I was at the meeting last night and although I see AH as nothing but good for the club I was very disappointed at the way he harangued the guy asking the first question. Seemed to me AH was anticipating someone having a pop at Beeks and was ready to come out guns blazing.
If he didn't like the question then he should simply have not answered, and said so in a respectful manner. I think the question was stupid but AH needs to treat ALL Trust members with respect. @Trevor - have a word.
Floyd - IB did make some mistakes. I think that maybe AH a saw him as useful far gaining access to FA and FL where IB has some contacts/clout. He also had a good track record when he was chairman and AH needs people who understand the club. To be fair I have made errors of judgement in the past too - who hasn't?
Outside of that incident however I thought the meeting overall was upbeat and very positive. Good noises around our standing with larger clubs further up the ladder.
Looking like some of the whingers on this site are going to cancel their trust membership over IBs appointment... See, there's always a silver lining. Oh, sorry - they haven't got the balls to do it. Shame. IB was Chairman during our most successful period - what is wrong with that.
@FrijidPink said:
Looking like some of the whingers on this site are going to cancel their trust membership over IBs appointment... See, there's always a silver lining. Oh, sorry - they haven't got the balls to do it. Shame. IB was Chairman during our most successful period - what is wrong with that.
People resigning memberships and deciding against contributing to the share scheme. How's that a 'silver lining'?
@woodlands - It's also a question of magnitude. Have you ever taken a healthy business and run it into the ground? Is that the same as forgetting to put the bins out or buying the wrong bread at the supermarket?
Ivor was conned by Hayes, most of us have mistakenly trusted somebody in their lives. As long as Beeks has no major say in running the club, I think it is something we all have to accept.
I have only met Ivor Beeks 3 times, and each time he spoke with the same love for our club as any one on this forum, in fact he deflected any praise offered to him as unwarranted.
I have no axe to grind with Ivor Beeks and whilst I do not know him I am pretty sure he has done many good things for the Club in the past. Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have and we have all probably in the past made errors of judgement. Don't forget it was only 18 Months ago that the Trust Board signed Heads of Terms agreement with an unknown " Consortium". This would have been a complete disaster and one of the worst decisions ever in the history of the Club if it had happened. Hindsight again.
Andrew Howard has in the main done a good job since taking over. His relationship with Gareth looks very strong leading a to a much more positive season on the pitch. I am however disappointed that he took such an aggressive stance with the question from the Trust Member. We, that is you and I, the Supporters, are paying 8.5% Interest per annum to the Training Ground Consortium, one of who is now sitting on the Board.
At the same time the Club is asking Supporters for working capital with no guarantee of ever seeing that money back again. Leaving aside the conflict of interest, this was a valid question that could/should have been answered. On behalf of the Club we need to renegotiate both on rate and on the £50,000 lump sum payment due in 2018 to the Training Ground Consortium if we do buy back.
I am slightly surprised that Andrew does not see it as a priority to get the Training Ground back. I certainly do and will be asking Trust Directors to give this some form of priority. Any future changes in Planning/Green Belt/Legislation could make this an Asset worth a lot more than it is today.
Beeks nearly ran the club into the ground, and then sold it to a man who nearly took the club out of business. Please stop telling me he made 'errors of judgement' and had a 'good track record.'
We still don't have any reason for his appointment beyond being friend with AH and knowing about floodlights. Are those things worth a seat on the board?
Given that the "consortium" was unknown and still is AFAIK, and hence we have no idea of what they would have done, not sure quite how you have concluded that it would have been a complete disaster. But didnt happen, so lets move on.
I have pointed this out before but probably worth pointing out again. The Football club has succeeded in negotiating a lease to rent the land at equivalent of 8.5% interest with an option at its sole discretion to repurchase the land if the value rises, keeping most of the profit to the club, or not if it doesn't.
For a highly solvent small company in rude financial health, that would be a good deal. For a company that was on the edge of bankruptcy and is still in poor financial condition and for a piece of land that had no obvious alternative use or revenue source if the football club had failed, that is a stonking deal for the football club.
