Parry is either a liar or has a short memory, hopefully the latter.
What is the point of all this mudslinging when there are more important things for us to think about such as the future of our club?
What has been said/done in the past cannot be changed. It does not mean that it will be the same in the future. Hopefully we can learn from the mistakes and use this wisdom to reach/make a sensible decision, whatever we each think that is.
"I do not always toe the company line.... I publicly criticised the appointment of Alan Smith as manager,..... against the wishes of my fellow directors at the time."
Here's what you actually said in Blues News in July 1995
"When the Chairman told me that Alan Smith was among the interested parties, I was as thrilled as he obviously was. This is the start of a new era at Wycombe Wanderers. We are fortunate that a man with his outstanding track record in the game was both available and interested. I don't believe we could have made a better choice."
I didn’t say I criticised his appointment at the time it was made, did I? I wrote a programme article about Mr Smith at a later date once I knew more about him.
If you’ve got so much time on your hands that you can delve back into press cuttings from 24 years ago, you should be bothered to read and understand my posts more carefully.
My response this morning is also for the attention of Mooneyman and Malone. And how sad that MrHarps chooses to interrupt a positive theme to once again pursue his personal vendettas.
It is a shame that one of the most important threads in the history of the Gasroom 2.0 is being overrun by some very predicatable feuds.
I value the input of all posters, and actually feel that we are fortuanate to have someone of Alan’s great footballing experience contributing. I can also understand why some may wish to point to historic leanings given where we are with the club, but it seems we are just getting more entrenched with the name-calling and it is detracting from the main issue.
Life is complex and reducing one’s views into bite sized chunks for forum consumption does not allow for subtlety nor nuance. I, for one, will in future make an effort not to redact people’s views for easy straw man purposes!
Just to make it clear, I'm not anti you @glasshalffull like other posters are.
And I certainly remember you cheesing Smith off at one stage by saying in your programme notes about how it was our worst league season (not that there were many years for it to be a thing!!!). Maybe that sort of thing was more what you referred to.
It's just your original post makes it sound like you were against his appointment from the off, when clearly your sound bite of the time says the opposite.
Re-reading it, maybe you meant, you criticised his appointment "later on", which was against other director's views that he should stay on?
I didn’t say I criticised his appointment at the time it was made, did I? I wrote a programme article about Mr Smith at a later date once I knew more about him.
Problem is we don’t have the luxury of simply sacking the Americans if we make a similar mistake. What happens if you’re not so keen once you know more about them?
Surely it’s right to be very cautious bearing in mind the fiasco of recent times? And for that reason, the Trust / Club need to be a good deal more transparent as this process moves forward.
One way or the other...like Brexit...I'll be glad when it's all sorted and we can just look with optimism at the sunlit uplands/fall screaming and thrashing into the pit. It's the not knowing that kills yer.
Malone, I apologise because I could have written my original post in a better way. I didn’t know MrSmith when he was appointed so had no reason-based on his record-to criticise his appointment. It was later on in his tenure that I was critical of his methods. Having made that clear, I agree with Lloyd2084 that it’s time to move on whilst reminding you that it wasn’t me who decided to dig this subject up again.
On your second point, I agree that we don’t yet know enough about the Americans and their bid but that’s the whole point of the January meeting. Sadly, none of us has the ability to look into the future.
I also heard that at the meeting.. I have though no idea what the agreement between the parties is If the proposal remains that they continue to have a charge over Adams Park after they convert to equity then I would agree with you thatTrevors position is untenable both in terms of what was said at the meeting and also the Trusts own rules.
On a day when voting against a proposal because you don't like the proposer seems to be happening is it ok to vote down a proposal based purely on who is bringing it to the table?
Ask your self the question, and it’s been the same with Tes May. Is this really the right time for a call of no confidence and change of chairman. Who would you have lead instead. In fact we are at such a pivotal moment in the clubs future, it really isn’t a good idea at this time. To be honest a new owner may want to change things but that will be there decision but until the vote. ?
I was chatting on Saturday and it is clear to me a lot of people who (whisper it) don't bother with the gasroom have no idea of this recent development. And they have a vote. 'That's wrong...the stadium is not part of the deal ' I kept being told. Certainly troubling with regard to communication.
It would have been wiser for Trevor Stroud to have said The Stadium is not part of the deal, but we had to provide a charge on the Stadium to acquire the Loan. Especially as by then it had been agreed by the Boards.
