Best episode yet @bluntphil. I've been scanning from yesterday arvo but I see why you took your time, inspired stuff.
Couple of thoughts: 1.Dobbo really is a legend, isn't he? Even when asked about his own name in the chant he brings in others to share in the glory. 2.Andrew Howard comes across as a genuine, concerned businessman (found by the Trust board I might add) who wants the best for WWFC, put up an unsecured loan (in terms of maximum shares) and is willing to let that money stay with the Trust as long as it takes to get someone in who can advance the club sustainably, long term, at as high a level as that suits.
It occurs to me that Eric could be the type of person AH was so annoyed by during his time at the helm, I know I'd like to plant one on him every so often.
Final word for Garath Ainsworth, longest serving manager in the football league. What he has helped create at this club is remarkable, nothing short of fantastisk. They say fortune favours the brave and he has been fortunate, most recently with the late summer additions to the squad (due to the Trust securing loans against the newly ratified agreement of sale). Goes to reason that he is a brave man then, as his positivity pre Torquay attests to, the result of which quite possibly drawing the line between genius and madman.
Some of the best of that was hearing Gaz so upbeat and forward looking, Dobbo impressive as ever and I agree with almost everyone that Andrew Howard came across very well. Great work as always.
I can't say that I warmed to Mr Howard during his tenure but I felt he came across very well during the podcast. It certainly changed my perception of the man. And as for the podcast I thought it was the best yet. @bluntphil will surely be 'playing' at a higher level.
@glasshalffull said:
Genuinely like to know why anyone would consider Mr.Howard to have come across badly in his interview with Phil.
Might be my own preconceptions, or just the juxtaposition of appearing alongside the wonderful Dobbo, but Andrew Howard didn’t come over as either likeable or honest to me. With Dobbo there was an emotional intelligence about every thing he said, Howard sounded to me like he wanted to write his own Wikipedia entry and control the narrative of how he should be remembered.
Might be completely unfair, but that’s how it felt to me.
I did think about putting "fiuratively" but I thought that most people would get the pun on your handle @eric_plant. Now if I say "Let's take this outside" in person I mean go out for a cig but in this chatroom I mean send me a PM if you need further clarification so our little "scuffle" doesn't take away from all the good that is going on around our club at the mo.
@glasshalffull said:
Genuinely like to know why anyone would consider Mr.Howard to have come across badly in his interview with Phil.
Might be my own preconceptions, or just the juxtaposition of appearing alongside the wonderful Dobbo, but Andrew Howard didn’t come over as either likeable or honest to me. With Dobbo there was an emotional intelligence about every thing he said, Howard sounded to me like he wanted to write his own Wikipedia entry and control the narrative of how he should be remembered.
Might be completely unfair, but that’s how it felt to me.
Maybe a little unfair as it's very clear he has a different style to Dobbo and he's looking back over his time from the other side. He's brash but he's probably entitled to look back at how he approached the task and what he achieved with some pride. The fact he lasted a few years, got a promotion, is still highly thought of by the manager and got his money back is probably something of a record these days.
Re Andrew Howard. ‘Softer’ than I remember him. As others have observed yes perhaps looking to massage his legacy. Always found the whole motor racing thing suspect, that smooth mid Atlantic vibe doesn’t wash with me. Still he worked hard for the club, put his money where his mouth was and was the wake up call the club needed at the time.
ps the ice cream van match of the day intro music was comedy genius Phil.
I am completely bemused by the various criticisms/ negative observations of Andrew Howard being offered here on the basis of Phil's (excellent and interesting) interview.
I've never listened to someone who put me less in mind of David Brent; AH presented as a very straightforward character who clearly is hugely competent at what he does; he invested huge amounts of his time and expertise to help the club when it needed help despite having no particular interest in WWFC; I got no hint of smooth mid-Atlantic vibes coming from what I took to be a pretty plain-speaking northern type who, nonetheless, I could imagine respecting without difficulty.
Well at least you’ve admitted that you don’t like Andrew Howard. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion about him, but surely that influenced how you felt he came over in the interview?
I did actually say in my first post on the subject that it may be my own preconceptions. It’s not that I already didn’t like him, but I’ve heard stories that I didn’t like. This is the first interview of any length that I’ve heard, and on hearing this, yes, I did decide that I’d be unlikely to be best mates with him. I doubt he’d like me much either.
@HCblue said:
I am completely bemused by the various criticisms/ negative observations of Andrew Howard being offered here on the basis of Phil's (excellent and interesting) interview.
