Great summary @Steve_Peart , and the bit about having left over food even with a near sell out crowd is interesting, especially with all the frequent criticism about not stocking enough food. Certainly an art form.
@Jonny_King , you should definitely get some recompense from the other team when it's very obviously down to their fans. I would just be reluctant about an absolute rule, in case you get what my Bristol Rovers work pal would call the "City effect" where their fans frequently turn up just to cause Rovers issues.
I would like Andy to confirm all of the above. Now that the bid process is over surely he can make a clear and open statement about how he was treated.. Gasroomers who know him should persuade him. Others explaining 'what happened' will always be open to interpretation .
Given we know at least 25% of trust board directors post on here and given the deafening silence from all of them in the last week since the allegation was made, why doesn't the Trust Board Secretary state unequivocally whether it is true or not?
Given the charge against the ground fiasco was handled by the same people, we need some reassurance given the Trust board need 75% of all Legacy members to buy into their preferred i.e. the American private equity owners option.
Why should people b expected to vote in favour of the preferred option until we know whether other bidders have been treated fairly or not?
Failure to do so will only undermine the Trust board's credibility further.
Was Harman's bid presented in a 100% accurate manner or not?
Have the early bird discount dates changed much from previous years, the idea that the club want the money asap so you get a discount if you pay will inevitably put those> @marlowchair said:
You’re right booker however my issue with cherry red was not their sponsorship , they are a great company and then joining in 2017 on the rear of the organge away shirt was great business.
We debated around this time a year ago because I stayed they were being moved to the front of the home shirt and that deal wasn’t great commercial business by the club.
Didn't the head of cherry red come on here and say you were wrong?
@NiceCarrots his press release said nothing for me...whatever you think it 'suggests'. It sounded like he had failed to supply information in time to me. Which is, obviously for you, not the case.
The best thing for us is that he should make a clear unequivocal unambiguous statement. Going by your suggestions along the lines of:
'The Board treated my bid and myself with complete contempt. I supplied all the relevant paperwork which was all in order and in good time but it was made clear the decision had already been made and my bid was not given the consideration it should have been. Fans have been misled and lied to.'
He can cut and paste that if he likes.
Then we all know what went on.
Alternatively the view on here seems to be the bid won;t get through, so the 'power group' lose anyway.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
I agree. I am not sure why 'outing' @marlowchair is so important to some.
Simply let him carry on and decide to trust him based on what he says.
It's important, because he clearly has very inside information, plus a definite "skew" on things.
If someone on the board is leaking stuff to him, that is worrying enough.
If he's on the board himself, it's even more worrying I'd say.
While at the same time being interesting to read obviously
@FmG said:
I did mine online easily enough - log in to the ticket website and then go to "INVOICES / RESERVATIONS" at the top under Orders. Should have your specific seat in there which you can click through on to buy.
This is a good feature to have back. Presumably the loathesome "admin fee" has been dropped like 2017?
Last year really rankled that you couldn't do it online and they still insist on charging extra even on a debit card.
@StrongestTeam said:
Have the early bird discount dates changed much from previous years, the idea that the club want the money asap so you get a discount if you pay will inevitably put those> @marlowchair said:
You’re right booker however my issue with cherry red was not their sponsorship , they are a great company and then joining in 2017 on the rear of the organge away shirt was great business.
We debated around this time a year ago because I stayed they were being moved to the front of the home shirt and that deal wasn’t great commercial business by the club.
Didn't the head of cherry red come on here and say you were wrong?
No he said he was happy with the way the deal went. My issue was with how the club faired in the deal . No issue with cherry red at all and the clubs outcome was entirely down to the clubs handing of it.
@StrongestTeam said:
Have the early bird discount dates changed much from previous years, the idea that the club want the money asap so you get a discount if you pay will inevitably put those> @marlowchair said:
You’re right booker however my issue with cherry red was not their sponsorship , they are a great company and then joining in 2017 on the rear of the organge away shirt was great business.
We debated around this time a year ago because I stayed they were being moved to the front of the home shirt and that deal wasn’t great commercial business by the club.
Didn't the head of cherry red come on here and say you were wrong?
No he said he was happy with the way the deal went. My issue was with how the club faired in the deal . No issue with cherry red at all and the clubs outcome was entirely down to the clubs handing of it.
I'm sure it is on record but I was fairly sure he didn't like the accusation he was getting it on the cheap, be it as mates rates or to cover up nobody else being interested and said he was happy they were stepping up their investment.
