OK Dev, for the last time as I know it's difficult for you...
1) I never made a "statement that Harman didn’t get a fair hearing" - do point it out if you think I did. I honestly don't know whether he did or not.
2) I haven't abused you, I've just pointed out that there is no evidence either for or against but I understand you're a sensitive flower and may have taken that as abuse.
3) I have explained "why I believe as I do", which is that there is no evidence for either side, and therefore I don't know.
Now, let's break down your "evidence" shall we?
1) The process was delayed (and then delayed again) to give Mr Harman time to present his very belated formal bid professionally
That is not evidence. The process was indeed delayed to give Mr Harman time to present his bid. You seem to have extrapolated that to mean that his bid was handled properly after it was handed over. It doesn't mean that, and it also doesn't mean the opposite. Like I say, no evidence for either.
2) If Mr Cecil is to be believed, Mr Harman was still tweaking his bid (and providing back up information) up to the very last minute of the decision day, yet these very late (and therefore frankly rather unprofessional submissions) were included in the discussion.
This is my favourite "evidence". It even starts with "If Mr Cecil is to be believed" - so hearsay not evidence. Not only that, but hearsay from someone who admitted they were many miles away at the time. So, third hand hearsay. Not a court in the land would admit it.
3) All of our elected representatives (all eleven of them) must surely have understood that this decision was an extremely important decision for them to make yet not one of them has suggested before or since in word or action that they were unhappy that the process they were ultimately asked to determine was not a fair one.
You didn't even try with this one. "must surely have understood" - Objection your honour! Supposition! You then follow up this staggeringly poor attempt at evidence, by citing a lack of evidence "not one of them has suggested before or since in word or action" as evidence. Lack of evidence, I'm sure you actually know, does not provide evidence to the contrary.
So, for the last time. I'm not stating that his bid was handled unfairly because I wasn't there and there is no evidence that it was. There is also no evidence that it was not handled unfairly. So, I'm not making any claims - unlike you I prefer actual evidence before making a claim.
evidence
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Every relevant piece of information is evidence. This isn’t a legal matter, the legal concepts of what is admissible or whatever is irrelevant if all you’re having is a discussion. Most of the time incontrovertible evidence for anything doesn’t exist (and if you want to be all Cartesian about it, I have no evidence that anything except myself exists) - we still have to make up our minds about things on the basis of what information we do have.
I took your statement
** I'd have walked as soon as it became clear that there was no way to get a fair hearing. **
to mean that you believe Mr Harman did not get a fair hearing. Apparently not though.
As I now understand it you actually believe that there is absolutely no known reason to believe that he didn't.
to be fair you also believe there is no known reason to believe that he did. I see the fact that not one of the eleven people judging this important process have given any indication that they have concerns about the process as pretty compelling. You don't. For others to judge I suppose.
Given that as you say (assuming i have understood you correctly) there is no reason to believe that Mr Harman was not treated fairly, he has not claimed that he was not and he is no longer a live option anyway, perhaps time to focus now on the merits or otherwise of the bid on the table compared to the realistic alternative of remaining as we are. As i understand it these are the only two options remaining.
Our board stood in front of us at The Hub last time around and coyly admitted they might have got it all a bit wrong and made a bit of a cock up around the whole “ placing a charge against Adams
Park to the Americans in contradiction to our rules and constitution” kerfuffle. But not to worry they will ensure the ambiguity is fixed an it will never happen again .....( see horse having bolted galloping off into the distance )
Now he good ‘ol lads whilst supping their rebellion ale have followed up with a little hic up having under presented he bid by the guy who had previously made his feelings clear that he hasn’t felt he has been given a fair hearing .....
Blackadder would be most entertained.
It’s either deliberate which is appalling . Or it’s inadvertent which is bang out of order in its amateurism given the High stakes and importance.
Our chairman writes notes continually stating the gravity of his issue and pleading with members to not allow apathy to decide he clubs future ..... whilst we are being asked to accept an apathetic or incompetent process around getting even the basic details correct prior to them voting on their preferred bid, and worse , such apathy that not even every elected director was present and voted on the decision?
I’ll say that again , our chairman tells us yet again tonight in writing that we must make the effort to vote because apathy should not determine the future of the club ...... yet he could not even arrange or dictate to his own board , which we elected to represent the clubs best interests , to be present as accounted for and to vote on the preferred bid.
@MarlowChair. Once again where is the evidence that the bid was under presented. The statement from Mr Harman said that valuable information was missing.
