Does rule 102 only relate to loans that WWT take out, or any loan taken out by a WWT subsidiary that is secured against Adams Park?
If it is the right thing to do for WWFC, why not put it to WWT members?
@Twizz said:
So you agree @DevC its just semantics to get around the fact that the Trust Board would otherwise have broken their own rule 102 designed to stop exactly this situation?
The intention of rule 102 is clearly not meant to be limited to just the trust, and they have come up with what they consider to be a clever way out of the fact they ignored the rule when ‘the club’ took out the loan, but I’m not convinced anyone will be persuaded by this. I agree with @drcongo that this process has not been managed at all well by the trust.
Having said that my inclination is that (without seeing any of the details of either bid, if the Harman bid is indeed a bid) outside investment is likely to be the necessary next step for WWFC. I (rightly) don’t have a vote. My expectation remains that the results of the vote on the American bid will be in favour, but not reaching the required threshold for approval. Who knows what happens then.
A very interesting development. Whilst remembering of course that there is bound to be an element of sales pitch in AHs meeting it should at least allow us to gain an insight to his ideas and potential ‘investment’ in the club. Equally as important it should allow us to gauge how open-minded the Trust Board have been throughout this process.
It is hard to imagine that AH will be holding this meeting if he doesn’t believe his proposals are likely to be well-received and supported, which of course begs the question of why the Trust didn’t/don’t agree with them.
It is of course entirely possible that they are seen by the Trust as ‘pie in the sky’ thinking but at least now we are likely to get a proper debate prior to the vote rather than a simple ‘trust us’, which was looking the case before today.
This genuinely feels like a significant step forward, if only in that we are now likely to be a much more informed electorate.
My concern has never been about new investment. it comes in many forms and there are a vast number of options in the market for good football clubs with managers and proven lean resource on pitch results such as ours.
My issue all along has been that we haven’t had, didn’t have, and don’t currently have , a leadership team at the club experienced or capable enough to guide the trust they lead to identify and negotiate the best available option of those in the market.
They have pushed forward blindly with one option that was introduced to them on the wink and the nod in the boardroom at A big away cup tie over a few drinks, and failed to even closely explore what else might be out there.
We might accept their lack of skills and experience and excuse it due to their volunteer status but we cannot excuse their deliberate lack of communication, reactive letters punched out in despration once facts are aired by others publicly , and most seriously the disingenuous circumventing of trust rules in order to avoid asking trust members as they are obliged to do, if they might use Adams Park as collatoral.
It’s good another bidder has gone public , others haven’t even progressed due to the board who represent us.
But regardless of any outcome , what is clear , and what I feel any trust members who elected these men to lead us with good governance and process , upholding our rules in good faith , must ensure , is that the “ power group “ on the trust and football club board ( who other directors even refer to them as and despair at the lack of ability dissenters have to be heard at board level ) must not have any involvment at the club going forward in any official capaicty. Volunteer in the car park and sell programs again on matchday , but never, ever , be afforded official status or benefits again given the “shitshow” they have overseen and managed to date ( thanks drcongo)
I wonder who these people are who can run our club in a way that keeps @marlowchair happy but haven't to date come forward or previously had a go and moved on?
Personally I can forgive most of the communication issues down to lack of experience and don't see them as deliberate. The Adams Park charge is an obvious exception though.
I have spoken in the past to a couple of people who said they had bid to invest in the club. Both proposals were built on sand though and were rightly never progressed. The Trust have a preferred option and I think that should be voted on without the distraction of other bids. More choice means less consensus and no chance of a 75% vote.
I wish Harman had kept his powder dry until the US bid was rejected but maybe he wanted to make sure it would.
I have been given two bits of useful advice that I am using here. A football club director told me never to get involved at director level in the club I supported. A senior manager of a business told me that any leader would always be disliked by some of his team if they were doing there job properly.
Even if i was minted i would never want to have any involvement in running any club! Having people like me barking at every decision and writing on forums? Too depressing.
Exactly @Wendoverman . Even if you rolled in with tonnes of money and had no desire to get any sort of return, people would question your motives, unless you had played a few games for us, or were at Carlisle away.
The last 3 posts from RITM, Wendoverman and Malone have added some much needed balance to a debate where rumours and theories were beginning to run wild.
I have said all along that we need to carefully consider the bid by the Americans before rushing to any conclusions or dismissing them based on hearsay.
I can't recall any poster on this thread intimating that they were not prepared to consider the American bid.
What contributes towards the "rumours and theories" running wild, is the Board's lack of communication and deviousness (particularly putting the ownership of Adams Park at risk).
