It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Apparently on his way for 7million to west Bromwich...anyone know what that means for us?
How very short sighted
Even if we hadn't sold the clause, we still wouldn't have got anything this time. It would only ever have applied when he moved from Blackpool. You don't benefit from a sell-on clause on every subsequent move...
You'd think @Wwfc2015_ would know that. How very short sighted.
On a day when a previous chairman, Mr Beeks, has been criticised by some, perhaps a timely reminder of how the last chairman, Mr Woodward, made the even at the time incomprehensible, single worst financial decision in the history of the club. Even the FA commission couldn't hide their bafflement at its stupidity.
Worth noting that @DevC's key defence of Mr Beeks' antics during the Steve Hayes era is that Beeks' desperately poor decision making may have been motivated by his intimate knowledge of the club's financial problems. Sadly, he's not prepared to apply the same thinking to Mr Woodward, who found himself at the helm at a time when the Steve and Ivor show had virtually run the club into extinction.
Indeed. And without insider knowledge of the finances, how could anyone possibly make a judgement on what is the worst financial decision in the history of the club? Even with that knowledge, it seems a pretty hard judgement call to take.
My own thoughts are that the worst financial decision must be something which began the route down the path of reckless overspending and into millions of pounds of debt. The worst decision would likely to have been to have sold Adams Park and instead rented the proposed new stadium if that had ever come to fruition.
Dev, I often agree with your posts when they go against the status quo on here, but you're either playing devils advocate or Beeks is a close friend of yours.
@bill_stickers nope, I think it's genuinely what he believes
My point is to push back against the black or white view of airbrushed history of both of these two guys. Because the consensus is in favour of fan owned status, then Woodward must be the epitome of good and Beeks the epitome of evil. I see more shades of grey.
And if Woodward must be the epitome of good, then excuses must be found for this disastrous decision that cost the club c £1m. So 1) Philips may have left for zero at the end of the season - well no he was under 24, he would have attracted a fee (Ince went for £2m + add-ons - we settled for the equivalent of £1m fee), 2) but we may have needed the cash urgently - no the entire Philips fee went to pay down the debt owed to Hayes which while large was not urgent. It remains a baffingly inept decision, which raises serious questions over competence of the clubs management at the time.
Dont get me wrong Woodward had a difficult job to do and no doubt did some of it very well. This part, he did very badly. His record is a shade of grey. As is the record of Beeks. No doubt even tually as will be the record of Howard.
Hate to sound like Mr Plant, but that rather prolonged answer could have been paraphrased into "Yes, I am playing devils advocate."
@DevC You say: @no the entire Philips fee went to pay down the debt owed to Hayes which while large was not [email protected]
I'm interested as to where you got this info from? Are you sure that's what happened?
I think that among other things this thread is throwing up a misunderstanding about the role of the chairman of the Club, which is very different to the typical role of a chairman who also owns the club. Neither Don nor Ivor owned the club and it's most unlikely that Don in particular would take a decision regarding Matt's sell-on fee (or, frankly, any other important decision) without the support of the other Club directors and at least the tacit support of the Trust board.
I agree with you about the black/white view. I've never met Ivor but it seems to me that he made a few mistakes and some of them turned out to be potentially life-threatening for the club - although in the end they weren't; but he also seems to have achieved a great deal for the club over a long period and gained very little (if anything) from it financially. He is not the devil incarnate that some appear to think him.
this is the very definition of a straw man argument
"To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."
@DevC every comment you make assumes that every Wycombe fan is either completely stupid or some sort of fundamentalist either pro or anti an issue.
The concept of shades of grey is not a new one or one that is unique to yourself.
Give people some credit.
@peterparrotface : I disagree. DevC's arguments are mostly well-reasoned, thought-provoking and fair. I do not know him/her but I would guess there is a strong connection with, if not actual membership of, the legal profession.
@micra fair enough, just how I see it
@micra just to clarify, that Straw Man comment was in direct response to @DevC's latest post ie stating people consider Don Woodward to be the "epitome of good" and Ivor Beeks the "epitome of evil" and then arguing against that viewpoint. The reality is that literally no-one holds that view.
Quick response to a couple of these points.
PPF Of course shades of grey is hardly a new concept but this board while not as bad as its predecessor does still appear to me to tend to deal a little too much in black or white
@wig and Pen The use of sell-on funds for Phillips and some others was well-documented at the time of the takeover and indeed as I recall it in the FA commission document. Hayes contractually got the money as an early repayment of his loan.
You are of course right that this would (almost certainly) have been a board decision but the chairman/MD would take collective responsibility for this decision. It is in my experience inconvievable that the chairman would have disagreed with a decision of this financial importance and stayed in the job.
@eric plant - I am reassured that you see some good in Beeks and some "bad" in Woodwards performance. My perception is that certainly on this board's predecessor
any attempt to balance critisism of Beeks with praise of his good points and similarly in reverse with Woodward would be shouted down. Admittedly this board is a little more civilised! If I have misinterpreted this mood, apologies.
@micra - I am afraid I am nowhere near rich enough to have been a lawyer! support noted with thanks however. I did once try to have a strong connection with a member of the legal profession but sadly she wouldn't let me - does that count?
I am struggling to think of one good thing Ivor Beeks has done for Wycombe Wanderers.
He did sack his mate and fellow Portuguese property owner Alan Smith.
That was after he appointed him in the first place.
"I am struggling to think of one good thing Ivor Beeks has done for Wycombe Wanderers."
I rest my case (at least I would were I to be a lawyer!)
Good attempt at a response @devc see you must be struggling to think of one too.
Martin O'Neill? Adams Park?
Alan Parry? Brian Lee?
Aye, those two deserve some credit. As does the chair at the time, Ivor Beeks.
Beeks was a director of the club for c 25 years and chairman for most of those.
In that time the club reached the football league for the first time in its history and stayed there. (only Yeovil and Wycombe of those promoted not being former league clubs have stayed for ten years and are still there). We have reached Wembley three times (+ last season) and national cup semi finals. We have won several customer service and family awards in that time. And although it has been mighty close more than once, unlike the likes of Maidstone, Rushden and Boston - similar sized clubs following a similar path - we still exist. A number of young players have gone on to play at premier league level and a few for their countries. Quite simply it has been the most successful period in the clubs 100+ year history by far.
Your view it would appear is that Beeks gets none of the credit for steering the club to this success. He must be a hero or a villain, you have decided he is a villain, and if a villain it must all be negative. With respect that IMHO is a daft attitude which was precisely my point re black or white attitudes not shades of grey.
You do know what Owen Oyston was sent down for? Or is the whole sexual innuendo of 'pants pulled down' just incidental? And it can never be appropriate to compare the treatment of a football team to a sexual offence/activity.
@DevC I would argue that the success was achieved in spite of Beeks not because of him.
On what basis?
Buying the training ground & land for a nice amount and "renting" it back to the club?
Powered by Vanilla
Hosting courtesy of Hactar