If he feels that this was down to the Trust Board, he should say so. Until I hear that i cannot base my decision on hearsay
Will we be getting a writing statement regarding the proposal that we have to vote on, or we expected to accept the statements mentioned at the meeting on the 10th April. I hope that the full proposal is available in writing. We have already suffered the fate of hearing that FALL took on the charge of a loan used by the football club without the Board members being aware until after the event. One aspect of the deal must ensure that this loan and all other loans outstanding by the Trust and FALL are cleared by the sale of the shares. The legacy of Frank Adams must not be lost by the Trust.
I would like to see the American bid in writing prior to the meeting on April 10th so that pertinent questions can be put to Messrs Collis & Luby. It will not be acceptable just to have this meeting as some sort of PR coronation of the new owners of WWFC.
@A_Worboys I totally agree. Legacy members were promised details of the bid in advance of the presentation that was postponed, and it's equally important that we receive them this time.
My thanks to @Lloyd2084 for his succinct example of confirmation bias and to @drcongo for pointing me towards a document listing a range of factors which condition our reasoning and therefore our beliefs. I confess that I lost the will to continue trying to make sense of it all when I got to the bit about rats, pigeons and monkeys using hyperbolic discounting as part of their decision making.
Thanks also @drcongo for the recommendation of Messrs Kahneman and Tversky as bedtime reading. I am currently reading Treasure Island. I’m afraid that is about as challenging a read as I can manage at my admittedly very late bedtime.
PS Someone once said that the strength of our belief in something should be commensurate with the reliability of the source - so food for thought there I suppose in the context of the interminable speculation on this thread.
Following extensive talks between Harman and Stroud regarding Mr. Harman's deal, why did Stroud just sit there and allow Harman's figures to be misrepresented, or undervalued, at the meeting on the Monday when the Trust board voted?
Why did he not point this out during the meeting?
Did Stroud hope nobody would notice?
Why did it take a Trust board director to point this out to Mr Harman after the meeting?
Would Stroud have interjected if the American figures were undervalued?
What has to happen before anybody resigns over this?
@NiceCarrots said:
Following extensive talks between Harman and Stroud regarding Mr. Harman's deal, why did Stroud just sit there and allow Harman's figures to be misrepresented, or undervalued, at the meeting on the Monday when the Trust board voted?
Why did he not point this out during the meeting?
Did Stroud hope nobody would notice?
Why did it take a Trust board director to point this out to Mr Harman after the meeting?
Would Stroud have interjected if the American figures were undervalued?
What has to happen before anybody resigns over this?
Well it would probably have to start with one of the supposedly wronged parties confirming your little rumours.
@NiceCarrots Once again this is all conjecture. If Mr Harman does have real concerns on the way the decision to pursue the American bud has been taken then surely he should air them.
Until then it is all hearsay.......or to reflect other negotiations our version of Project Fear
As Mr Harman has himself confirmed, Mr Harman's bid is dead, it has passed on, it has shuffled off this mortal coil, it is not resting, Mr Harman's recent silence is not because he is tired after a particularly long squark or because he is pining for Ilford. His bid has ceased to be, it is an ex-bid, it is no more.
Meanwhile those with a vote will shortly face an agonising decision about whether or not to accept a real live bid. Would it not be better to discuss the merits or otherwise of that?
But that’s not strictly true Dev, he has stated that he is still interested in investing in the way he outlined to those of us in attendance at the Linton Travel Tavern.
All this discussion about Andrew Harman's bid is a distraction: it is now a non-bid. Whether or not it was the better option, it shall not darken the Adams Park gates again, at least for the foreseeable future.
In making that decision over a week ago, the board chose the American offer instead. That offer must now be complete - any revisions would surely render last week's vote null and void. So why has that American offer not yet been published so we the fans can begin our legitimate scrutiny? The longer the delay in publishing, the more one can only assume they've got something in there they're trying to hide. So come on, Trevor Stroud, announce the publication of the offer and let the public scrutiny begin. Withholding it is simply a dereliction of duty.
I'd imagine literature will be provided directly by the bidders so the "message can be managed".
Can't see Stroud and the board having any sway now although it might be suggested they give people an advanced look to help along the process. Eggs firmly in one basket now.
The trouble they have (in my opinion at least) is that the entire American bid seems to have stemmed from (by their own admission) a chance meeting with a go-between in an executive box at White Hart Lane.
Why not make it publicly known that the club was welcoming bids, get a sales team together and get out there and get the best deal we can get? Just seems a bit passive to me.
I asked two questions at that meeting, one about wether members, commercial partners and the market had been consulted. Got a half answer: Surely everyone is aware, we keep people updated etc, not ideal. Also was answered about the loan rather than the sale as a whole. Surely you'd advertise widely to get more interest unless you have already decided.