As happy as i am to see a new potential bid come in, I fear that the fact the meeting is being held away from the club indicates to me anyway that the board already have a preferred bidder. I don't like the way the club has gone about this whole saga and I really can't see what use a meeting at the holiday inn will serve. Yes we can get a fresh perspective on a potential bid but it all seems rather late in the process now based on how the trust has gone about it's business and communicated with the fans. Sorry if this has already been addressed but just wanted to vent at my lack of faith with the board.
@Steve_Peart said: @glasshalffull, tonight's email just underlines to me that this is not really a "fan owned" club, that Adams Park can be put at risk without reference to members.
Impossible to argue with this. The saga has been handled very badly. Those blindly defending the Trust board should consider that lecturing and railroading supporters is not the way to get 75% in favour.
Pretty much what I was thinking. The trust were the ones who spent more that we could afford in the first place. And they were the ones that put up the stadium is security without even consulting or telling the fans. So why should we just blindly accept their advice. Especially when overspending and potentially losing our ground have put the club at risk in the past.
It is more likely that the individuals who took the decision did not know the rules and also failed to call or advise the rest of the Trust what action they were taking. A Cash crisis at WWFC is not a new thing and there is always time to get a group decision.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
Is this meeting being advertised anywhere other than on this thread? Just sounds too odd at the moment but hats off to people who can make short notice meetings. Proper chaos theory
Maybe someone with access to Facebook could stick up the news about this meeting on the Trust's Facebook page and also the WWFC Facebook fan club, if that hasn't been done already?
@glasshalffull. Can you understand why so many feel the way they do? I haven't seen any particular evidence that anyone has made up their mind yet. I have stated on here many a time that I believe that Andy Harman deserves an ear/audience. Lets be honest, without a few of his "short term loans", its difficult to believe we would have a club to argue over. I have also stated that a) I haven't heard his plan yet and b) the plan may be a crock of poo dreamt up on the last drag of his crack pipe? For the record that was just a jokey analogy. Now, given that the current trust board members have in all but name, mortgaged our crown jewels when most of us thought it wasn't possible, please tell me why I should take their word for it that the USA bid is the best bid? Also let us not forget, many of us are still very raw over the sharky saga. Many of us have been shafted time and again in our lives by lying mp''s, con men, life insurance salesmen, ppi, emails from Nigeria, time share, endowment mortgages plus many more I haven't thought of. As such us grumpy old sods have a vast amount of experience and wisdom, but with all that collective wisdom, we didn't see the "ground scam" coming.
In summary I think most of us would like to decide which is the better option as we can no longer trust the trust!
@mooneyman Not a Joke, just responding to @Devc but a page out. The current crisis is real and the Trust members are not getting enough facts. Wednesday and the following Monday may provide the information we need. The trust members need Trust Board members they can trust.
My only point is this: Whatever people think of the Trust board and how they have handled this- and they have admitted to making mistakes and not communicating well enough-that should not influence our verdict on the Americans’ bid.
At the moment theirs is the only bid on the table. The Trust board said they had considered other potential investors and decided that the Americans are their preferred option.
I believe that the board has the best interests of the club at heart because they are supporters like the rest of us and they were elected to make decisions on our behalf.
I have nothing against Andy Harman. I know him from his playing days and he’s a good guy, but I have no knowledge of the details of his bid or why it wasn’t considered to be as good as that made by the Americans.
I am surprised at the timing of his meeting and I’m not sure what he’s seeking to achieve by holding it now, but I will keep an open mind until I hear what he has to say.
However, just to repeat, the board has already considered whatever proposal he made and, for whatever reasons, decided to reject it.
@Midlander said:
Surely the loan cannot be legally charged against something the organisation taking out the loan do not own anyway?
How can you therefore trust “businessmen” to run the club properly when they cannot even sort the terms of a loan properly?
I did find this an interesting post.
Surely the best way to establish if the loan has been correctly charged against the Stadium is to ask the Directors of FALL to provide a copy of the legal advice they took prior to agreement of the registration of Charge.
I mean, they would have taken legal advice, wouldn't they ?
@glasshalffull said:
However, just to repeat, the board has already considered whatever proposal he made and, for whatever reasons, decided to reject it.
That's not true though is it, and you repeating it ad infinitum does not make it any truer. Mr Harman, more than once over the years, offered a proposal where he would take a majority stake in the club but was sent packing by the trust board (who are just supporters like the rest of us and have our best interests at heart) and told that no majority ownership would be accepted.