Just because headline interest rates are 0.5%, there is a temptation to assume that snall companies can borrow at that rate. they can't. As an example https://www.fundingcircle.com/lend/loan-requests/ shows companies, in far better financial condition than WWFC paying between 7% and 18.2%.
@mooneyman said:
Ivor was conned by Hayes, most of us have mistakenly trusted somebody in their lives
Is this statement based on "cuddly uncle Ivor" vs "flashy money lender" assumptions?
Has Beeks ever issued a 'I was conned' statement of contrition? No, he hasn't. He was hoping to make money out of Hayes' grand plan and his judgement was blinded by greed.
He bears responsibility for the state we were left in.
With respect, Arnos, for someone who in the same post has called out another poster for unsubstantitated assumption, you have made a pretty big one yourself. Your comment "He was hoping to make money out of Hayes' grand plan and his judgement was blinded by greed" is pure speculation.
He may have been "conned by Hayes"
he may have been "blinded by greed"
He may (and most likely in my view) have genuinely believed AT THAT TIIME that the option presented by Hayes was the best option for WWFC compared to the (fairly limited) alternatives.
Bottom line regardless of the past, the current Chairman of the club and the Board of the Supporters Trust, with more facts available to them than to us, have concluded that Beeks knowledge contacts and experience can assist in improving the prospects of success for the club in the future. Personally thats good enough for me.
Ivor did a hell of lot of good for the club and its profile during his tenure. One could argue that he possibly benefitted by enjoying the status on the FL board etc but that is another speculation.
However he also presided over one of the ugliest periods of our history during the ahem takeover. He was holding court over a period when fans were being divided deliberately to force through a course of action that few wanted. The evening when a handful of us voted against the Hayes proposal was poisonous and quite frankly one that made me feel like turning my back on the club I have loved since the early 70s. The actions of Beeks and Parry in the lead up to the vote by putting the poor employees of the club in front of a camera to say how wonderful the future was going to be was beyond the pail.
He developed a culture of secrecy and contempt for the fans that is COMPLETELY at odd with the culture that surely a trust owned club seeks to rely on. At no point in the past has he showed any contrition for his role in the past or simply said 'guys I got it wrong, but retrospect is wonderful thing'. He has demonstrated that secrecy is part of his modus operandi with the purchase of the training ground so when people ask what is he going to bring to the board then I worry that this is what he may bring.
I was about to invest my hard earned into the share scheme but now with Beeks back on the scene officially I have my concerns. Previously by telling fans not to ask questions and just trust it will be ok was annoying, but to give the trust my money and to see this culture develop as a fan and an investor is worrying.
Why will he not admit his short-comings of the past? Well either he is arrogant or he still sees he was right. Both are hardly qualities I want to see guiding my club for the future.
Its a shame as I think he could help, but the stain of the past is still there.
@The AndyGrahamFanClub...I completely agree, the meeting you refer to was the lowest point I have experienced in my many years supporting Wycombe. Personally, after Hayes was finally defeated, I would have banned both Beeks and Parry from ever entering Adams Park again. They could hardly complain, if they'd had their way it wouldn't even exist anymore.
Ivor did a hell of lot of good for the club and its profile during his tenure. One could argue that he possibly benefitted by enjoying the status on the FL board etc but that is another speculation.
However he also presided over one of the ugliest periods of our history during the ahem takeover. He was holding court over a period when fans were being divided deliberately to force through a course of action that few wanted. The evening when a handful of us voted against the Hayes proposal was poisonous and quite frankly one that made me feel like turning my back on the club I have loved since the early 70s. The actions of Beeks and Parry in the lead up to the vote by putting the poor employees of the club in front of a camera to say how wonderful the future was going to be was beyond the pail.
He developed a culture of secrecy and contempt for the fans that is COMPLETELY at odd with the culture that surely a trust owned club seeks to rely on. At no point in the past has he showed any contrition for his role in the past or simply said 'guys I got it wrong, but retrospect is wonderful thing'. He has demonstrated that secrecy is part of his modus operandi with the purchase of the training ground so when people ask what is he going to bring to the board then I worry that this is what he may bring.