I've never listened to someone who put me less in mind of David Brent; AH presented as a very straightforward character who clearly is hugely competent at what he does; he invested huge amounts of his time and expertise to help the club when it needed help despite having no particular interest in WWFC; I got no hint of smooth mid-Atlantic vibes coming from what I took to be a pretty plain-speaking northern type who, nonetheless, I could imagine respecting without difficulty.
Towards the end of his interview Howard stated:- "I wanted to do something that wasn't about money", which was a strange thing to say considering how many times he had mentioned the stuff prior to that.
I will be forever grateful for what AH did for Wycombe, theres no doubting he helped us enormously... but I've also unfortunately come across him in the work world, and without doubt he is very unlikeable and indeed a massive cock. Probably explains why hes successful, shame the way the world works in a way.
To paraphrase: Once successful in erecting the framework of the five year plan, the massive cock (unlikable to some, a pleasure to others) sank deeper into the wet marshes of business in an unfortunate consummation of the way the world works.
The mangled MotD 'chime' certainly raised a chuckle. The Howard interview itself was quite revealing in some ways, though in others felt like he was biting his tongue when the conversation went into areas where he didn't understand the the strength of feeling from supporters, or saw their concerns as spoiling a spreadsheet (in stark contrast to the excellent interview with Richard Dobson, who you certainly didn't get the impression was having to carefully manage what he was saying).
While he helped the Trust move away from the dilettantism of the first two years of trust ownership, some of his behaviour towards supporters who dared question him was appalling.
As others have mentioned, it has been noted that his MO isn't that of consensus building and having the humility to engage with criticism, which is a rather serious flaw in a nominally supporter-owned and run football club.
For all that he has done for the club, it's regrettable that he will be remembered as much for his temper as much as anything else.
Notable that Howard mentions being ‘accountable’ for his actions as Chairman as an interesting experience, which he admitted isn’t a skill he sees as being required as owner of his own business (!) Shame he didn’t also recognise the need for empathy, the ‘soft’ people skills, necessary as part of that accountability to the fan owned organisation he was charged with chairing.
I attended the first fans council meeting, watched the odious way in which he treated those people perhaps less used to a formal committee/ business environment and had to leave before I let the twat have both barrels.
I suspect that same hard nosed-ness that upset fans was also the same one that upset agents when he (rightly) wouldn’t give into them and set us on a path to paying no/reduced agent fees
@TheDancingYak said:
I suspect that same hard nosed-ness that upset fans was also the same one that upset agents when he (rightly) wouldn’t give into them and set us on a path to paying no/reduced agent fees
I definitely agree with you that. I don't deny he did the club an excellent service when that side of him was channelled (the Jordan Ibe sell-on saga in particular), though that doesn't give him free reign to act as he all too frequently did to supporters of the club.
I imagine that those Trust Board members in the hot seats when Hayes stormed off to Huffsville felt like anything but dilettantes. It seemed to me like they had to live and breathe the detail of half-baked contracts, closing down parts of the operation and extricating Wanderers' business from Wasps'. It's been an existential battle from that point and I am deeply grateful to the Woodwards, Strouds, Robertons, Cecils, etc. whose commitment in that period must have been total.
Which leads me onto another point that's been going round my mind in reading the post-Trust comments of the last few days. There have been many comments to the effect that it's a shame the Supporters Trust model hasn't worked for us, or doesn't work at all. Yet when the private ownership model left us on the brink of administration and with a completely unsustainable cost base (and that's 100% of our private ownership experience to date, note) it was the Trust that rescued us and kept us going, limping on through loans and share issues and other financial wheezes, to the point where we were at least a marketable outfit in 2019.
So I'd argue it was a massive success. If you'd offered me, in those dark days of 2012, the promise of existence in 2019 , let alone existence in the division above, I'd have bitten your hand off. And I'm not betting against us needing it again.
@our_frank I was struggling to find the right word, though you are completely right that the rescue of the club post the meltdown of the Hayes era was anything but dilettantism. It's easy to forget just how close we were to going under completely, nevermind taking a 15 point deduction for going into administration (you could argue that I did to some extent when writing that post in a hurry), and I wouldn't want dismiss the amazing work that went on that saved the club.
What I was referring to was the more day-to-day side of running a club that clearly there was room for improvement on, and our much-vaunted new overlords have staked the club's future on improving beyond recognition.
The point of volunteer-led organisations mucking out the stables left by profligate dreamers who take full ownership of football clubs is a pertinent one, it's depressing that the financial 'model' of professional football is so broken that a club on a shoestring budget will typically still have to make losses of 10-20% of their turnover (excluding the fabled 'football fortune') to keep their head above water in the league table.
Unfortunately, since the WWST takeover, supporters running their own clubs without private investment are swimming against the tide like never before.