Some people seriously need to develop a sense of humour. I couldn't see any concerted effort to out @marlowchair by anyone, just some people playing a game of 'guess who' (given we know he is not a current member of the board).
My own interest is trying to understand the weight behind his comments as he definitely has had or has access to good information, that he is happy to share, that others don't. But he does also appear to have an agenda (which is fair enough, we probably all do to a lesser or greater degree) which could (not does) mean that he chooses to present information and disinformation in a way that serves that agenda. Yes he has been 'proven' to be correct in the past but equally he has also been 'proven' (to my satisfaction at least) to be incorrect.
Knowing who he actually is makes absolutely no difference at all to any of that (and in my particular case makes less as I have no idea who anyone on the board actually is - with the exception of @AlanCecil who happens to stand near the real ale bar sometimes on matchdays).
On the specific point of the allegation, whilst it would be nice if the Trust board did come on here and say 'yes, we screwed Harman over' or 'no, it was all his fault' my guess is that they would be far too embarrassed and/or tactful.
Of all the things that have been written on here, if the allegation that some members of the Trust board colluded in sabotaging and/or deliberately misrepresenting Harman's bid is indeed accurate, there is a serious case for the Trust board and chair to answer and I would fully support a vote of no confidence.
At the moment however, all we have to go on is a statement from Harman that is completely open to interpretation and a reading of that (with alleged inside info) from people on here who have consistently shown their opposition (and in some cases dislike) to members of the Trust board. This doesn't mean that their reading is wrong, but there is currently insufficient evidence to take an informed view.
We could ask someone from the Trust board to come on here and make a statement but to be honest would you really expect them to? If they did feel they did everything correct it would hardly be sensible to effectively call out AH as an idiot/amateur for not getting his act together sufficiently to present his bid correctly, if at some stage in the future they feel he may be a viable option for taking the club forwards. And if they didn't do things correctly they are hardly going to stick their hands up and say so are they?
Which leaves us with the one person who can do something about the ambiguity of the original statement. Andy Harman. If the allegations are correct (and I have sufficient doubt on all sides to think either version as potentially being the 'truth') it would only take a revised statement along the lines suggested by @Wendoverman (although a little bit more nuanced perhaps) for the members to start asking some serious questions.
It was from @marlowchair on the ‘update regarding investment’
“Harman’s statement isn’t very well worded in my opinion. Information that was part of his offer was not made available by the trust directors tasked with tabling it to the trust board before the vote , it wasn’t Harman or his team who failed to table it .
This has been admitted and is now known to be the case by the trust board however the “bird had flown” so to speak and the vote run and won .”
@Wendoverman - It's possible he could be anticipating/hoping that the American's don't get the necessary 75% vote so that he can arrive on his shining white charger to rescue the situation. Probably best not to burn all his bridges at this stage.
Thanks @bookertease. Makes sense now with @marlowchair following his normal MO of floating the accusation then representing it as fact to back up his 'inside knowledge'.
I'm not sure a whole library of information would have helped Harman. I never got the impression his interest ever really crystalised in to a bid as professional as the 'guys'.
Can't wait until this information void is filled with the actual bid. I can't see how it will get voted through but it will be good to see.
Can you tell us about this professional bid from the Americans please @Right_in_the_Middle as the rest of us haven't seen it. Glad we've got someone like you who has seen it on here.
@drcongo I think he possibly means they went about it in a more professional manner. @mooneyman but if the arch-stitcher uppers are still in place surely they would just lob things at his horse and not let him in.
Yet again there appears to be no evidence provided for this alleged misconduct.
The theory also requires every single on of the Trust board to be compliant. Now I have to say if I was on the trust board and on the KEY biggest issue I have ever been required to decide on in that role, I discovered that another Trust board member had deliberately denied me access to key information, I would first demand that the decision be reconsidered with the full information and if that was denied I would resign and publically say why. Yet not one of the twelve (?) has done so. Which suggests to me, I have to say, that this theory is extremely unlikely to be based on truth.
I do notice too that Alan Cecil reported on this forum (but not this thread) that Mr Harman was providing information on the afternoon of the meeting and that all this information was considered.
I of course don't have a vote so happy to now pass consideration of this back to those that do!
so this is a double bluff from one of the power group? : 'Can't wait until this information void is filled with the actual bid. I can't see how it will get voted through but it will be good to see.' @Right_in_the_Middle you should be ashamed of yourself.
