PPF
I understand and have some sympathy for your concerns. I just don't necessarily agree with your solution. Here is a long response to your question.
I think we all would agree that we want the best possible people involved with the club, the best possible playing staff, the best possible coaching staff, the best possible administrative staff, including chairman/directors. The question is how to achieve that.
I think it is wholly unrealistic to expect the large majority of the supporters to get involved in understanding the off-field issues. Most supporters are interested purely in what happens on the pitch, thats just reality. Even amongst the 1000 or so Trust members, a substantial proportion would surely freely admit that they do not have the interest in or expertise in matters off-the pitch to allow them to make an informed judgement or simply are unable to because of time or geography constraints or a whole host of other factors.
Almost certainly then that will leave a core of perhaps 200-500 people who may be willing to vote in elections etc. There is a questionmark as to how legitimate they are in representing the views of the majority of the fans but more importantly that is a dangerously small number, meaning that a small clique of mates could easily drive through a wholly unsuitable candidate.
As an example I give you Eddie Monsoon. Prior to the last trust elections, a group of people were touting him as an appropriate candidate for Trust Board. Now Eddie may be a lovely bloke, I have never met him, and clearly cares passionately about the club, but with his dogmatic confrontational approach based on immovable principles and I believe no knowledge of business, frankly he would have been a disaster on the trust Board in the real world where difficult pragmatic decisions have to be made balancing conflicting pressures, making compromises and sometimes having to simply accept the least bad option. had he stood however, I suspect he would have had a reasonable chance of being elected. To extend that franchise to direct election of the MD/Chairman strikes me as being a step too far, fraught with danger of ending up with a populist demagogue with no expertise in running a complicated vulnerable business.
As it happens, I have much the same thougts re the EU referendum, that we are now stuck with. What we need is detailed rational examination of conflicting advantages and disavantages resulting in a balanced conclusion of what is right for our country. But the arguments are complex and the attention of the electorate limited (and expertise in some cases as well). So we will inevitably end up with making a massive decision critical to the future of our country on the basis of dumbed down simplistic soundbites. As it happens I suspect the country will vote the way I would wish them to, but that is no way to make a vital decision.
Final point and perhaps the most controversial is in respect of our history. Personally I think it better to let sleeping dogs lie now, but if we are going to keep raking over the old coals and making judgement and decisions based upon it, then perhaps we need to reevaluate what actually happened. Conventional wisdom now appears to be see the history through the prism of a cartoon style black or white, good or evil with Hayes cast as the pantomime baddie in chief. Is that entirely fair or is the truth more shades of grey?
If we accept the notion that there was a breakdown in relationship between club management and some supporters, is it entirely fair to blame that breakdown in relationship entirely on the pantomime baddy or are there lessons for all? Take a moment, take a deep breath and put yourself in Hayes shoes. Lets assume for the sake of argument just for a moment, that possibly just possibly HE believed that he was doing the right thing for WWFC and spending significant amounts of his time and money to make it happen. For his troubles all he received from a group of supporters was not constructive criticism but a constant stream of at times quite vicious personal abuse and criticism for criticism's sake. When he tried to reach out with olive branches to open up communication, it was thrown back in his face. Could it be that it was then an understandable human reaction to say sod them and for that relationship to break down. How would you have reacted in that scenario? So is the blame for that relationship breakdown PARTLY (certainly I would argue not wholly but perhaps partly) fairly to be laid at the "fans" door rather than all on the side of the pantomime baddy?
And if so what lessons can the fans learn in how to treat Howard going forward. Constructive criticism yes, abuse and criticism for the sake of it may just be counterproductive to what all supporters want.
Incidentally I have heard a rumour that the fan involved in the altercation with Howard the other day was a former prolific contributor to the previous incarnation of this board. Is this true? Perhaps that explains Howard's misguided reaction.
Couple of bits - I do disagree with you a bit here, but firstly on Steve Hayes. It's clearly a grey area, he wasn't a monster, he did some really good things, some others I disagreed with but find you overly sensitive over criticism/abuse that he got. My standards and yours are obviously not the same, so there you go.
I think you have an unfairly low opinion of the electorate/Wycombe supporters in general.