While in the past I would have been in agreement with the idea of leading by example to change things, it's got to the stage where governing bodies are going to have to closely regulate the budgets and spending of clubs if we're going to bring any semblance of sanity to how football finances itself.
Comments
Best episode yet @bluntphil. I've been scanning from yesterday arvo but I see why you took your time, inspired stuff.
Couple of thoughts: 1.Dobbo really is a legend, isn't he? Even when asked about his own name in the chant he brings in others to share in the glory. 2.Andrew Howard comes across as a genuine, concerned businessman (found by the Trust board I might add) who wants the best for WWFC, put up an unsecured loan (in terms of maximum shares) and is willing to let that money stay with the Trust as long as it takes to get someone in who can advance the club sustainably, long term, at as high a level as that suits.
It occurs to me that Eric could be the type of person AH was so annoyed by during his time at the helm, I know I'd like to plant one on him every so often.
Final word for Garath Ainsworth, longest serving manager in the football league. What he has helped create at this club is remarkable, nothing short of fantastisk. They say fortune favours the brave and he has been fortunate, most recently with the late summer additions to the squad (due to the Trust securing loans against the newly ratified agreement of sale). Goes to reason that he is a brave man then, as his positivity pre Torquay attests to, the result of which quite possibly drawing the line between genius and madman.
He will always be our Wild Thing.
COYB
Some of the best of that was hearing Gaz so upbeat and forward looking, Dobbo impressive as ever and I agree with almost everyone that Andrew Howard came across very well. Great work as always.
I can't say that I warmed to Mr Howard during his tenure but I felt he came across very well during the podcast. It certainly changed my perception of the man. And as for the podcast I thought it was the best yet. @bluntphil will surely be 'playing' at a higher level.
@NorsQuarters you want to punch a fellow supporter because you disagree with something they've said on a message board?
Bit fucking weird mate
Might be my own preconceptions, or just the juxtaposition of appearing alongside the wonderful Dobbo, but Andrew Howard didn’t come over as either likeable or honest to me. With Dobbo there was an emotional intelligence about every thing he said, Howard sounded to me like he wanted to write his own Wikipedia entry and control the narrative of how he should be remembered.
Might be completely unfair, but that’s how it felt to me.
I did think about putting "fiuratively" but I thought that most people would get the pun on your handle @eric_plant. Now if I say "Let's take this outside" in person I mean go out for a cig but in this chatroom I mean send me a PM if you need further clarification so our little "scuffle" doesn't take away from all the good that is going on around our club at the mo.
COYB
Fair enough. Sometimes difficult to read nuance on here
Excellent episode @bluntphil
Listening to Howard I couldn't help hearing a bit of David Brent.
Maybe a little unfair as it's very clear he has a different style to Dobbo and he's looking back over his time from the other side. He's brash but he's probably entitled to look back at how he approached the task and what he achieved with some pride. The fact he lasted a few years, got a promotion, is still highly thought of by the manager and got his money back is probably something of a record these days.
Re Andrew Howard. ‘Softer’ than I remember him. As others have observed yes perhaps looking to massage his legacy. Always found the whole motor racing thing suspect, that smooth mid Atlantic vibe doesn’t wash with me. Still he worked hard for the club, put his money where his mouth was and was the wake up call the club needed at the time.
ps the ice cream van match of the day intro music was comedy genius Phil.
We wouldn't be where we are now without Andrew Howard's commercial nous when we desperately needed it.
I am completely bemused by the various criticisms/ negative observations of Andrew Howard being offered here on the basis of Phil's (excellent and interesting) interview.
I've never listened to someone who put me less in mind of David Brent; AH presented as a very straightforward character who clearly is hugely competent at what he does; he invested huge amounts of his time and expertise to help the club when it needed help despite having no particular interest in WWFC; I got no hint of smooth mid-Atlantic vibes coming from what I took to be a pretty plain-speaking northern type who, nonetheless, I could imagine respecting without difficulty.
I thought his twice using “fractions” where he meant “factions” was a little David Brent, but that’s not at all what I didn’t like about him.
Well at least you’ve admitted that you don’t like Andrew Howard. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion about him, but surely that influenced how you felt he came over in the interview?
I did actually say in my first post on the subject that it may be my own preconceptions. It’s not that I already didn’t like him, but I’ve heard stories that I didn’t like. This is the first interview of any length that I’ve heard, and on hearing this, yes, I did decide that I’d be unlikely to be best mates with him. I doubt he’d like me much either.
Ever listened to Christian Horner?
Not sure - don't know who that is.
He’s the arrogant prick who runs Red Bull Racing after a successful stint working at his Dads Successful F2 racing team Ardent Racing.
The only similarity I see between Horner and AH is that they come across as very business like in there approach to winning.