I was about to invest my hard earned into the share scheme but now with Beeks back on the scene officially I have my concerns. Previously by telling fans not to ask questions and just trust it will be ok was annoying, but to give the trust my money and to see this culture develop as a fan and an investor is worrying.
Why will he not admit his short-comings of the past? Well either he is arrogant or he still sees he was right. Both are hardly qualities I want to see guiding my club for the future.
Its a shame as I think he could help, but the stain of the past is still there.
Nailed it @TheAndyGrahamFanClub. The post of Gasroom 2.0 for me. And having read back my previous post @DevC I take you point!
@TheAndyGrahamFanClub Yes spot on, you have put in words exactly how I feel about Beeks and his tenure over the years. I find it staggering certain people just want to close eyes and forget everything that's happened.
I have long been a fan of @TheAndyGrahamFanClub and I agree that his post above encapsulates the reasons why a significant minority are less than delighted with Mr Beeks' return to the Club Board. I tried somewhat feebly yesterday to put a positive slant on the nature of his current role. To the extent that the main objective of the restructuring is to give lndividual Board Members specific areas of responsibility relating to their qualifications/aptitudes and experience, I can see how Mr Beeks would have been an obvious person to turn to. Whether he could have performed the role in an advisory capacity on an ad hoc basis - rather than as a formally co-opted member of the Board - is perhaps open to question.
@DevC to go back to yesterday's discussion, I'm not sure your view of delegating everything of note to the Trust Board works with a supporter owned club. There needs to be more to it to get the real benefits.
I think we have 11 or 12 people who are very much engaged in the running and ownership of the club, and 950 odd members who are pretty detached from it.
That's all very well when results on the pitch are good, but I worry if things go pear shaped. If supporters are truly part of running the club and the decision making process (not on everything, but something other than a once a year election) then there's more empathy in the bad times. If it really is that we watch the football and they run the club, then I think we'll see the same short termism and fickle reactions from the fans - "sack the manager" and "get your cheque book out Howard."
Which would be a real shame because longer term thinking in backing Ainsworth when times were tough has paid off.
The real worry is the return of this attitude from the board that they are not answerable to the members. I remember that attitude very well from 15 years ago and it ended with the club being in private hands. Now we see the return of one of the chief architects of that transition to the board and the chairman rants at someone for questioning why this person is being put in such a position.
Comments
@M3G Exactly, some sort of formal consulting role would seem to make more sense. I await the Trusts explanation with interest.
I was at the meeting last night and although I see AH as nothing but good for the club I was very disappointed at the way he harangued the guy asking the first question. Seemed to me AH was anticipating someone having a pop at Beeks and was ready to come out guns blazing.
If he didn't like the question then he should simply have not answered, and said so in a respectful manner. I think the question was stupid but AH needs to treat ALL Trust members with respect. @Trevor - have a word.
@AH try reading the Chimp Paradox.....
Negative. Negative. Negative. What this club needs is positivity!
Floyd - IB did make some mistakes. I think that maybe AH a saw him as useful far gaining access to FA and FL where IB has some contacts/clout. He also had a good track record when he was chairman and AH needs people who understand the club. To be fair I have made errors of judgement in the past too - who hasn't?
Guessing over 110
You obviously would prefer the bclub to go into liquidation!
Here Here!
Outside of that incident however I thought the meeting overall was upbeat and very positive. Good noises around our standing with larger clubs further up the ladder.
Looking like some of the whingers on this site are going to cancel their trust membership over IBs appointment... See, there's always a silver lining. Oh, sorry - they haven't got the balls to do it. Shame. IB was Chairman during our most successful period - what is wrong with that.
People resigning memberships and deciding against contributing to the share scheme. How's that a 'silver lining'?
You're a bit simple aren't you?
@woodlands - There's a difference between mistakes and deceit.