But then, when some Americans turn up with an offer, possibly having been shown the way to the club by Mr Beeks, suddenly majority ownership is perfectly acceptable. I have no idea how pissed off Mr Harman is, but if I was him I'd be fucking livid, and I'd hold my own meeting to put my offer to the fans just so that they can make an informed decision.
So, just to repeat, repeating something does not make it true. It makes you look foolish.
@glasshalffull - Surely it's obvious why Harman is arranging his meeting now. Having his proposal rejected by our Board (your words), he believes that the membership as a whole has a right to hear his offer BEFORE it is too late and the vote is taken on the American bid.
I appreciate your view (and Devs) will be that we should all unquestionably support the Board's preferred bid. However, myself and many others feel that as someone who has helped us out financially in the recent past, he deserves to put his case to us mere mortals. It may well be that the terms of the American's bid stacks up best, but we deserve at least to know briefly why the Board rejected Harman's proposal.
@glasshalffull
However, just to repeat, the board has already considered whatever proposal he made and, for whatever reasons, decided to reject it.
This is the same board that have involved a charge on the ground, without consulting members, circumnavigating, the rules that were put in place to protect the legacy of Frank Adams. We as fans are supposed to accept that "for whatever reason" & fawn to the American bid?
Forgive me if I don't thanks.
I don’t know if Andy had made previous bids ‘over the years’ and if true that is hardly common knowledge. Perhaps at the time the board didn’t feel there was a need or desire for majority ownership. I can imagine the outcry from certain quarters if the board had proposed going in that direction shortly after taking control of the club. However, circumstances do change and you elected the Trust board to deal with these matters as they saw fit.
Repeating rumours and conspiracy theories does not make them true either.
There would have been skepticism if the board had presented Mr Harman's bid for majority ownership, though if it had merit in the eyes of 75% or more of the Legacy Members, it could then have been voted through.
Harman's interest in buying a stake in WWFC is certainly not news, and I very much doubt it is news to the top brass at WWT.
Maybe those with their finger on the pulse more than me would be able to say whether Harman was pitching for a majority stake in the club in and around 2014 when the trust board were preparing to the WWT members put another proposed bid from, what turned out to be, the sort of chancers that the Trust was meant to be protecting WWFC from. If Harman had made overtures to WWT at that time and was knocked back, it would be interesting to know why he had been dumped in favour of the rogues gallery who WWT had initially deemed to be worthy of the membership's consideration.
Can we establish something here pls. At present AH only ever offered a minority stake interest. As of yet still hasn’t made a majority offer. If ppl are so he’ll bent on hearing his story. Let’s hear the from the Saudis aswell
Comments
Does rule 102 only relate to loans that WWT take out, or any loan taken out by a WWT subsidiary that is secured against Adams Park?
If it is the right thing to do for WWFC, why not put it to WWT members?
Thanks @ChasHarps.
That's certainly how it looks to me.
What an absolute shitshow the trust are making of all of this.
The intention of rule 102 is clearly not meant to be limited to just the trust, and they have come up with what they consider to be a clever way out of the fact they ignored the rule when ‘the club’ took out the loan, but I’m not convinced anyone will be persuaded by this. I agree with @drcongo that this process has not been managed at all well by the trust.
Having said that my inclination is that (without seeing any of the details of either bid, if the Harman bid is indeed a bid) outside investment is likely to be the necessary next step for WWFC. I (rightly) don’t have a vote. My expectation remains that the results of the vote on the American bid will be in favour, but not reaching the required threshold for approval. Who knows what happens then.
A very interesting development. Whilst remembering of course that there is bound to be an element of sales pitch in AHs meeting it should at least allow us to gain an insight to his ideas and potential ‘investment’ in the club. Equally as important it should allow us to gauge how open-minded the Trust Board have been throughout this process.
It is hard to imagine that AH will be holding this meeting if he doesn’t believe his proposals are likely to be well-received and supported, which of course begs the question of why the Trust didn’t/don’t agree with them.
It is of course entirely possible that they are seen by the Trust as ‘pie in the sky’ thinking but at least now we are likely to get a proper debate prior to the vote rather than a simple ‘trust us’, which was looking the case before today.
This genuinely feels like a significant step forward, if only in that we are now likely to be a much more informed electorate.
Surely the loan cannot be legally charged against something the organisation taking out the loan do not own anyway?
How can you therefore trust “businessmen” to run the club properly when they cannot even sort the terms of a loan properly?
My concern has never been about new investment. it comes in many forms and there are a vast number of options in the market for good football clubs with managers and proven lean resource on pitch results such as ours.
