Although, I am shortchanging @NiceCarrots with that history, as a week or so prior he was the first to point out that the loan put the stadium at risk here
Signing the short term loan has put the stadium at risk and for management and directors to state otherwise at public meetings and on social media is at best misguided.
Probably fair to say he knew or suspected that Adams Park had been used as security on the loan at that point.
@mooneyman said: @glasshalffull - In part, I think the "conflict of interests" issue is somewhat of a red herring. However Mr Stroud and the Trust Board have led us down a path of spending too much money and then compounding the situation by putting the ownership of Adams Park at risk by placing a charge on it for a loan we cannot realistically pay off within the 12 month contractual term.
Clearly in my view Mr Stroud is out of his depth in his role as Chairman of both entities. The fact that he was democratically elected is totally irrelevant in determining whether one has belief in what he says and his actions. Boris Trumpton is going to be our country's democratically elected leader very soon, but are you going to believe every word he says!
@mooneyman, I wasn’t commenting on Mr Stroud’s competence-that is a matter for each individual to decide-but I did ask what evidence the poster had to accuse him of having a conflict of interest re the sale of the club and of being prepared to sell to ‘completely undesirable individuals’ without doing sound background checks. I have no reason to believe that either of those statements are accurate.
Handled badly? Pretty sure - but as others have pointed out, the people I spoke to who were involved - I had no idea they were until it came up in conversation- were obviously folk who are fans and volunteers and no fools and are obviously very keen to do the best for the club. The general attacks on the Board were a mite personal for my tastes. I am sure the buys were no more 'undesirable' than any other owner/investor might be.
Three remain outstanding. I suppose it is doubtful if "Kane" or "Chairboys Funders" would actually enforce though. The Trust need to concentrate upon the means to pay off the Americans asap, although my gut feeling is that they would extend the loan (in full or in part) rather than enforce the security, certainly in the short term. I wonder what the rate of interest on the loan is.
@drcongo said:
Although, I am shortchanging @NiceCarrots with that history, as a week or so prior he was the first to point out that the loan put the stadium at risk here
Signing the short term loan has put the stadium at risk and for management and directors to state otherwise at public meetings and on social media is at best misguided.
Probably fair to say he knew or suspected that Adams Park had been used as security on the loan at that point.
Thanks for the information. The charge information was public record at that time so rather than just post it the choice has been made to make it sound like insider knowledge.
It was pretty obvious at the time that both posters were privy to information that certainly I, and I dare say the vast majority of others on here did not know. To argue otherwise would make one sound a bit silly.
I guess some people struggle with the idea that some people just know more about some things than they do. Bit sad really
I do believe that our friends had some inside information. The way they spun that information was to my mind often laughable. In these days of populism and mistrust of those in authority, sadly all too effective though (the Brexit parallels have been mentioned before).
its easy, especially from afar, to overestimate the importance of the gasroom. With the frankly daft voting threshold, not sure that is the case here.
My view for what it is worth is that the two guys and other posters who appeared in the same vein (possibly duplicates?) were part of a campaign to force through the Harman bid (too much of a coincidence for me that they appeared when that kicked off and disappeared when it died). A combination of the voting system and the Harman noise forced a delay to the US bid and that delay in turn lead to the US offer falling over. As a result my view is that all of those gentleman have grossly imperilled the future league status and possible future survival of WWFC as a result.
I confess though that is merely my interpretation of the facts and other interpretations are just as valid. Perhaps the US bid would have fallen over anyway and Harman just wasted a couple of months, perhaps the US bid would have been bad for the club, perhaps the club can survive and flourish in the league as a fan-owned entity. None of us can know for sure.
And none of that really matters now. History cannot be changed. I do think though that the trust and all eligible supporters need to think now how on earth we can avoid similar scenes if another credible bidder can be found or even whether we should be seeking one. It certainly wouldn't be in the best interests of the club for a repeat of that fiasco.
Of course as Eric will no doubt point out, I live a long way away, I don't get to many games, and I don't contribute financially. he would argue that it is none of my business. Perhaps he is right.
I still don't see any actual evidence either poster had any more inside information than the average fan. I can't see any evidence to suggest otherwise.