The second question was whether supporters direct had been consulted, i got an outline yes but if Marlow is correct that they themselves had been in touch to say they weren't happy with the process then the answer given seems vague at best.
In my experience (in broadly similar but not football businesses), almost certainly not.
You could appoint say a KPMG to do a trawling exercise but that would be unlikely.
In practise there are a very small number of lower division FL clubs and an even smaller number of lower division FL clubs within say 90 mins of an international airport or with average crowds over 8000 or whatever your criteria are.
Doesn't sound very scientific but if you are interested in buying one, way it tends to be done is you appoint an agent and he rings them up and asks if they are fior sale. If so they meet up for a chat.
In our case its been public knowledge that we have been reported in the press for well over six months. Anyone interested in buying a lower league club but not specifically targeting say his home town club would be aware.
I am afraid the idea that there is likely to be someone willing to make a better offer now if only he knew we were for sale is almost certainly one of those urban myths.
We don't know the full motivations, mooney, of why Luby are interested and whether that is solely to make a profit. Given how hard it is to make a profit out of lower league football clubs, that feels a little unlikely.
Their only chance of making a profit would be to make the club stronger than it currently is - that surely would be a good thing.
But it keeps coming down to the same thing. Private ownership is no guarantee of success - two privately owned clubs will drop out of the league this season. With private owners you also cant guarantee what sort of owners they will be and future owners will be. All that is undeniable.
If your aspiration is championship football - private owners are probably essential - but few of us realistically think that is possible anyway
If your aspiration is long term lg1 football - private owners are probably essential - but is league 1 really that much more important in the long term than lg2.
If you believe that the club is able to sustain league 2 football as a fan owned entity - then for me it is a little hard to see why you would entertain selling.
If fan ownership is so important to you that you are prepared to see a fall down the leagues if necessary to sustain it - then for me it is a little hard to see why you would entertain selling.
IF however you struggled to see how the club could sustain league football in fan ownership - and that is what I believe the Trust board and the financial accounts will tell you - and you believed that was a key priority then for me you would need a very good reason not to seriously entertain the Luby bid unless there was something in the detail to be seen later to dissuade you.
Comments
If it is true that the Harman bid was undervalued by £500,000 I think you could say he did not get a fair hearing.
OK Dev, for the last time as I know it's difficult for you...
1) I never made a "statement that Harman didn’t get a fair hearing" - do point it out if you think I did. I honestly don't know whether he did or not.
2) I haven't abused you, I've just pointed out that there is no evidence either for or against but I understand you're a sensitive flower and may have taken that as abuse.
3) I have explained "why I believe as I do", which is that there is no evidence for either side, and therefore I don't know.
Now, let's break down your "evidence" shall we?
That is not evidence. The process was indeed delayed to give Mr Harman time to present his bid. You seem to have extrapolated that to mean that his bid was handled properly after it was handed over. It doesn't mean that, and it also doesn't mean the opposite. Like I say, no evidence for either.
This is my favourite "evidence". It even starts with "If Mr Cecil is to be believed" - so hearsay not evidence. Not only that, but hearsay from someone who admitted they were many miles away at the time. So, third hand hearsay. Not a court in the land would admit it.
You didn't even try with this one. "must surely have understood" - Objection your honour! Supposition! You then follow up this staggeringly poor attempt at evidence, by citing a lack of evidence "not one of them has suggested before or since in word or action" as evidence. Lack of evidence, I'm sure you actually know, does not provide evidence to the contrary.
So, for the last time. I'm not stating that his bid was handled unfairly because I wasn't there and there is no evidence that it was. There is also no evidence that it was not handled unfairly. So, I'm not making any claims - unlike you I prefer actual evidence before making a claim.
Every relevant piece of information is evidence. This isn’t a legal matter, the legal concepts of what is admissible or whatever is irrelevant if all you’re having is a discussion. Most of the time incontrovertible evidence for anything doesn’t exist (and if you want to be all Cartesian about it, I have no evidence that anything except myself exists) - we still have to make up our minds about things on the basis of what information we do have.
Fair enough Dr Congo.
I took your statement
** I'd have walked as soon as it became clear that there was no way to get a fair hearing. **
to mean that you believe Mr Harman did not get a fair hearing. Apparently not though.
As I now understand it you actually believe that there is absolutely no known reason to believe that he didn't.
to be fair you also believe there is no known reason to believe that he did. I see the fact that not one of the eleven people judging this important process have given any indication that they have concerns about the process as pretty compelling. You don't. For others to judge I suppose.