My issue all along has been that we haven’t had, didn’t have, and don’t currently have , a leadership team at the club experienced or capable enough to guide the trust they lead to identify and negotiate the best available option of those in the market.
They have pushed forward blindly with one option that was introduced to them on the wink and the nod in the boardroom at A big away cup tie over a few drinks, and failed to even closely explore what else might be out there.
We might accept their lack of skills and experience and excuse it due to their volunteer status but we cannot excuse their deliberate lack of communication, reactive letters punched out in despration once facts are aired by others publicly , and most seriously the disingenuous circumventing of trust rules in order to avoid asking trust members as they are obliged to do, if they might use Adams Park as collatoral.
It’s good another bidder has gone public , others haven’t even progressed due to the board who represent us.
But regardless of any outcome , what is clear , and what I feel any trust members who elected these men to lead us with good governance and process , upholding our rules in good faith , must ensure , is that the “ power group “ on the trust and football club board ( who other directors even refer to them as and despair at the lack of ability dissenters have to be heard at board level ) must not have any involvment at the club going forward in any official capaicty. Volunteer in the car park and sell programs again on matchday , but never, ever , be afforded official status or benefits again given the “shitshow” they have overseen and managed to date ( thanks drcongo)
I wonder who these people are who can run our club in a way that keeps @marlowchair happy but haven't to date come forward or previously had a go and moved on?
Personally I can forgive most of the communication issues down to lack of experience and don't see them as deliberate. The Adams Park charge is an obvious exception though.
I have spoken in the past to a couple of people who said they had bid to invest in the club. Both proposals were built on sand though and were rightly never progressed. The Trust have a preferred option and I think that should be voted on without the distraction of other bids. More choice means less consensus and no chance of a 75% vote.
I wish Harman had kept his powder dry until the US bid was rejected but maybe he wanted to make sure it would.
I have been given two bits of useful advice that I am using here. A football club director told me never to get involved at director level in the club I supported. A senior manager of a business told me that any leader would always be disliked by some of his team if they were doing there job properly.
Even if i was minted i would never want to have any involvement in running any club! Having people like me barking at every decision and writing on forums? Too depressing.
Exactly @Wendoverman . Even if you rolled in with tonnes of money and had no desire to get any sort of return, people would question your motives, unless you had played a few games for us, or were at Carlisle away.
The last 3 posts from RITM, Wendoverman and Malone have added some much needed balance to a debate where rumours and theories were beginning to run wild.
I have said all along that we need to carefully consider the bid by the Americans before rushing to any conclusions or dismissing them based on hearsay.
I can't recall any poster on this thread intimating that they were not prepared to consider the American bid.
What contributes towards the "rumours and theories" running wild, is the Board's lack of communication and deviousness (particularly putting the ownership of Adams Park at risk).
As happy as i am to see a new potential bid come in, I fear that the fact the meeting is being held away from the club indicates to me anyway that the board already have a preferred bidder. I don't like the way the club has gone about this whole saga and I really can't see what use a meeting at the holiday inn will serve. Yes we can get a fresh perspective on a potential bid but it all seems rather late in the process now based on how the trust has gone about it's business and communicated with the fans. Sorry if this has already been addressed but just wanted to vent at my lack of faith with the board.
Pretty much what I was thinking. The trust were the ones who spent more that we could afford in the first place. And they were the ones that put up the stadium is security without even consulting or telling the fans. So why should we just blindly accept their advice. Especially when overspending and potentially losing our ground have put the club at risk in the past.
It is more likely that the individuals who took the decision did not know the rules and also failed to call or advise the rest of the Trust what action they were taking. A Cash crisis at WWFC is not a new thing and there is always time to get a group decision.
@wformation- Is your post meant to be a joke?
Maybe someone with access to Facebook could stick up the news about this meeting on the Trust's Facebook page and also the WWFC Facebook fan club, if that hasn't been done already?
@glasshalffull. Can you understand why so many feel the way they do? I haven't seen any particular evidence that anyone has made up their mind yet. I have stated on here many a time that I believe that Andy Harman deserves an ear/audience. Lets be honest, without a few of his "short term loans", its difficult to believe we would have a club to argue over. I have also stated that a) I haven't heard his plan yet and b) the plan may be a crock of poo dreamt up on the last drag of his crack pipe? For the record that was just a jokey analogy. Now, given that the current trust board members have in all but name, mortgaged our crown jewels when most of us thought it wasn't possible, please tell me why I should take their word for it that the USA bid is the best bid? Also let us not forget, many of us are still very raw over the sharky saga. Many of us have been shafted time and again in our lives by lying mp''s, con men, life insurance salesmen, ppi, emails from Nigeria, time share, endowment mortgages plus many more I haven't thought of. As such us grumpy old sods have a vast amount of experience and wisdom, but with all that collective wisdom, we didn't see the "ground scam" coming.