@woodlands - It's also a question of magnitude. Have you ever taken a healthy business and run it into the ground? Is that the same as forgetting to put the bins out or buying the wrong bread at the supermarket?
Ivor was conned by Hayes, most of us have mistakenly trusted somebody in their lives. As long as Beeks has no major say in running the club, I think it is something we all have to accept.
I have only met Ivor Beeks 3 times, and each time he spoke with the same love for our club as any one on this forum, in fact he deflected any praise offered to him as unwarranted.
I have no axe to grind with Ivor Beeks and whilst I do not know him I am pretty sure he has done many good things for the Club in the past. Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have and we have all probably in the past made errors of judgement. Don't forget it was only 18 Months ago that the Trust Board signed Heads of Terms agreement with an unknown " Consortium". This would have been a complete disaster and one of the worst decisions ever in the history of the Club if it had happened. Hindsight again.
Andrew Howard has in the main done a good job since taking over. His relationship with Gareth looks very strong leading a to a much more positive season on the pitch. I am however disappointed that he took such an aggressive stance with the question from the Trust Member. We, that is you and I, the Supporters, are paying 8.5% Interest per annum to the Training Ground Consortium, one of who is now sitting on the Board.
At the same time the Club is asking Supporters for working capital with no guarantee of ever seeing that money back again. Leaving aside the conflict of interest, this was a valid question that could/should have been answered. On behalf of the Club we need to renegotiate both on rate and on the £50,000 lump sum payment due in 2018 to the Training Ground Consortium if we do buy back.
I am slightly surprised that Andrew does not see it as a priority to get the Training Ground back. I certainly do and will be asking Trust Directors to give this some form of priority. Any future changes in Planning/Green Belt/Legislation could make this an Asset worth a lot more than it is today.
Beeks nearly ran the club into the ground, and then sold it to a man who nearly took the club out of business. Please stop telling me he made 'errors of judgement' and had a 'good track record.'
We still don't have any reason for his appointment beyond being friend with AH and knowing about floodlights. Are those things worth a seat on the board?
Given that the "consortium" was unknown and still is AFAIK, and hence we have no idea of what they would have done, not sure quite how you have concluded that it would have been a complete disaster. But didnt happen, so lets move on.
I have pointed this out before but probably worth pointing out again. The Football club has succeeded in negotiating a lease to rent the land at equivalent of 8.5% interest with an option at its sole discretion to repurchase the land if the value rises, keeping most of the profit to the club, or not if it doesn't.
For a highly solvent small company in rude financial health, that would be a good deal. For a company that was on the edge of bankruptcy and is still in poor financial condition and for a piece of land that had no obvious alternative use or revenue source if the football club had failed, that is a stonking deal for the football club.
Just because headline interest rates are 0.5%, there is a temptation to assume that snall companies can borrow at that rate. they can't. As an example https://www.fundingcircle.com/lend/loan-requests/ shows companies, in far better financial condition than WWFC paying between 7% and 18.2%.
Is this statement based on "cuddly uncle Ivor" vs "flashy money lender" assumptions?
Has Beeks ever issued a 'I was conned' statement of contrition? No, he hasn't. He was hoping to make money out of Hayes' grand plan and his judgement was blinded by greed.
He bears responsibility for the state we were left in.
Lot of people rewriting history on this thread...
With respect, Arnos, for someone who in the same post has called out another poster for unsubstantitated assumption, you have made a pretty big one yourself. Your comment "He was hoping to make money out of Hayes' grand plan and his judgement was blinded by greed" is pure speculation.
He may have been "conned by Hayes"
he may have been "blinded by greed"
He may (and most likely in my view) have genuinely believed AT THAT TIIME that the option presented by Hayes was the best option for WWFC compared to the (fairly limited) alternatives.
Bottom line regardless of the past, the current Chairman of the club and the Board of the Supporters Trust, with more facts available to them than to us, have concluded that Beeks knowledge contacts and experience can assist in improving the prospects of success for the club in the future. Personally thats good enough for me.
No arguments with that!
I'm not anti-Beeks. But there remain significant questions around his involvement in the Steve Hayes regime and the new stadium proposals.
