Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


In one of the posts earlier, I asked the question: "What has Ivor Beeks done that was positive for Wycombe Wanderers FC?". No-one was able to give a reasonable reply. I think it is important for a history lesson to prevent mistakes of the past repeating.

So I have looked back at Beeks' tenure and can say that the only time he can gain enormous credit for anything was the initial appointment of Lawrie Sanchez in 1999. Sanchez was an instant succcess and the FA Cup semi-final run should have been the pathway to stabilisation.

I'm trying to be as balanced as possible here but Beeks' mistakes, that I've attempted to list here, more than outway his successes.

Jim Kelman found it difficult to work with him, hardly a positive, although that did lead to the arrival of Martin O'Neill (an incredibly lucky break given the circumstances and one achieved due to the work of Mr Parry not Beeks).

Over the five years of O'Neill, Wycombe obviously enjoyed phenomenal success but largely because of O'Neill and the structure set in place by Brian Lee (off the field) and Kelman (on it).

Beeks' attempts at power off the field did him no credit whatsover - look at the situations with the Blues Club, WWISC, the Crewe ticket fiasco, a spat with a local journalist on the night the Conference title was won, the greatest moment in the club's history at that stage.

His treatment of O'Neill in his final year was outrageous by refusing to increase budgets yet building an expensive stand which was not wanted or needed, and is left half empty today.

His decision to appoint Alan Smith was deplorable and he then gave him a large amount of money to effectively rip up O'Neill's squad.

Although history will say John Gregory did a good job as Wycombe manager he also did so with a vast amount of money, which started the downward financial spiral.

Neil Smillie's arrival was a cost-saving exercise but it was abundantly clear it was a terrible decision. Still Beeks rectified things with Sanchez's arrival and the cup run should have settled the club.

Instead Beeks was fundamental in a number of baffling moves including getting the ground sponsored for a mere £10,000 a year, attempting and eventually changing the constitution, giving Sanchez a lengthy and ultimately expensive new contract at a time where he had looked far less than convincing than his fine start, allowing Wasps to groundshare at the club.

He was supposed to be representing the members as chairman but then suggested a move to Milton Keynes was being considered!

He then appointed Tony Adams, a complete disaster of an appointment that set the club back a long way, especially as John Gorman had done a good job as caretaker. Adams did not even tell Beeks he had resigned so read into that what you want!

I'm fed up with the "Beeks presided over the best period in the club's history" argument. As these circumstances above show, he did not do a very good job at all and was extremely lucky.

Which is why rumours of Beeks returning to the club worry me greatly.


  • And agreed again

  • Agree with that - and I'll raise you the White Elephant Stadium at Booker!

  • And yet in a previous thread you said that the Alan Smith appointment was "a good one ".
    On your substantial point i was a supporter throughout Ivors involvement in the club and in the early days I and others had a lot of trust in him due to his link with Martin and those early successes but not being in the board room how much he deserved it I can't say.

  • Apart from the fact that he was chairman during the 90s ? Just what have you got against him - seems something personal to me so if it is I suggest you don't use this forum to vent your personal feelings. I only met him a couple of times at Wyc events and probably haven't spoken to him him since the late 90s so no axe to grind.

  • @Morris_Ital that was with a heavy hint of sarcasm

  • @FrijidPink all @Midlander has done is rehearse the facts of IBs tenure at the club. Can you point out anything personal in his post at all?!

  • It will be good to have the football back but in the meantime I'll add to the length of this thread with a few more irrelevant personal views.

    Beeks - pros. By all accounts politically he was a well-respected chairman by the FL, etc and probably helped our successful integration into th league. He is at root a Wycombe supporter and (leaving the idle 'let's move to MK threat' aside) a lot of what he did was in our 'best' interests (as he saw it - which is different from most of ours admittedly). He probably has put a lot of his own money into the club. He is a friend of our current, seemingly popular, chair and has good knowledge of how the FL works that AH currently lacks.

    Beeks - cons: he became (or was/is) an egotistical maniac thinking he was the club. He made some strategically bad (almost fatal) decisions to feed his ego/dream (see Midlander's eloquent post above). He seemed to use the club to further his business/personal interests. He tossed Frank Adams legacy into the bin (the one unforgivable sin in my book).

    Do I want to see him back on the board? No (by some margin). Will I lose sleep if he is? No (I really can't see him being able to make the same over-reaching mistakes he did when he was there before and he does have good football knowledge).

    Now... How long to the season starts?

  • I'm not sure Beeks is a wycombe fan at root, but your comments about his being respected in the FL circles are true.

    Who runs the club is at least as important as important as what happens on the pitch each Saturday.

Sign In or Register to comment.