In summary I think most of us would like to decide which is the better option as we can no longer trust the trust!
@mooneyman Not a Joke, just responding to @Devc but a page out. The current crisis is real and the Trust members are not getting enough facts. Wednesday and the following Monday may provide the information we need. The trust members need Trust Board members they can trust.
My only point is this: Whatever people think of the Trust board and how they have handled this- and they have admitted to making mistakes and not communicating well enough-that should not influence our verdict on the Americans’ bid.
At the moment theirs is the only bid on the table. The Trust board said they had considered other potential investors and decided that the Americans are their preferred option.
I believe that the board has the best interests of the club at heart because they are supporters like the rest of us and they were elected to make decisions on our behalf.
I have nothing against Andy Harman. I know him from his playing days and he’s a good guy, but I have no knowledge of the details of his bid or why it wasn’t considered to be as good as that made by the Americans.
I am surprised at the timing of his meeting and I’m not sure what he’s seeking to achieve by holding it now, but I will keep an open mind until I hear what he has to say.
However, just to repeat, the board has already considered whatever proposal he made and, for whatever reasons, decided to reject it.
I did find this an interesting post.
Surely the best way to establish if the loan has been correctly charged against the Stadium is to ask the Directors of FALL to provide a copy of the legal advice they took prior to agreement of the registration of Charge.
I mean, they would have taken legal advice, wouldn't they ?
That's not true though is it, and you repeating it ad infinitum does not make it any truer. Mr Harman, more than once over the years, offered a proposal where he would take a majority stake in the club but was sent packing by the trust board (who are just supporters like the rest of us and have our best interests at heart) and told that no majority ownership would be accepted.
But then, when some Americans turn up with an offer, possibly having been shown the way to the club by Mr Beeks, suddenly majority ownership is perfectly acceptable. I have no idea how pissed off Mr Harman is, but if I was him I'd be fucking livid, and I'd hold my own meeting to put my offer to the fans just so that they can make an informed decision.
So, just to repeat, repeating something does not make it true. It makes you look foolish.
@glasshalffull - Surely it's obvious why Harman is arranging his meeting now. Having his proposal rejected by our Board (your words), he believes that the membership as a whole has a right to hear his offer BEFORE it is too late and the vote is taken on the American bid.
I appreciate your view (and Devs) will be that we should all unquestionably support the Board's preferred bid. However, myself and many others feel that as someone who has helped us out financially in the recent past, he deserves to put his case to us mere mortals. It may well be that the terms of the American's bid stacks up best, but we deserve at least to know briefly why the Board rejected Harman's proposal.
This is the same board that have involved a charge on the ground, without consulting members, circumnavigating, the rules that were put in place to protect the legacy of Frank Adams. We as fans are supposed to accept that "for whatever reason" & fawn to the American bid?
Forgive me if I don't thanks.
I don’t know if Andy had made previous bids ‘over the years’ and if true that is hardly common knowledge. Perhaps at the time the board didn’t feel there was a need or desire for majority ownership. I can imagine the outcry from certain quarters if the board had proposed going in that direction shortly after taking control of the club. However, circumstances do change and you elected the Trust board to deal with these matters as they saw fit.
Repeating rumours and conspiracy theories does not make them true either.
Is the charge on Adams Park a conspiracy theory?
I didn’t say it was but there are plenty of others on this and other threads.
There would have been skepticism if the board had presented Mr Harman's bid for majority ownership, though if it had merit in the eyes of 75% or more of the Legacy Members, it could then have been voted through.
Harman's interest in buying a stake in WWFC is certainly not news, and I very much doubt it is news to the top brass at WWT.
Maybe those with their finger on the pulse more than me would be able to say whether Harman was pitching for a majority stake in the club in and around 2014 when the trust board were preparing to the WWT members put another proposed bid from, what turned out to be, the sort of chancers that the Trust was meant to be protecting WWFC from. If Harman had made overtures to WWT at that time and was knocked back, it would be interesting to know why he had been dumped in favour of the rogues gallery who WWT had initially deemed to be worthy of the membership's consideration.
Can we establish something here pls. At present AH only ever offered a minority stake interest. As of yet still hasn’t made a majority offer. If ppl are so he’ll bent on hearing his story. Let’s hear the from the Saudis aswell