@DevC said:
I do notice too that Alan Cecil reported on this forum (but not this thread) that Mr Harman was providing information on the afternoon of the meeting and that all this information was considered.
If I remember correctly, Mr Cecil was unable to actually attend this meeting due to other commitments.
Comments
I agree. I am not sure why 'outing' @marlowchair is so important to some.
Simply let him carry on and decide to trust him based on what he says.
Great summary @Steve_Peart , and the bit about having left over food even with a near sell out crowd is interesting, especially with all the frequent criticism about not stocking enough food. Certainly an art form.
@Jonny_King , you should definitely get some recompense from the other team when it's very obviously down to their fans. I would just be reluctant about an absolute rule, in case you get what my Bristol Rovers work pal would call the "City effect" where their fans frequently turn up just to cause Rovers issues.
I would like Andy to confirm all of the above. Now that the bid process is over surely he can make a clear and open statement about how he was treated.. Gasroomers who know him should persuade him. Others explaining 'what happened' will always be open to interpretation .
Given we know at least 25% of trust board directors post on here and given the deafening silence from all of them in the last week since the allegation was made, why doesn't the Trust Board Secretary state unequivocally whether it is true or not?
Given the charge against the ground fiasco was handled by the same people, we need some reassurance given the Trust board need 75% of all Legacy members to buy into their preferred i.e. the American private equity owners option.
Why should people b expected to vote in favour of the preferred option until we know whether other bidders have been treated fairly or not?
Failure to do so will only undermine the Trust board's credibility further.
Was Harman's bid presented in a 100% accurate manner or not?
His press release suggests otherwise.
Have the early bird discount dates changed much from previous years, the idea that the club want the money asap so you get a discount if you pay will inevitably put those> @marlowchair said:
Didn't the head of cherry red come on here and say you were wrong?
@NiceCarrots his press release said nothing for me...whatever you think it 'suggests'. It sounded like he had failed to supply information in time to me. Which is, obviously for you, not the case.
The best thing for us is that he should make a clear unequivocal unambiguous statement. Going by your suggestions along the lines of:
'The Board treated my bid and myself with complete contempt. I supplied all the relevant paperwork which was all in order and in good time but it was made clear the decision had already been made and my bid was not given the consideration it should have been. Fans have been misled and lied to.'
He can cut and paste that if he likes.
Then we all know what went on.
Alternatively the view on here seems to be the bid won;t get through, so the 'power group' lose anyway.
(For the record I only have one account and I'm not a director...)
It's important, because he clearly has very inside information, plus a definite "skew" on things.
If someone on the board is leaking stuff to him, that is worrying enough.
If he's on the board himself, it's even more worrying I'd say.
While at the same time being interesting to read obviously
This is a good feature to have back. Presumably the loathesome "admin fee" has been dropped like 2017?
Last year really rankled that you couldn't do it online and they still insist on charging extra even on a debit card.
No he said he was happy with the way the deal went. My issue was with how the club faired in the deal . No issue with cherry red at all and the clubs outcome was entirely down to the clubs handing of it.
Do you work in the ice cream factory though?
I'm sure it is on record but I was fairly sure he didn't like the accusation he was getting it on the cheap, be it as mates rates or to cover up nobody else being interested and said he was happy they were stepping up their investment.
Some people seriously need to develop a sense of humour. I couldn't see any concerted effort to out @marlowchair by anyone, just some people playing a game of 'guess who' (given we know he is not a current member of the board).
My own interest is trying to understand the weight behind his comments as he definitely has had or has access to good information, that he is happy to share, that others don't. But he does also appear to have an agenda (which is fair enough, we probably all do to a lesser or greater degree) which could (not does) mean that he chooses to present information and disinformation in a way that serves that agenda. Yes he has been 'proven' to be correct in the past but equally he has also been 'proven' (to my satisfaction at least) to be incorrect.
Knowing who he actually is makes absolutely no difference at all to any of that (and in my particular case makes less as I have no idea who anyone on the board actually is - with the exception of @AlanCecil who happens to stand near the real ale bar sometimes on matchdays).
On the specific point of the allegation, whilst it would be nice if the Trust board did come on here and say 'yes, we screwed Harman over' or 'no, it was all his fault' my guess is that they would be far too embarrassed and/or tactful.
