It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Looks like democracy is somewhat murky within the Trust ranks.
Have a look at former director and Black and white campaigner Matt Clarke's tweets
If this is true obviously the fans don't own the club.
Ive heard rumours of a number of resignations from the Trust board.
I think the least its members deserve, is to be informed of exactly which elected officers are still at the helm ?
The lack of information about how the club is being run is causing some unease for many Trust members. If something comes out that the members don't like, things could get very interesting very quickly.
Looking in the trust members have no more info or say thab joe bloggs at the moment.
The trust members only elect for the trust board not the club board. Andrew Howard is doing a good job so let him decide who he thinks is suitable. Personally I don't care if beeks is there or not. Oh and lets not forget that it is on twitter so it must be true.
I care if Beeks is there
Beeks thought Hayes was suitable!
Yes he did, and encouraged us all to vote to hand over ownership of the football club to him. He also said that he wasn't overly concerned with fans who disagreed as in 20 years time the club would have new supporters anyway. He also held a board meeting to discuss a potential move to Milton Keynes, having told the local press that it was something he would consider.
Don't worry though, FrijidPink doesn't care
"Lawrie Sanchez has criticised Wycombe's stay-away fans once again following the perceived 'poor' attendance for Saturday's home FA Cup against Wigan Atheltic. After seeing the gate declared as just under 3,000 Sanchez was quoted in the Bucks Free Press Midweek as saying "This is not a football town. It would be busier if we had a supermarket here. I've given up on the crowd. They generate the money, so they shouldn't come crying at the end of the season when we haven't done as well as they think we should"
"I've got tremendous admiration for the fans that do come but where are the rest? If they don't want a professional football team there's a few towns that do" Club Chairman Ivor Beeks also joined in the debate by adding "If they don't want football here then perhaps we might have to think about something like that" Midweek reporter Dave Peters added that "yesterday (Monday) worried directors held a board meeting to discuss revolutionary ways of pumping money into the Club including a possible relocation to Milton Keynes, and changing the entire fabric of the club by courting a sugar daddy backer."
An official Press Release from the Club also stated that Beeks refused to rule out such a move away from Wycombe.
These latest outbursts have cause more heated debate between supporters who have seen Wycombe struggle to beat Ryman League Oxford City in the FA Cup and after Tuesday evening's 4-0 home game with Stoke City, were without a League victory for over five weeks."
Can someone explain who has the final say over which seats on the football club board? I think a lot of the (read:my) confusion comes from not understanding who chooses the trust board and who chooses the football club board...
I am sure Andrew Howard is steering the club in the right direction. Do not worry. I am led to believe from the trust meeting that Beeks is in charge of the pitch preperation. Did a pretty good job getting resurffasing started one day after the last match. Oxford United only just started to relay theirs!
@eric_plant wrote "Yes he did, and encouraged us all to vote to hand over ownership of the football club to him. He also said that he wasn't overly concerned with fans who disagreed as in 20 years time the club would have new supporters anyway. He also held a board meeting to discuss a potential move to Milton Keynes, having told the local press that it was something he would consider."
Beeks was chairman for around 20 years through an exciting time for the club, three Wembley appearances, promotion to the FL, Cup semi finals etc. He was also chairman through arguably the most challenging financial time for lower division football clubs, during which time all lower division clubs faced major challenges just to survive.
He undoubtedly will have made mistakes with the power of hindsight, arguably he also made wrong judgements based on information available to him at the time. That is inevitable over that time period. For example Maybe the advice to sell out to Hayes was wrong in retrospect, but we have to remember that Beeks was privy to financial information we dont have at the time. Maybe, just maybe at the time it was the least worst option offering the club the best chance of success.
Bottom line, some may feel, is that under Beeks leadership, the club achieved success beyond the wildest dreams of what was achieved before his period. In that period Beeks contributed hours of his time and a fair bit of cash when needed and any fair observer would surely conclude that beeks deserves some of the credit for that. Too close for comfort admittedly, but the club has emerged the other side of its troubles.