To be called silly and sad by @eric_plant is an honour. My views are not going to change by name calling.
in short then, you think that the Americans, and the Trust board are lying about the reasons for the Americans pulling their bid?
good to know where you stand I suppose
Also a bit odd that you're attributing blame to the voting system when they were fully aware of it all along, even saying at the meeting that if they don't reach the threshold then they don't "deserve" to be successful with their bid (those were their words, not sure if you were at the meeting or not)
Not sure where you get the lying from Eric, but my view is that the US deal would likely have completed had the long Harman delay not taken place and the fact of the delay gave the opportunity for the deal to fall over (as my experience is they usually do when delays are introduced). As I said above though, other interpretations are every bit as valid. None of us can know for sure
Re the voting system, I can see the logic of a 75% of votes cast threshold or a 50.1% of all members threshold or indeed requiring both those hurdles to be crossed. 75% of all eligible voters being required to vote yes seems far too onerous. Just an opinion though.
I wonder if had the voting system been more realistic, would the delay have been required and hence would the deal have been lost and hence would the chances of WWFC league survival have been higher. Who knows? Who cares - its all history now. Except that if we don't learn the lessons, we risk being in the same position next time round.
You can tell it's the summer when we are arguing about things none of us have any real idea or knowledge about and getting righteously angry and aggrieved! Long petrol on the fire post from @DevC ! Gasroom at its finest!
Quite simple Dev, the Americans and the Trust board gave a reason for the bid being withdrawn and you have completely discounted those and given reasons of your own, which are completely different. So you're saying that they were lying.
“When we began the process our expectations were that our professional obligations would be slowing down and that we would have ample time for additional business pursuits. Unfortunately, that hasn’t turned out to be the case and we have both taken on significant additional business responsibilities. Upon reflection, we realized that we simply couldn’t dedicate the required focus that Wycombe Wanderers and the supporters deserve and have decided to withdraw from the process."
I've re-read it a few times and I can't find anything about the Harman bid or the voting system
Eric
When I read that I conclude what they are saying is that they would have completed at Christmas but by lateish Spring things had changed and they decided not to.
I wouldn't however give too much credence to PR statements. So as I said above, it is possible to judge that they wouldn't have completed at Christmas either.
The Trust cannot possibly know for sure what the real motivations for the US guys to pull out was. Only the US guys know that.
As I said, we are all speculating. None of us know. other interpretations are perfectly credible. its all in the past anyway.
"I wouldn't ...give too much credence to PR statements" is literally another way of saying they are lying.
"The Trust cannot possibly know for sure what the real motivations for the US guys to pull out was." - err......they can have a pretty good idea by listening to the words that the "US guys" are saying
"we are all speculating" - no, you are. I'm taking the word of the Americans at face value. I have no reason to believe they are lying.
"other interpretations are perfectly credible" - no they are not. You either believe them or you don't. If you don't you have literally nothing to base anything on.
Unpopular though it is to say so, I think Dev might be close to the truth in at least some of his speculation above. It is indisputable that the Andy Harman bid led to a delay. The Trust board clearly felt that his offer was worthy of serious consideration and that prolonged the process. Whether the Americans would have withdrawn even if there hadn’t been a delay, no one could possibly no.
I also have it on good authority that at least one of the gasroom posters condemning the Trust board and promoting Andy’s bid was a former employee of the club who apparently had an axe to grind over his/her departure.
"When I read that I conclude what they are saying is that they would have completed at Christmas but by lateish Spring things had changed and they decided not to"
So it was good that it got delayed else they'd have bought us at Christmas but then when their "things" (significant additional business responsibilities) changed in Spring they would have had to offload us/not give us the focus we need?
@eric_plant said:
The Trust cannot possibly know for sure what the real motivations for the US guys to pull out was." - err......they can have a pretty good idea by listening to the words that the "US guys" are saying
But the American's are probably lying Eric. Haven't you understood anything Dev has tried to explain to you?
The 75% threshold was very unlikely to be reached in any case, wasn’t it? So even if @marlowchair was a Harman plant (which is a stretch too far for me) it was kind of irrelevant to the likely outcome.
@Chris one of the things we shall never know...as it was not tested. I suspect they would not have reached 75% of Gasrooming votes, but as for the wider WW electorate I'm not so sure. As I may have mentioned before, the majority of people I spoke to seemed to be in favour...I think the idea of more funding outweighed all that silly stuff about total ownership, crisp shortages, loans on the ground and so on. A bit like Brexit, where experts were seen as patronising know-it- all doom-mongers who did not recognise that the Wizard of Boz would lead us back to the way it used to be in them golden days before foreigners, standards and health and safety...
