Skip to content

Andrew Harman bid for WWFC

13468920

Comments

  • @Right_in_the_Middle It is clear & obvious it has become personal, do you think it is without merit? Do you believe that the trust actions should have been hidden in the shadows until after the USA bid? Is it so wrong to have full knowledge before we cast a vote or wait until we've lost the jewel in the crown? @marlowchair could be then be accused of something along the lines of, "well you knew all along, why the f@%k didn't you say something?
    Just playing devils advocate here, however FWIW, I would rather have full knowledge before a vote.

  • @A_Worboys will there be any way to view the content of tonight's forum for those who can't make it? Thanks.

  • @Ewanhoosaami I suppose it depends if you believe him and trust his intentions. Personally I think his personal view is blinkered by a clear grudge and much of what he talked about in the past was generic and has been backward engineered in to some sort of 'truth'.

    I am not sure what Trust actions you deem important or wrong.
    I am happy they have given us a preferred single option. I can then decide if it is worthy. Giving s best option doesn't mean they ignored others for personal reasons.
    I don't care who Stroud works for. He is a transient chairman who will move on in time.
    I can forgive some of the communication issues.

    I am concerned about the loan and the charge on the ground. I am more concerned this hasn't been met head on with a simple explanation.

    More over the bid stands or falls on the bidders and not the Trust. Does all the above matter?

  • Well sir, I take your point, assuming you are referring to the intentions of @marlowchair. If they are personal or not, actions have been taken that at best were clandestine, of that I don't think "either side", for the need of better terminology, can ignore.
    What I can't ignore, is that very little information comes out of the Trust unless it is "forced" out, usually by revelation from a.n.other "source". Also, the old saying there is no smoke without fire keeps popping in to my mind. If it was just one supply line of vendetta, then it would be easier to pass of as two egos clashing, but it's not is it.
    At the end of the day, I shall vote for what in my opinion, gives WWFC the best chance of long term survival and viability and tbh, I don't care for the ethnicity, if they played for Man Yeww or a local Sunday pub team.
    I'm sure all will be revealed by this time next Tuesday when we will then be arguing on our perceptions & fears of each proposal.

  • Most of the discussion on this and other related threads has become so convoluted and abstruse (and even something as basic as the correct spelling of people’s names is seemingly beyond the competence or courtesy of some posters) that its usefulness in helping to assess the relative merits and validity of the various arguments is, for me, significantly diminished. So much so that I tend to agree with? @Right_in_the_Middle that the presentation on Monday by Messrs Luby and Collis overrides all the bickering that has gone on since September.
    Until tonight at least!

  • Indeed Micra, perhaps worth posting again after all the unpleasantness of recent days that those with a vote will be asked to make a decision that will have far reaching consequences for the club.

    They will effectively need to decide between
    1) remaining fan owned in perpetuity
    2) the Luby bid which by definition will be reasonably well defined
    3) the inevitably more aspirational Harman proposal (not yet at least an actual bid)
    4) a vague hope that something else will come along.

    They will need to decide whether or not to give weight to the judgement of all 11 people they elected to investigate the detail of this on their behalf (all of whom have come to the same conclusion) or whether to make this momentous decision based on their own analysis. Inevitably many of them will lack relevant knowledge of business in helping them to assess the options themselves and hence make this decision.

    Good luck to them all. As Churchill famously (but actually never) said. Democracy is the worst form of government (except for all the others).

  • Having a vote is a great responsibility it is true. I think we only have to decide whether or not we like 2) though.

  • Thanks @marlowchair. I have always taken you to be a well-informed poster on the subject. My problem with your posts have always been trying to gain a feel for how much your obvious (as I have read into your musings on here) dislike of TS on a personal and/or professional basis has clouded your judgement in the grand scheme of things and got in the way of your 'message'. In the past I must admit I found it did although your postings today do seem to have eradicated some of that.

    I do tend to the view however that regardless of anyone's views or opinions on the matter for the foreseeable future he is likely to remain as the chair as I'm not quite sure the good burghers of High Wycombe are sufficiently inflammatory to rise up and storm the gates of Adams Park (or Beechdean).

    Maybe Andrew Harman will do a Henry V speech tonight to change that but I somehow doubt that.

    Which brings me back to the bid on the table. Yes it has been managed badly (almost certainly). Yes it may not have been subject to due diligence (probably). Yes they may want to screw us over in the long term (possibly). Yes they may want to just throw money at us and have fun (unlikely). But as people who care about the long-term interests of the club we have to put all that behind us and look at the merits of the bid and make choices based on the information provided within it. It could very easily not be a good deal for the club given all the above, but it is equally possible that it may actually be a decent deal (it's really hard not drawing Brexit parallels with all of this here).

    I'm delighted that Andrew Harman is playing his hand now though as that will allow us to consider the American deal in the context of what else may be on offer (although there should be some caution on what may be said compared with the reality of what may be offered in the case of the former).

  • Strictly speaking you are right of course @Wendoverman but for me you have a wider responsibility to at least have a strong view on what option you are favouring if you decide (as you are entitled to do) not to vote for option 2.

  • @DevC said:
    Indeed Micra, perhaps worth posting again after all the unpleasantness of recent days that those with a vote will be asked to make a decision that will have far reaching consequences for the club.