Your comment "meaning that a small clique of mates could easily drive through a wholly unsuitable candidate" surely applies to the Trust board more than it does hundreds of Wycombe fans voting for someone?
Andrew Howard was appointed by the Trust board for his business experience, drive, etc. If he stood for election he would have been voted on easily by hundreds of Wycombe fans, as would Ivor Beeks, but they would have needed to address and communicate with 1000 members rather than 10 board members. That for me is preferable for a supporter owned club.
I think what you're suggesting is fine for a privately owned club, and I do think that's where Wycombe will end up within 2 seasons, unless a more democratic, supporter focussed approach is adopted, because the share scheme won't be properly embraced and the figures simply won't add up.
well said @peterparrotface - if the football club board are only held to account by the Trust Board (and aggressively hector those not on the Trust board who try to hold them to account), then there's little point to the club remaining Trust owned.
@DevC
And if so what lessons can the fans learn in how to treat Howard going forward. Constructive criticism yes, abuse and criticism for the sake of it may just be counterproductive to what all supporters want.
The problem is that Tuesday's meeting showed that Howard's method dealing with constructive criticism is to shout, intimidate and avoid addressing the question in hand. In what way is that an understandable reaction to the first question he was asked on Tuesday?
Howard's arrogant and rude response to the first question has on reflection stopped me from making a substantial contribution to the share scheme. I have no doubt he is a very able businessman and will bring success to the club if he maintains his enthusiasm. However he should show respect to ALL supporters.
I do not consider it "priggish" to question the rude and aggressive response to a supporters simple question. After all it was meant to be a question and answer session and it was the first question of the night.
AH has acknowledged he was wrong that is why he apologised .
I consider it priggish not to accept we all can say and react in a manner we would later regret I also think it poor form not to take a mans apology as it was given.
Interesting that AH has apologised. I have not seen that. This is not wholly insignificant as I don't think I recall the previous regimes admitting any kind of short-coming. I really want to like and support the guy as I think he has balls to push us forward. However this weeks has unsettled me.
My sources tell me that Howard lost his rag in an even bigger way after the meeting with the same individual, pointing fingers and making threats to them in front of some Trust bigwigs! AFAIK as of Thursday, Howard hadn't made any apology.
Morris it is a worry to some of us that the club's chairman can lose his rag at a meeting on being asked the very simple question of who owns the training ground. As owners of the club are we not entitled to know who we are paying rent to?
I suspect that he totally misread the question and thought it was a personal attack on his friend which of course it wasn't and as a previous poster said wasn't able to control his inner chimp and reacted badly.
May I ask three questions of you.
Do you believe up to now that AH's appointment as chairman has had a positive impact on the club.
Has AH shown any indication that he wants to usurp the trust and take the club in a negative Hayes like direction.
Do you believe until he does and coupled with the apology we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm no AH cheerleader it might go wrong but so far so good let's not throw out the infant with the dirty H2o .
Been concerned for some time that Andrew Howard has got off '(Keith) Scott free' on the Gasroom. After Tuesday's 'inner-chimp' I for one will now be calling him 'Hector', other than next week in France where he will go by the moniker 'Ector. In fact anyone remember that French kids TV show 'Hectors House'? Does this make Beeks Miss Kiki?
On the subject of AH - yes it's disappointing he reacted as he did (I wasn't there so I'm relying on other's comments) but also cheering that he had the grace to apologise (ditto). So on balance a slight negative but not enough to set my alarm bells ringing. Similarly IB. I'd much prefer it if he wasn't formally involved (just too much of a bitter taste) but we should all have learnt enough from recent history to not let our leaders take us to the brink again - whichever way you cut it I still think the trust has enough of a say at the moment for that not to happen. We are a broad church - even if we are apparently all rich Tories (thanks YouGov) so let's carry on in a positive way and just keep an extra eye on those we don't particularly respect or trust.
Comments
PPF
I understand and have some sympathy for your concerns. I just don't necessarily agree with your solution. Here is a long response to your question.
I think we all would agree that we want the best possible people involved with the club, the best possible playing staff, the best possible coaching staff, the best possible administrative staff, including chairman/directors. The question is how to achieve that.