Comments
Although, I am shortchanging @NiceCarrots with that history, as a week or so prior he was the first to point out that the loan put the stadium at risk here
Probably fair to say he knew or suspected that Adams Park had been used as security on the loan at that point.
@mooneyman, I wasn’t commenting on Mr Stroud’s competence-that is a matter for each individual to decide-but I did ask what evidence the poster had to accuse him of having a conflict of interest re the sale of the club and of being prepared to sell to ‘completely undesirable individuals’ without doing sound background checks. I have no reason to believe that either of those statements are accurate.
Handled badly? Pretty sure - but as others have pointed out, the people I spoke to who were involved - I had no idea they were until it came up in conversation- were obviously folk who are fans and volunteers and no fools and are obviously very keen to do the best for the club. The general attacks on the Board were a mite personal for my tastes. I am sure the buys were no more 'undesirable' than any other owner/investor might be.
Shouldn't this be on the shopping list thread!!
boys....buyers...take your pick @mooneyman. My fingers are fat...my keyboard is small.
Your fingers are probably a bit greasy as well tucking into a large bag of cheese and onion crisps whilst posting!!
Three remain outstanding. I suppose it is doubtful if "Kane" or "Chairboys Funders" would actually enforce though. The Trust need to concentrate upon the means to pay off the Americans asap, although my gut feeling is that they would extend the loan (in full or in part) rather than enforce the security, certainly in the short term. I wonder what the rate of interest on the loan is.
Thanks for the information. The charge information was public record at that time so rather than just post it the choice has been made to make it sound like insider knowledge.
It was pretty obvious at the time that both posters were privy to information that certainly I, and I dare say the vast majority of others on here did not know. To argue otherwise would make one sound a bit silly.
I guess some people struggle with the idea that some people just know more about some things than they do. Bit sad really
Where do you think Gaz went? @eric_plant
ha! I was always very clear that my thoughts that Gaz would go to QPR were based on nothing more than a hunch
I'm delighted to have been incorrect
My take for what it is worth is as follows
I do believe that our friends had some inside information. The way they spun that information was to my mind often laughable. In these days of populism and mistrust of those in authority, sadly all too effective though (the Brexit parallels have been mentioned before).
its easy, especially from afar, to overestimate the importance of the gasroom. With the frankly daft voting threshold, not sure that is the case here.
My view for what it is worth is that the two guys and other posters who appeared in the same vein (possibly duplicates?) were part of a campaign to force through the Harman bid (too much of a coincidence for me that they appeared when that kicked off and disappeared when it died). A combination of the voting system and the Harman noise forced a delay to the US bid and that delay in turn lead to the US offer falling over. As a result my view is that all of those gentleman have grossly imperilled the future league status and possible future survival of WWFC as a result.
I confess though that is merely my interpretation of the facts and other interpretations are just as valid. Perhaps the US bid would have fallen over anyway and Harman just wasted a couple of months, perhaps the US bid would have been bad for the club, perhaps the club can survive and flourish in the league as a fan-owned entity. None of us can know for sure.
And none of that really matters now. History cannot be changed. I do think though that the trust and all eligible supporters need to think now how on earth we can avoid similar scenes if another credible bidder can be found or even whether we should be seeking one. It certainly wouldn't be in the best interests of the club for a repeat of that fiasco.
Of course as Eric will no doubt point out, I live a long way away, I don't get to many games, and I don't contribute financially. he would argue that it is none of my business. Perhaps he is right.
I still don't see any actual evidence either poster had any more inside information than the average fan. I can't see any evidence to suggest otherwise.
To be called silly and sad by @eric_plant is an honour. My views are not going to change by name calling.
in short then, you think that the Americans, and the Trust board are lying about the reasons for the Americans pulling their bid?
good to know where you stand I suppose
Also a bit odd that you're attributing blame to the voting system when they were fully aware of it all along, even saying at the meeting that if they don't reach the threshold then they don't "deserve" to be successful with their bid (those were their words, not sure if you were at the meeting or not)
Not sure where you get the lying from Eric, but my view is that the US deal would likely have completed had the long Harman delay not taken place and the fact of the delay gave the opportunity for the deal to fall over (as my experience is they usually do when delays are introduced). As I said above though, other interpretations are every bit as valid. None of us can know for sure
Re the voting system, I can see the logic of a 75% of votes cast threshold or a 50.1% of all members threshold or indeed requiring both those hurdles to be crossed. 75% of all eligible voters being required to vote yes seems far too onerous. Just an opinion though.