Of all the things that have been written on here, if the allegation that some members of the Trust board colluded in sabotaging and/or deliberately misrepresenting Harman's bid is indeed accurate, there is a serious case for the Trust board and chair to answer and I would fully support a vote of no confidence.
At the moment however, all we have to go on is a statement from Harman that is completely open to interpretation and a reading of that (with alleged inside info) from people on here who have consistently shown their opposition (and in some cases dislike) to members of the Trust board. This doesn't mean that their reading is wrong, but there is currently insufficient evidence to take an informed view.
We could ask someone from the Trust board to come on here and make a statement but to be honest would you really expect them to? If they did feel they did everything correct it would hardly be sensible to effectively call out AH as an idiot/amateur for not getting his act together sufficiently to present his bid correctly, if at some stage in the future they feel he may be a viable option for taking the club forwards. And if they didn't do things correctly they are hardly going to stick their hands up and say so are they?
Which leaves us with the one person who can do something about the ambiguity of the original statement. Andy Harman. If the allegations are correct (and I have sufficient doubt on all sides to think either version as potentially being the 'truth') it would only take a revised statement along the lines suggested by @Wendoverman (although a little bit more nuanced perhaps) for the members to start asking some serious questions.
@bookertease you saying I'm lacking nuance?
My original version was: I bin stiched up like a kipper by those shadowy power group bastards...
Sorry @Wendoverman I will of course retract my libellous comment (if I could be bothered)
hahaha.
I misread it as "pussyfella", which is probably an apt description of his weak style of posting.
What is 'the allegation'??
@Right_in_the_Middle
It was from @marlowchair on the ‘update regarding investment’
“Harman’s statement isn’t very well worded in my opinion. Information that was part of his offer was not made available by the trust directors tasked with tabling it to the trust board before the vote , it wasn’t Harman or his team who failed to table it .
This has been admitted and is now known to be the case by the trust board however the “bird had flown” so to speak and the vote run and won .”
Maybe the club will get a bill from the Harman team for legal costs, as there appears to be grounds for misrepresentation?
Perhaps I am naive, but if I was stitched up as is suggested...I would say so.
@Wendoverman - It's possible he could be anticipating/hoping that the American's don't get the necessary 75% vote so that he can arrive on his shining white charger to rescue the situation. Probably best not to burn all his bridges at this stage.
Thanks @bookertease. Makes sense now with @marlowchair following his normal MO of floating the accusation then representing it as fact to back up his 'inside knowledge'.
I'm not sure a whole library of information would have helped Harman. I never got the impression his interest ever really crystalised in to a bid as professional as the 'guys'.
Can't wait until this information void is filled with the actual bid. I can't see how it will get voted through but it will be good to see.
Can you tell us about this professional bid from the Americans please @Right_in_the_Middle as the rest of us haven't seen it. Glad we've got someone like you who has seen it on here.
@drcongo I think he possibly means they went about it in a more professional manner.
@mooneyman but if the arch-stitcher uppers are still in place surely they would just lob things at his horse and not let him in.
Just one quick comment if I may.
Yet again there appears to be no evidence provided for this alleged misconduct.
The theory also requires every single on of the Trust board to be compliant. Now I have to say if I was on the trust board and on the KEY biggest issue I have ever been required to decide on in that role, I discovered that another Trust board member had deliberately denied me access to key information, I would first demand that the decision be reconsidered with the full information and if that was denied I would resign and publically say why. Yet not one of the twelve (?) has done so. Which suggests to me, I have to say, that this theory is extremely unlikely to be based on truth.
I do notice too that Alan Cecil reported on this forum (but not this thread) that Mr Harman was providing information on the afternoon of the meeting and that all this information was considered.
I of course don't have a vote so happy to now pass consideration of this back to those that do!
No, he's definitely saying it was a professional bid. He must have seen it.
so this is a double bluff from one of the power group? : 'Can't wait until this information void is filled with the actual bid. I can't see how it will get voted through but it will be good to see.' @Right_in_the_Middle you should be ashamed of yourself.
I've just had an 'agree with @DevC ' moment. I'm going to lie down...
I have the same experience from time to time @Wendoverman. I console myself with the thought that it must mean I am a saintly, well-balanced person.
Then I think of Richie and spend the next 20 minutes flaying myself
If I remember correctly, Mr Cecil was unable to actually attend this meeting due to other commitments.