For me the vilification of Beeks is unfair. His past involvement is far more nuanced picture.
regardless last season felt akin to a rebirth for the club which now seems to be on an optimistic path again under the leadership of Andrew Howard. There is a great opportunity to draw the line under the past divisions and move forward positively together. If Howard feels he would benefit from the experience of Ivor Beeks on the board, for me I am happy to support him.
There is a choice to be made, all move forward united and positive or go back to the days when club leadership and supporters (if Gasroom is representative of them) had no trust and wasted no opportunity to snipe at virtually anything. I suspect the future for the club is far more likely to be rosy in the first scenario. I would encourage you and those minded to think like you, to draw a line under the past, have an open mind and judge those trusted to run the club on todays decisions not on your perceptions of the past.
sorry Dev, just to clarify, are you suggesting that what I posted earlier equates to "vilification"?
DevC, Hindsight?! He made disastrous decisions that were clearly wrong at the time, not in hindsight. Many were pointing out the stupidity of the decisions - but he ploughed on regardless. "Its my bl**dy club and I'll do as I please with it" is how it often felt to those inside the club administration and to those in the stands.
His judgement is flawed and has harmed the club. He doesn't deserve a second chance, IMHO.
No. I am suggesting that IB has been vilified by many posters on gasroom. I dont honestly recall your opinion on this matter. Apols for any confusion.
yes he said Hayes was suitable and is that a huge crime ? no its not get a grip
we need people who care about the club involved and he clearly does.
it's not a crime, no. But it does call his judgment into question wouldn't you say?
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
For me no (or at least possibly not).
None of us know how perilous the clubs finances were at the time, all suggestions are pretty bad. If that was the case, those running the club had to find a solution.
The weakness of the "No to hayes" case at the time is that no alternative was ever put forward. The only alternative was "live within means" that at the time in the financial climate then existing may well have been suicide.
it may well have been that Beeks saw no other alternative. He may well have been right.
I think you can (and should) recognise the vast extent of the improvements at Wycombe Wanderers during Beeks' tenure - while also considering the mistakes that he made. Hayes being top of the list.
I'm not sure this issue is about Ivor Beeks at all. Its about the processes in place for any individual to gain a position of influence within a democratic supporter owned football club and the engagement of its members in decision making.
If he had handed over the reins after Martin left I would have named my first born after him even if as it turned out it was a girl.
@floyd In response to your query about appointment to the Club Board...
All the voting shares in the club (a limited company) are owned by the Trust. The power to hire and fire directors of a limited company rests ultimately with the voting shareholders of that company so in this case the ultimate control over who sits on the board lies with the Trust. That power is exercised by the Trust board.
Members ultimately determine who sits on the Trust board (votes at AGM etc) but don't directly control who sits on the Club board.
Hope this helps.
Thanks @Wig_and_Pen. So it's fair to say that the trust board is responsible for who sits on the club board?
Trust = Commons, Club = Lords?
@floyd Yes, ultimately that's right. And Trust members are responsible for who sits on the Trust board.
sorry am I missing something or did Beeks preside over WWFC during our most successful years in the 90s? Who's got short memories?
He didn't pick the team or choose the tactics. On the other hand he did extend Sanchez contract, so it cost us a lot more to get rid of him, he did appoint Tony Adams as manager, a decision that seemed based on the publicity it would bring rather than getting the right man for the job (and this was after he had stressed the importance of getting someone with experience), oh, and the small matter of backing Steve Hayes in his blatant attempt to put the club into financial ruin to the benifit of a nomad rugby team. I don't know about short memories but some people have very selected ones. Beeks had his day, made big mistakes and should move aside.
Aye, very selective. He appointed all the good managers as well as the bad ones.
Got very lucky on the success of others
Powered by Vanilla
Hosting courtesy of Hactar