I don't think it's right that Andrew Howard should shut down any questions on the topic.
Like Dev says, I don't think the training ground deal was bad for the club. But I'm not sure why Beeks felt the need for anonymous dealings.
Here are my two cents on the matter.
Ivor did a hell of lot of good for the club and its profile during his tenure. One could argue that he possibly benefitted by enjoying the status on the FL board etc but that is another speculation.
However he also presided over one of the ugliest periods of our history during the ahem takeover. He was holding court over a period when fans were being divided deliberately to force through a course of action that few wanted. The evening when a handful of us voted against the Hayes proposal was poisonous and quite frankly one that made me feel like turning my back on the club I have loved since the early 70s. The actions of Beeks and Parry in the lead up to the vote by putting the poor employees of the club in front of a camera to say how wonderful the future was going to be was beyond the pail.
He developed a culture of secrecy and contempt for the fans that is COMPLETELY at odd with the culture that surely a trust owned club seeks to rely on. At no point in the past has he showed any contrition for his role in the past or simply said 'guys I got it wrong, but retrospect is wonderful thing'. He has demonstrated that secrecy is part of his modus operandi with the purchase of the training ground so when people ask what is he going to bring to the board then I worry that this is what he may bring.
I was about to invest my hard earned into the share scheme but now with Beeks back on the scene officially I have my concerns. Previously by telling fans not to ask questions and just trust it will be ok was annoying, but to give the trust my money and to see this culture develop as a fan and an investor is worrying.
Why will he not admit his short-comings of the past? Well either he is arrogant or he still sees he was right. Both are hardly qualities I want to see guiding my club for the future.
Its a shame as I think he could help, but the stain of the past is still there.
@The AndyGrahamFanClub...I completely agree, the meeting you refer to was the lowest point I have experienced in my many years supporting Wycombe. Personally, after Hayes was finally defeated, I would have banned both Beeks and Parry from ever entering Adams Park again. They could hardly complain, if they'd had their way it wouldn't even exist anymore.
Nailed it @TheAndyGrahamFanClub. The post of Gasroom 2.0 for me. And having read back my previous post @DevC I take you point!
@TheAndyGrahamFanClub Yes spot on, you have put in words exactly how I feel about Beeks and his tenure over the years. I find it staggering certain people just want to close eyes and forget everything that's happened.
I have long been a fan of @TheAndyGrahamFanClub and I agree that his post above encapsulates the reasons why a significant minority are less than delighted with Mr Beeks' return to the Club Board. I tried somewhat feebly yesterday to put a positive slant on the nature of his current role. To the extent that the main objective of the restructuring is to give lndividual Board Members specific areas of responsibility relating to their qualifications/aptitudes and experience, I can see how Mr Beeks would have been an obvious person to turn to. Whether he could have performed the role in an advisory capacity on an ad hoc basis - rather than as a formally co-opted member of the Board - is perhaps open to question.
Superb post @TheAndyGrahamFanClub
I also agree and I will also not buying shares til I know whose running the club !
@DevC to go back to yesterday's discussion, I'm not sure your view of delegating everything of note to the Trust Board works with a supporter owned club. There needs to be more to it to get the real benefits.
I think we have 11 or 12 people who are very much engaged in the running and ownership of the club, and 950 odd members who are pretty detached from it.
That's all very well when results on the pitch are good, but I worry if things go pear shaped. If supporters are truly part of running the club and the decision making process (not on everything, but something other than a once a year election) then there's more empathy in the bad times. If it really is that we watch the football and they run the club, then I think we'll see the same short termism and fickle reactions from the fans - "sack the manager" and "get your cheque book out Howard."
Which would be a real shame because longer term thinking in backing Ainsworth when times were tough has paid off.
The real worry is the return of this attitude from the board that they are not answerable to the members. I remember that attitude very well from 15 years ago and it ended with the club being in private hands. Now we see the return of one of the chief architects of that transition to the board and the chairman rants at someone for questioning why this person is being put in such a position.