I wonder if had the voting system been more realistic, would the delay have been required and hence would the deal have been lost and hence would the chances of WWFC league survival have been higher. Who knows? Who cares - its all history now. Except that if we don't learn the lessons, we risk being in the same position next time round.
You can tell it's the summer when we are arguing about things none of us have any real idea or knowledge about and getting righteously angry and aggrieved! Long petrol on the fire post from @DevC ! Gasroom at its finest!
Quite simple Dev, the Americans and the Trust board gave a reason for the bid being withdrawn and you have completely discounted those and given reasons of your own, which are completely different. So you're saying that they were lying.
Just in case you missed it Dev:
“When we began the process our expectations were that our professional obligations would be slowing down and that we would have ample time for additional business pursuits. Unfortunately, that hasn’t turned out to be the case and we have both taken on significant additional business responsibilities. Upon reflection, we realized that we simply couldn’t dedicate the required focus that Wycombe Wanderers and the supporters deserve and have decided to withdraw from the process."
I've re-read it a few times and I can't find anything about the Harman bid or the voting system
Provide evidence that they weren't lying Eric!
Eric
When I read that I conclude what they are saying is that they would have completed at Christmas but by lateish Spring things had changed and they decided not to.
I wouldn't however give too much credence to PR statements. So as I said above, it is possible to judge that they wouldn't have completed at Christmas either.
The Trust cannot possibly know for sure what the real motivations for the US guys to pull out was. Only the US guys know that.
As I said, we are all speculating. None of us know. other interpretations are perfectly credible. its all in the past anyway.
couple of points:
"I wouldn't ...give too much credence to PR statements" is literally another way of saying they are lying.
"The Trust cannot possibly know for sure what the real motivations for the US guys to pull out was." - err......they can have a pretty good idea by listening to the words that the "US guys" are saying
"we are all speculating" - no, you are. I'm taking the word of the Americans at face value. I have no reason to believe they are lying.
"other interpretations are perfectly credible" - no they are not. You either believe them or you don't. If you don't you have literally nothing to base anything on.
As you wish Eric.
I have given you my view while acknowledging what is to my view fact and what I acknowledge as speculation.
You of course are free to form your judgement on the facts available to you.
Others may of course agree with one or other or neither of us.
Onwards and upwards.
Unpopular though it is to say so, I think Dev might be close to the truth in at least some of his speculation above. It is indisputable that the Andy Harman bid led to a delay. The Trust board clearly felt that his offer was worthy of serious consideration and that prolonged the process. Whether the Americans would have withdrawn even if there hadn’t been a delay, no one could possibly no.
I also have it on good authority that at least one of the gasroom posters condemning the Trust board and promoting Andy’s bid was a former employee of the club who apparently had an axe to grind over his/her departure.
"When I read that I conclude what they are saying is that they would have completed at Christmas but by lateish Spring things had changed and they decided not to"
So it was good that it got delayed else they'd have bought us at Christmas but then when their "things" (significant additional business responsibilities) changed in Spring they would have had to offload us/not give us the focus we need?
But the American's are probably lying Eric. Haven't you understood anything Dev has tried to explain to you?
The 75% threshold was very unlikely to be reached in any case, wasn’t it? So even if @marlowchair was a Harman plant (which is a stretch too far for me) it was kind of irrelevant to the likely outcome.
@Chris one of the things we shall never know...as it was not tested. I suspect they would not have reached 75% of Gasrooming votes, but as for the wider WW electorate I'm not so sure. As I may have mentioned before, the majority of people I spoke to seemed to be in favour...I think the idea of more funding outweighed all that silly stuff about total ownership, crisp shortages, loans on the ground and so on. A bit like Brexit, where experts were seen as patronising know-it- all doom-mongers who did not recognise that the Wizard of Boz would lead us back to the way it used to be in them golden days before foreigners, standards and health and safety...
And it could be that they checked the Gasroom and after reading Dev realised that they could not possibly ever sell and develop the land...
I think they’d easily have got 75% of actual votes cast, but 75% of the total population of voters is a tough ask.
I am thoroughly enjoying this thread.