    They will effectively need to decide between
    1) remaining fan owned in perpetuity
    2) the Luby bid which by definition will be reasonably well defined
    3) the inevitably more aspirational Harman proposal (not yet at least an actual bid)
    4) a vague hope that something else will come along.

    They will need to decide whether or not to give weight to the judgement of all 11 people they elected to investigate the detail of this on their behalf (all of whom have come to the same conclusion) or whether to make this momentous decision based on their own analysis. Inevitably many of them will lack relevant knowledge of business in helping them to assess the options themselves and hence make this decision.

    Good luck to them all. As Churchill famously (but actually never) said. Democracy is the worst form of government (except for all the others).

    Two things:

    What unpleasantness?

    Why is the Harman proposal "inevitably more aspirational"? I don't know anything about him or his bid, do you know something more?

  • I think you need to read the last few days posts @peterparrotface. For you to decide whether that amounts to "unpleasantness". For me that would be an understatement.

    I wasn't intending to cast any aspersions on the Harman proposal. As I understand it, it is not a bid that has yet been made to the club, there is no guarantee it ever will be. It is not at this stage at least a detailed offer that can be accepted or rejected. It may become that. For me that makes it inevitably more aspirational.

  • I've read nothing unpleasant. Different strokes I suppose.

    I don't follow you at all but cheers for the reply.

  • @DevC so reading between the lines had you a vote at this point you would be for the 'reasonably well defined' bid you haven't seen and against the 'inevitably more aspirational ' bid you haven't seen.

  • As you say @Wendoverman, I don't have a vote so pretty irrelevant but for what its worth.

    I don't see options 1 and 4 as realistic. We haven't seen the details of the Luby bid yet, but given that each of the 11 people I elected to scrutinise the details on my behalf have ALL reached the same conclusion, I'd certainly be leaning that way. At this stage I'd need a concrete reason in the details we are about to be presented with to reject it.

  • edited January 2019

    @DevC said:
    As you say @Wendoverman, I don't have a vote so pretty irrelevant but for what its worth.

    We haven't seen the details of the Luby bid yet, but given that each of the 11 people I elected to scrutinise the details on my behalf have ALL reached the same conclusion.

    Is that strictly true, or was/is it a majority of the 11? Not picking a fight, but it would be unusual for 11 different people to all agree. You may of course be correct?

  • As far as I understand it, the 11 Board representatives have unanimously recommended the Luby bid.

  • Once again I have to refer back and re-read earlier posts to check who is saying what because there is no separation between one person’s comments and the other.

  • @micra - i'll summarise.
    Mass waffle - nothing new has happened.

  • The editing doesn’t help either.

  • @DevC But did the "power group" force them to do so? This is what @marlowchair would have you believe. I don't know either way, but this is an example of how oft-repeated claims can start to enter the unconscious mind.

    Anyway, I'm preferring to 'play the bid, not the man' before i decide which way to vote.

  • Indeed @Malone. @wingnut was spot on when he said in effect that obsession with the Gasroom wasted valuable time! Mrs micra certainly agrees.

  • Well @leedsblue, I am sure he probably would try - its what he needs for his narrative - but how in the real world would "the power group" whatever that is "force" trust board members to believe what they want them to believe on what is the most important issue they will be asked to consider? Does that feel credible to you? Or does it feel more likely that that is indeed each of the 11 people we voted to represent us honest opinion of the best interests of WWFC?

  • @DevC Again, I don't know - it's this area where myth and reality are confronting each other through the careful use of social media. Could it be that they were 'whipped' to go through the correct lobby? I know that happens in some democratic institutions. Over to @marlowchair for the 'facts'.

  • As far as I know there are no party structure within the trust board, just 11 individuals, all supporters of WWFC, all trying their best to do the best thing for WWFC in difficult circumstances, all with far more knowledge of the details of the bid and WWFC situation than any of us have . My understanding is that all 11 have concluded that the Luby bid is the best option for the club and hence they are all recommending that this option is accepted. Obviously its your choice whether to take any notice of them.

  • Do we know how many bids were actually on the table though?

  • @mooneyman said:
    Do we know how many bids were actually on the table though?

    I believe it was one? As I understand it, (though welcome to be proven wrong), other bids were only offered minority share holding, but have no facts to call that as so.

  • @EwanHoosaami said:

    @mooneyman said:
    Do we know how many bids were actually on the table though?

    I believe it was one? As I understand it, (though welcome to be proven wrong), other bids were only offered minority share holding, but have no facts to call that as so.

    If true, hardly surprising all 11 concluded it was the best option!

  • Stretching belief surely though Ewan that the 11 keen WWFC supporters with the heavy responsibility of determining the right path for the club would not have become aware of any serious interest from other parties at the time and made enough enquiries to satisfy himself that the Luby bid was still the best option in his opinion?

  • @DevC said:
    Stretching belief surely though Ewan that the 11 keen WWFC supporters with the heavy responsibility of determining the right path for the club would not have become aware of any serious interest from other parties at the time and made enough enquiries to satisfy himself that the Luby bid was still the best option in his opinion?

    Ah, stretch away then @DevC. Why do you think that Mr Harman raised his interest so late in the process?

  • Credit where credit is due, if I didn't have a vote I would not have put in the man hours that Dev has had to, to read all of this seemingly endless cobblers, write lengthy responses backing the Trust and the Luby bid and Paxmaning all opposition. I would keep an eye on developments and hope for the best while thanking the Lord it was out of my hands.

Sign In or Register to comment.