Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Trust Meeting this evening

I've seen this mentioned in messages as 7.00 and 7.30 start. Can anyone clarify?

Β«134

Comments

  • 7:30 start but get there for 7 as registration process may be longer than normal - photo id required or you will be asked for your address.

  • Could an admin you approve my Facebook request please. It is in my wife Susie’s name as I don’t have a FB account.

    I am a Legacy member.

  • This is a debacle already for Trevor, 3 questions in. No answers and a very agitated membership.

  • applause in support of 4th question asking Trevor why on earth the American deal hasn't been tabled.

  • I'm not in the country and can't listen in, any updates gratefully received

  • If someone could ask Trevor β€œwhat the actual fuck is going on?” I’d be very grateful.

  • Tried logging in using the link and via Facebook App but unable to get in. I am a Legacy member.
    Appreciate your updates @marlowchair.

  • I don't know if it is perhaps over but it says the attachment is unavailable. It has worked for me last couple of times.

  • edited January 28

    You might not agree or trust it all but have to say he did a pretty good job of answering the variety of questions put. Applause at the end not pitchforks as suggested above although fair to say many members not happy with individual aspects.

  • edited January 28

    I know some custodians of this forum will have very different views, but as someone very much on the fence with this whole situation I thought Trevor and the board dealt well with some pretty heavy criticism (watched via live stream, not in person) - including admitting that the Rule 102 circumvention was an oversight by the board, and that in future an addition to that rule will be made to ensure that a Trust members vote is required in order to put any charge on the stadium regardless of the financial situation. There was also a repeated reference to the "significant" nature of the Americans investment, and that there are a number of questions that they are requiring clarification from Andy Harman with regards to his proposal. Criticisms of the board and their handling of this whole situation are certainly valid, and the first half hour or so included some particularly scathing assessments but I think most were dealt with reasonably. There was also at least one direct reference to the Gasroom, including one to a particular post and particular date when Harman's interest was re-raised.

    Someone who was there is likely to put together a better assessment of proceedings, but those are my immediate thoughts having just finished watching.

  • Well I missed the first half as I couldn’t get it on my iPad. An old laptop came to the rescue and so I saw the rest. What I did notice with TS was a touch more humility and a more conciliatory tone and approach. The stadium charge acknowledged as a bit of a cock up under the cloak of business practices. The one real point that resonated with me from the floor was that both bids should be put to the legacy members at the same time. TS said that he had covered that in an earlier answer, so I am none the wiser. He did acknowledge conflict of interest between club and trust chairman as well. It was a well prepared defence of his and the boards tactics over the last few months....I thought he did ok, and I’m no fan.

  • No chance to livestream for me today. Did I read somewhere it would be left up on the fb page?

  • It was suggested that users try different devices or browsers if experiencing difficulties.

    The live stream worked fine for me using the FB mobile app. In fact the clarity of both audio and visual was very good so well done to whoever organised that.

  • edited January 28

    I wouldn't profess to be as clued-up as some, but if the Trust learnt anything tonight it's that if you're open and straightforward in your communication, you'll bring most people along with you.

    For me, the issue with WWFC has always been the shadowy presence of Beeks and the (edited) previously anonymous training ground purchasers, who of course were not on the bill. Beeks has never been one to think that the plebs deserve an explanation - at least TS and co put themselves on the stage and (for me) restored a little trust.

  • @mbs I'm not certain he did on the first point although i may be wrong. On the second point he reiterated it had been discussed, the other board members could ask him to stand down at any time if they felt the need, and its unlikely to be the same under the new investors but he was keen to see the process through.

  • It should also be added that any suggestions that certain board members have been offered jobs was addressed and rejected - I think (might be wrong) it was suggested that two Trust members would be on the board, with no decisions on who those would be.

  • @arnos_grove said:

    For me, the issue with WWFC has always been the shadowy presence of Beeks and his Chairboys Funders, who of course were not on the bill.

    Having been a member of Chairboys Funders since it started, I am pretty certain that Ivor Beeks has never been involved.

  • @AlanB said:

    @arnos_grove said:

    For me, the issue with WWFC has always been the shadowy presence of Beeks and his Chairboys Funders, who of course were not on the bill.

    Having been a member of Chairboys Funders since it started, I am pretty certain that Ivor Beeks has never been involved.

    Apologies. Used the wrong term. I meant the mystery training ground purchasers.

  • It was interesting to hear David Roberton explain how he, Alan Cecil, Tony Hector and John Derben created a Trust 'Plan B' Committee in November, to ensure they had a back up plan if the vote was No. They met on 22 November, the following evening at the Ex-Players Dinner, David asked Andy Harman if he would put together a firm proposal. So the Trust created the current situation of a second proposal, although clearly Andy Harman thought the situation became unsatisfactory enough to have to hold the meeting last Wednesday.

  • This is all too confusing. I can’t keep up. So do I still bring my pike along on Saturday for TS’s head or not?

  • Trevor suggested 21 Feb as the evening when Andy Harman would present his proposal to the Trust Board, date not agreed with AH yet. There would be some meetings with him before that. Incidentally, that is the date of the next Fans Council meeting, which might have to be postponed as it needs to have at least one Trust Director present.

    The timetable is vague but I think he said that the Americans' proposal would be circulated to members shortly after that meeting with AH. That presumably will only happen if they remain the preferred bid.

  • What I thought was interesting was that according to Trevor the loan if Bill and Teds (sorry Jim’s) bid failed and they walked away would be repaid by the β€œother” investment. There is no organic way we can repay them.

  • I was there tonight. Thought I should try and make sure to make my own mind up about recent goings on having heard a lot of back and forth including on here. For me, as somebody who was completely undecided, TS and the other board members that spoke gave totally reasonable explanations for everything that has gone on, including acknowledging that they haven't always been perfect. Obviously we await the next development, but for now they have my full support.

  • David Smith confirmed that a minority bid does not need to be approved by a vote of members, but that the Trust Board could call for a vote, for significant decisions like this.

    David Cook said there are 810 Legacy Members and 1200 Trust Members in total. It has not been decided whether legacy membership could be re-opened for voting purposes.

  • Total cop out. We need to know the American bid NOW!!!!

  • @A_Worboys said:
    Total cop out. We need to know the American bid NOW!!!!

    Why should Harman get to hear full details of the rival bid before he gives any?

  • @eric_plant said:

    @A_Worboys said:
    Total cop out. We need to know the American bid NOW!!!!

    Why should Harman get to hear full details of the rival bid before he gives any?

    Don’t worry I’m sure Marlowchsir has told him!

  • @A_Worboys Why do you need to know the Americans bid now? Surely to keep a level playing field it needs to be kept private until Andrew Harman makes his bid.
    Surely you don't want someone to have an unfair advantage of knowing the other party's bid do you?

  • I don't think that's the point: they said at the meeting that in an ideal world the two bid teams would work together. Letting one k ow the details of the other bid would be necessary for this to happen. The issue is that they are deciding on which bid to go for, and we are then voting on the one they decide. So telling us the details of one of the bids before the other one exists would open them up to unnecessary pressure.

  • Because we were supposed to be voting on the American deal. If it’s a great deal & it’s passed by 75% then fantastic, let’s go with it. Andrew Harman has come up with something that would be a plan B if the American bid didn’t carry enough votes. He has broadly outlined his plans - yet we STILL don’t know even the broad outline of the American bid. I think it’s shocking. I was completely open-minded about the American deal until it came out about Adams Park being used as security against the loan. That, for me, was a game-changer. The Trust Board know the American deal - I’d like to know it now too!

Sign In or Register to comment.