Given that as you say (assuming i have understood you correctly) there is no reason to believe that Mr Harman was not treated fairly, he has not claimed that he was not and he is no longer a live option anyway, perhaps time to focus now on the merits or otherwise of the bid on the table compared to the realistic alternative of remaining as we are. As i understand it these are the only two options remaining.
Our board stood in front of us at The Hub last time around and coyly admitted they might have got it all a bit wrong and made a bit of a cock up around the whole “ placing a charge against Adams
Park to the Americans in contradiction to our rules and constitution” kerfuffle. But not to worry they will ensure the ambiguity is fixed an it will never happen again .....( see horse having bolted galloping off into the distance )
Now he good ‘ol lads whilst supping their rebellion ale have followed up with a little hic up having under presented he bid by the guy who had previously made his feelings clear that he hasn’t felt he has been given a fair hearing .....
Blackadder would be most entertained.
It’s either deliberate which is appalling . Or it’s inadvertent which is bang out of order in its amateurism given the High stakes and importance.
Our chairman writes notes continually stating the gravity of his issue and pleading with members to not allow apathy to decide he clubs future ..... whilst we are being asked to accept an apathetic or incompetent process around getting even the basic details correct prior to them voting on their preferred bid, and worse , such apathy that not even every elected director was present and voted on the decision?
I’ll say that again , our chairman tells us yet again tonight in writing that we must make the effort to vote because apathy should not determine the future of the club ...... yet he could not even arrange or dictate to his own board , which we elected to represent the clubs best interests , to be present as accounted for and to vote on the preferred bid.
@MarlowChair. Once again where is the evidence that the bid was under presented. The statement from Mr Harman said that valuable information was missing.
If he feels that this was down to the Trust Board, he should say so. Until I hear that i cannot base my decision on hearsay
Will we be getting a writing statement regarding the proposal that we have to vote on, or we expected to accept the statements mentioned at the meeting on the 10th April. I hope that the full proposal is available in writing. We have already suffered the fate of hearing that FALL took on the charge of a loan used by the football club without the Board members being aware until after the event. One aspect of the deal must ensure that this loan and all other loans outstanding by the Trust and FALL are cleared by the sale of the shares. The legacy of Frank Adams must not be lost by the Trust.
I would like to see the American bid in writing prior to the meeting on April 10th so that pertinent questions can be put to Messrs Collis & Luby. It will not be acceptable just to have this meeting as some sort of PR coronation of the new owners of WWFC.
@A_Worboys I totally agree. Legacy members were promised details of the bid in advance of the presentation that was postponed, and it's equally important that we receive them this time.
My thanks to @Lloyd2084 for his succinct example of confirmation bias and to @drcongo for pointing me towards a document listing a range of factors which condition our reasoning and therefore our beliefs. I confess that I lost the will to continue trying to make sense of it all when I got to the bit about rats, pigeons and monkeys using hyperbolic discounting as part of their decision making.
Thanks also @drcongo for the recommendation of Messrs Kahneman and Tversky as bedtime reading. I am currently reading Treasure Island. I’m afraid that is about as challenging a read as I can manage at my admittedly very late bedtime.
PS Someone once said that the strength of our belief in something should be commensurate with the reliability of the source - so food for thought there I suppose in the context of the interminable speculation on this thread.
Following extensive talks between Harman and Stroud regarding Mr. Harman's deal, why did Stroud just sit there and allow Harman's figures to be misrepresented, or undervalued, at the meeting on the Monday when the Trust board voted?
Why did he not point this out during the meeting?
Did Stroud hope nobody would notice?
Why did it take a Trust board director to point this out to Mr Harman after the meeting?
Would Stroud have interjected if the American figures were undervalued?
What has to happen before anybody resigns over this?
Well it would probably have to start with one of the supposedly wronged parties confirming your little rumours.
Maybe you could ask the question at the meeting @NiceCarrots rather than moan about the tough questions not being asked like last time.
@NiceCarrots Once again this is all conjecture. If Mr Harman does have real concerns on the way the decision to pursue the American bud has been taken then surely he should air them.
Until then it is all hearsay.......or to reflect other negotiations our version of Project Fear
Should have read "American bid"
Don't forget people he signed a NDA, not so easy to say anything
I thought Ndas were for financial details and sensitive information rather than to stop you saying 'Oi! I was stitched up...'
@HG1 - he can certainly clear up the ambiguity of his statement without breaking an NDA.
Guys - seriously is it not time to drop this now?