A more detailed explanation of the current and future deal must be made clear at the meeting on the 28th. The Trust Board Directors elect the Chairman and they can always change the chairman should they consider a change would be necessary.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
On a day when voting against a proposal because you don't like the proposer seems to be happening is it ok to vote down a proposal based purely on who is bringing it to the table?
Not the point though is it? The stadium ownership, is separate to the ownership of the football club. It was designed in such a way, so as to fend of interest from "building developers" taking the whole thing and selling us down the river in the future.
I will though add, that at this moment in time, FALL still own the stadium, there is a charge against it, so as such, Mr Stroud could argue that he hasn't told a porky. We all know though, if you have to borrow, knowing that the chances of paying back are at best minimum, then the writing is on the wall and the "fat lady is at this moment reaching for the listerine & honey".
Are you serious @Right_in_the_Middle? It's not about the proposer is it? It's about what the proposer has done to engineer the current position we find ourselves in. And it's about the fact that the bidders are in it purely to make money in the long term. I can only applaud them for their part in negotiating their current position of strength.
So that wasn’t to embarrassing for the ww board on 3cr. Phil spoke of the Yankees and the fans council meeting, regard lack of communication and everything currently associated to the loan/takeover, and just how little info is available on the proposal, which we should have by now. Even just to have said when this is to be released to the public would be appreciated, but to say nothing what so ever is Barmy to say the least. Board wake up. You were sent back with questions to answer. You haven’t. A huge grave is being dug here, and the meeting on the 28th (which I can almost now see not happening) is going to turn into one huge mud slinging session when it should solely be about the club purchase.
Ps Phil said nothing wrong and was just being an open and honest fan
@TrueBlu said:
So that wasn’t to embarrassing for the ww board on 3cr. Phil spoke of the Yankees and the fans council meeting, regard lack of communication and everything currently associated to the loan/takeover, and just how little info is available on the proposal, which we should have by now. Even just to have said when this is to be released to the public would be appreciated, but to say nothing what so ever is Barmy to say the least. Board wake up. You were sent back with questions to answer. You haven’t. A huge grave is being dug here, and the meeting on the 28th (which I can almost now see not happening) is going to turn into one huge mud slinging session when it should solely be about the club purchase.
Ps Phil said nothing wrong and was just being an open and honest fan
Aren't they planning on releasing it at the meeting? Can't see why one has been called if not.
Comments
Amazing how our first win (and WHAT a win) in 5 has changed the tone of this thread! Long may it continue.? Hope any potential investors were watching.
@glasshalffull
With regard to your quote you made on hear Saturday.
"I do not always toe the company line.... I publicly criticised the appointment of Alan Smith as manager,..... against the wishes of my fellow directors at the time."
Here's what you actually said in Blues News in July 1995
"When the Chairman told me that Alan Smith was among the interested parties, I was as thrilled as he obviously was. This is the start of a new era at Wycombe Wanderers. We are fortunate that a man with his outstanding track record in the game was both available and interested. I don't believe we could have made a better choice."
I seem to recall one of the great US presidents saying nothing you see, hear or read is true.
Mr Parry is either a liar or has a short memory, hopefully the latter.
What is the point of all this mudslinging when there are more important things for us to think about such as the future of our club?
What has been said/done in the past cannot be changed. It does not mean that it will be the same in the future. Hopefully we can learn from the mistakes and use this wisdom to reach/make a sensible decision, whatever we each think that is.
.
Nice researching mr harps. I thought there was something along those like a but i couldn't find it.
Still, i remember having a quote in the "fans welcome smith" section once saying how great he'd be! Hindsight is a great thing!
Won't let me edit but obvs "like a" should be lines.
If you’ve got so much time on your hands that you can delve back into press cuttings from 24 years ago, you should be bothered to read and understand my posts more carefully.
My response this morning is also for the attention of Mooneyman and Malone. And how sad that MrHarps chooses to interrupt a positive theme to once again pursue his personal vendettas.
ha ha ha
???
It is a shame that one of the most important threads in the history of the Gasroom 2.0 is being overrun by some very predicatable feuds.
I value the input of all posters, and actually feel that we are fortuanate to have someone of Alan’s great footballing experience contributing. I can also understand why some may wish to point to historic leanings given where we are with the club, but it seems we are just getting more entrenched with the name-calling and it is detracting from the main issue.
Life is complex and reducing one’s views into bite sized chunks for forum consumption does not allow for subtlety nor nuance. I, for one, will in future make an effort not to redact people’s views for easy straw man purposes!
Just to make it clear, I'm not anti you @glasshalffull like other posters are.