Towards the end of his interview Howard stated:- "I wanted to do something that wasn't about money", which was a strange thing to say considering how many times he had mentioned the stuff prior to that.
I will be forever grateful for what AH did for Wycombe, theres no doubting he helped us enormously... but I've also unfortunately come across him in the work world, and without doubt he is very unlikeable and indeed a massive cock. Probably explains why hes successful, shame the way the world works in a way.
To paraphrase: Once successful in erecting the framework of the five year plan, the massive cock (unlikable to some, a pleasure to others) sank deeper into the wet marshes of business in an unfortunate consummation of the way the world works.
?????
Ok, no more rum.
I would pay good money to listen to the podcast if you could get Steve Hayes to do an interview @bluntphil
The mangled MotD 'chime' certainly raised a chuckle. The Howard interview itself was quite revealing in some ways, though in others felt like he was biting his tongue when the conversation went into areas where he didn't understand the the strength of feeling from supporters, or saw their concerns as spoiling a spreadsheet (in stark contrast to the excellent interview with Richard Dobson, who you certainly didn't get the impression was having to carefully manage what he was saying).
While he helped the Trust move away from the dilettantism of the first two years of trust ownership, some of his behaviour towards supporters who dared question him was appalling.
As others have mentioned, it has been noted that his MO isn't that of consensus building and having the humility to engage with criticism, which is a rather serious flaw in a nominally supporter-owned and run football club.
For all that he has done for the club, it's regrettable that he will be remembered as much for his temper as much as anything else.
Notable that Howard mentions being ‘accountable’ for his actions as Chairman as an interesting experience, which he admitted isn’t a skill he sees as being required as owner of his own business (!) Shame he didn’t also recognise the need for empathy, the ‘soft’ people skills, necessary as part of that accountability to the fan owned organisation he was charged with chairing.
I attended the first fans council meeting, watched the odious way in which he treated those people perhaps less used to a formal committee/ business environment and had to leave before I let the twat have both barrels.
I suspect that same hard nosed-ness that upset fans was also the same one that upset agents when he (rightly) wouldn’t give into them and set us on a path to paying no/reduced agent fees
I definitely agree with you that. I don't deny he did the club an excellent service when that side of him was channelled (the Jordan Ibe sell-on saga in particular), though that doesn't give him free reign to act as he all too frequently did to supporters of the club.
@ReadingMarginalista "Dilettantism"? Wow.
I imagine that those Trust Board members in the hot seats when Hayes stormed off to Huffsville felt like anything but dilettantes. It seemed to me like they had to live and breathe the detail of half-baked contracts, closing down parts of the operation and extricating Wanderers' business from Wasps'. It's been an existential battle from that point and I am deeply grateful to the Woodwards, Strouds, Robertons, Cecils, etc. whose commitment in that period must have been total.
Which leads me onto another point that's been going round my mind in reading the post-Trust comments of the last few days. There have been many comments to the effect that it's a shame the Supporters Trust model hasn't worked for us, or doesn't work at all. Yet when the private ownership model left us on the brink of administration and with a completely unsustainable cost base (and that's 100% of our private ownership experience to date, note) it was the Trust that rescued us and kept us going, limping on through loans and share issues and other financial wheezes, to the point where we were at least a marketable outfit in 2019.
So I'd argue it was a massive success. If you'd offered me, in those dark days of 2012, the promise of existence in 2019 , let alone existence in the division above, I'd have bitten your hand off. And I'm not betting against us needing it again.
Well said @our_frank, a good reminder for us.
@our_frank I was struggling to find the right word, though you are completely right that the rescue of the club post the meltdown of the Hayes era was anything but dilettantism. It's easy to forget just how close we were to going under completely, nevermind taking a 15 point deduction for going into administration (you could argue that I did to some extent when writing that post in a hurry), and I wouldn't want dismiss the amazing work that went on that saved the club.
What I was referring to was the more day-to-day side of running a club that clearly there was room for improvement on, and our much-vaunted new overlords have staked the club's future on improving beyond recognition.
The point of volunteer-led organisations mucking out the stables left by profligate dreamers who take full ownership of football clubs is a pertinent one, it's depressing that the financial 'model' of professional football is so broken that a club on a shoestring budget will typically still have to make losses of 10-20% of their turnover (excluding the fabled 'football fortune') to keep their head above water in the league table.
Unfortunately, since the WWST takeover, supporters running their own clubs without private investment are swimming against the tide like never before.
While in the past I would have been in agreement with the idea of leading by example to change things, it's got to the stage where governing bodies are going to have to closely regulate the budgets and spending of clubs if we're going to bring any semblance of sanity to how football finances itself.