As Mr Harman has himself confirmed, Mr Harman's bid is dead, it has passed on, it has shuffled off this mortal coil, it is not resting, Mr Harman's recent silence is not because he is tired after a particularly long squark or because he is pining for Ilford. His bid has ceased to be, it is an ex-bid, it is no more.
Meanwhile those with a vote will shortly face an agonising decision about whether or not to accept a real live bid. Would it not be better to discuss the merits or otherwise of that?
But that’s not strictly true Dev, he has stated that he is still interested in investing in the way he outlined to those of us in attendance at the Linton Travel Tavern.
Its a shame pot and kettle emojis don't work well on this site.
All this discussion about Andrew Harman's bid is a distraction: it is now a non-bid. Whether or not it was the better option, it shall not darken the Adams Park gates again, at least for the foreseeable future.
In making that decision over a week ago, the board chose the American offer instead. That offer must now be complete - any revisions would surely render last week's vote null and void. So why has that American offer not yet been published so we the fans can begin our legitimate scrutiny? The longer the delay in publishing, the more one can only assume they've got something in there they're trying to hide. So come on, Trevor Stroud, announce the publication of the offer and let the public scrutiny begin. Withholding it is simply a dereliction of duty.
I'd imagine literature will be provided directly by the bidders so the "message can be managed".
Can't see Stroud and the board having any sway now although it might be suggested they give people an advanced look to help along the process. Eggs firmly in one basket now.
The trouble they have (in my opinion at least) is that the entire American bid seems to have stemmed from (by their own admission) a chance meeting with a go-between in an executive box at White Hart Lane.
Why not make it publicly known that the club was welcoming bids, get a sales team together and get out there and get the best deal we can get? Just seems a bit passive to me.
@eric_plant I thought I heard at the last Union Baptist meeting that the Trust had been looking to sell the club for 2 years?
I'm no expert on such things by any means, but wouldn't a company usually appoint a sales team and produce a prospectus?
Maybe they've done this and I'm bang out of order
I asked two questions at that meeting, one about wether members, commercial partners and the market had been consulted. Got a half answer: Surely everyone is aware, we keep people updated etc, not ideal. Also was answered about the loan rather than the sale as a whole. Surely you'd advertise widely to get more interest unless you have already decided.
The second question was whether supporters direct had been consulted, i got an outline yes but if Marlow is correct that they themselves had been in touch to say they weren't happy with the process then the answer given seems vague at best.
In my experience (in broadly similar but not football businesses), almost certainly not.
You could appoint say a KPMG to do a trawling exercise but that would be unlikely.
In practise there are a very small number of lower division FL clubs and an even smaller number of lower division FL clubs within say 90 mins of an international airport or with average crowds over 8000 or whatever your criteria are.
Doesn't sound very scientific but if you are interested in buying one, way it tends to be done is you appoint an agent and he rings them up and asks if they are fior sale. If so they meet up for a chat.
In our case its been public knowledge that we have been reported in the press for well over six months. Anyone interested in buying a lower league club but not specifically targeting say his home town club would be aware.
I am afraid the idea that there is likely to be someone willing to make a better offer now if only he knew we were for sale is almost certainly one of those urban myths.
Mr Luby and his mate must think someone will take the club off them at a profit , once we have been "stabilised" though Dev!
Perhaps someone like Mr Morris who they sold Derby to and whose irresponsible spending is rapidly sending them into oblivion.
We don't know the full motivations, mooney, of why Luby are interested and whether that is solely to make a profit. Given how hard it is to make a profit out of lower league football clubs, that feels a little unlikely.
Their only chance of making a profit would be to make the club stronger than it currently is - that surely would be a good thing.
But it keeps coming down to the same thing. Private ownership is no guarantee of success - two privately owned clubs will drop out of the league this season. With private owners you also cant guarantee what sort of owners they will be and future owners will be. All that is undeniable.
If your aspiration is championship football - private owners are probably essential - but few of us realistically think that is possible anyway
If your aspiration is long term lg1 football - private owners are probably essential - but is league 1 really that much more important in the long term than lg2.
If you believe that the club is able to sustain league 2 football as a fan owned entity - then for me it is a little hard to see why you would entertain selling.
If fan ownership is so important to you that you are prepared to see a fall down the leagues if necessary to sustain it - then for me it is a little hard to see why you would entertain selling.
IF however you struggled to see how the club could sustain league football in fan ownership - and that is what I believe the Trust board and the financial accounts will tell you - and you believed that was a key priority then for me you would need a very good reason not to seriously entertain the Luby bid unless there was something in the detail to be seen later to dissuade you.