And I certainly remember you cheesing Smith off at one stage by saying in your programme notes about how it was our worst league season (not that there were many years for it to be a thing!!!). Maybe that sort of thing was more what you referred to.
It's just your original post makes it sound like you were against his appointment from the off, when clearly your sound bite of the time says the opposite.
Re-reading it, maybe you meant, you criticised his appointment "later on", which was against other director's views that he should stay on?
Problem is we don’t have the luxury of simply sacking the Americans if we make a similar mistake. What happens if you’re not so keen once you know more about them?
Surely it’s right to be very cautious bearing in mind the fiasco of recent times? And for that reason, the Trust / Club need to be a good deal more transparent as this process moves forward.
One way or the other...like Brexit...I'll be glad when it's all sorted and we can just look with optimism at the sunlit uplands/fall screaming and thrashing into the pit. It's the not knowing that kills yer.
Malone, I apologise because I could have written my original post in a better way. I didn’t know MrSmith when he was appointed so had no reason-based on his record-to criticise his appointment. It was later on in his tenure that I was critical of his methods. Having made that clear, I agree with Lloyd2084 that it’s time to move on whilst reminding you that it wasn’t me who decided to dig this subject up again.
On your second point, I agree that we don’t yet know enough about the Americans and their bid but that’s the whole point of the January meeting. Sadly, none of us has the ability to look into the future.
Sorry, the second point refers to Arnos Grove’s point.
That makes more sense @glasshalffull . Ta for confirming, and we quickly move on.
Re reading the AGM Minutes from November 29 I see Trevor is quoted as stating the following:
" I would also reiterate that ownership of the Stadium is not part of the negotiation".
This statement came 10 days after a charge was registered.
Trevor's position is untenable and he should do the honourable thing and resign.
I also heard that at the meeting.. I have though no idea what the agreement between the parties is If the proposal remains that they continue to have a charge over Adams Park after they convert to equity then I would agree with you thatTrevors position is untenable both in terms of what was said at the meeting and also the Trusts own rules.
On a day when voting against a proposal because you don't like the proposer seems to be happening is it ok to vote down a proposal based purely on who is bringing it to the table?
Ask your self the question, and it’s been the same with Tes May. Is this really the right time for a call of no confidence and change of chairman. Who would you have lead instead. In fact we are at such a pivotal moment in the clubs future, it really isn’t a good idea at this time. To be honest a new owner may want to change things but that will be there decision but until the vote. ?
Good point Mrs Stroud.
I was chatting on Saturday and it is clear to me a lot of people who (whisper it) don't bother with the gasroom have no idea of this recent development. And they have a vote. 'That's wrong...the stadium is not part of the deal ' I kept being told. Certainly troubling with regard to communication.
It would have been wiser for Trevor Stroud to have said The Stadium is not part of the deal, but we had to provide a charge on the Stadium to acquire the Loan. Especially as by then it had been agreed by the Boards.
A more detailed explanation of the current and future deal must be made clear at the meeting on the 28th. The Trust Board Directors elect the Chairman and they can always change the chairman should they consider a change would be necessary.
Not the point though is it? The stadium ownership, is separate to the ownership of the football club. It was designed in such a way, so as to fend of interest from "building developers" taking the whole thing and selling us down the river in the future.
I will though add, that at this moment in time, FALL still own the stadium, there is a charge against it, so as such, Mr Stroud could argue that he hasn't told a porky. We all know though, if you have to borrow, knowing that the chances of paying back are at best minimum, then the writing is on the wall and the "fat lady is at this moment reaching for the listerine & honey".
Are you serious @Right_in_the_Middle? It's not about the proposer is it? It's about what the proposer has done to engineer the current position we find ourselves in. And it's about the fact that the bidders are in it purely to make money in the long term. I can only applaud them for their part in negotiating their current position of strength.
So that wasn’t to embarrassing for the ww board on 3cr. Phil spoke of the Yankees and the fans council meeting, regard lack of communication and everything currently associated to the loan/takeover, and just how little info is available on the proposal, which we should have by now. Even just to have said when this is to be released to the public would be appreciated, but to say nothing what so ever is Barmy to say the least. Board wake up. You were sent back with questions to answer. You haven’t. A huge grave is being dug here, and the meeting on the 28th (which I can almost now see not happening) is going to turn into one huge mud slinging session when it should solely be about the club purchase.
Ps Phil said nothing wrong and was just being an open and honest fan
Aren't they planning on releasing it at the meeting? Can't see why one has been called if not.