I think it is wholly unrealistic to expect the large majority of the supporters to get involved in understanding the off-field issues. Most supporters are interested purely in what happens on the pitch, thats just reality. Even amongst the 1000 or so Trust members, a substantial proportion would surely freely admit that they do not have the interest in or expertise in matters off-the pitch to allow them to make an informed judgement or simply are unable to because of time or geography constraints or a whole host of other factors.
Almost certainly then that will leave a core of perhaps 200-500 people who may be willing to vote in elections etc. There is a questionmark as to how legitimate they are in representing the views of the majority of the fans but more importantly that is a dangerously small number, meaning that a small clique of mates could easily drive through a wholly unsuitable candidate.
As an example I give you Eddie Monsoon. Prior to the last trust elections, a group of people were touting him as an appropriate candidate for Trust Board. Now Eddie may be a lovely bloke, I have never met him, and clearly cares passionately about the club, but with his dogmatic confrontational approach based on immovable principles and I believe no knowledge of business, frankly he would have been a disaster on the trust Board in the real world where difficult pragmatic decisions have to be made balancing conflicting pressures, making compromises and sometimes having to simply accept the least bad option. had he stood however, I suspect he would have had a reasonable chance of being elected. To extend that franchise to direct election of the MD/Chairman strikes me as being a step too far, fraught with danger of ending up with a populist demagogue with no expertise in running a complicated vulnerable business.
As it happens, I have much the same thougts re the EU referendum, that we are now stuck with. What we need is detailed rational examination of conflicting advantages and disavantages resulting in a balanced conclusion of what is right for our country. But the arguments are complex and the attention of the electorate limited (and expertise in some cases as well). So we will inevitably end up with making a massive decision critical to the future of our country on the basis of dumbed down simplistic soundbites. As it happens I suspect the country will vote the way I would wish them to, but that is no way to make a vital decision.
Final point and perhaps the most controversial is in respect of our history. Personally I think it better to let sleeping dogs lie now, but if we are going to keep raking over the old coals and making judgement and decisions based upon it, then perhaps we need to reevaluate what actually happened. Conventional wisdom now appears to be see the history through the prism of a cartoon style black or white, good or evil with Hayes cast as the pantomime baddie in chief. Is that entirely fair or is the truth more shades of grey?
If we accept the notion that there was a breakdown in relationship between club management and some supporters, is it entirely fair to blame that breakdown in relationship entirely on the pantomime baddy or are there lessons for all? Take a moment, take a deep breath and put yourself in Hayes shoes. Lets assume for the sake of argument just for a moment, that possibly just possibly HE believed that he was doing the right thing for WWFC and spending significant amounts of his time and money to make it happen. For his troubles all he received from a group of supporters was not constructive criticism but a constant stream of at times quite vicious personal abuse and criticism for criticism's sake. When he tried to reach out with olive branches to open up communication, it was thrown back in his face. Could it be that it was then an understandable human reaction to say sod them and for that relationship to break down. How would you have reacted in that scenario? So is the blame for that relationship breakdown PARTLY (certainly I would argue not wholly but perhaps partly) fairly to be laid at the "fans" door rather than all on the side of the pantomime baddy?
And if so what lessons can the fans learn in how to treat Howard going forward. Constructive criticism yes, abuse and criticism for the sake of it may just be counterproductive to what all supporters want.
Incidentally I have heard a rumour that the fan involved in the altercation with Howard the other day was a former prolific contributor to the previous incarnation of this board. Is this true? Perhaps that explains Howard's misguided reaction.
Cheers for that @DevC - impressive word count.
Couple of bits - I do disagree with you a bit here, but firstly on Steve Hayes. It's clearly a grey area, he wasn't a monster, he did some really good things, some others I disagreed with but find you overly sensitive over criticism/abuse that he got. My standards and yours are obviously not the same, so there you go.
I think you have an unfairly low opinion of the electorate/Wycombe supporters in general.
Your comment "meaning that a small clique of mates could easily drive through a wholly unsuitable candidate" surely applies to the Trust board more than it does hundreds of Wycombe fans voting for someone?
Andrew Howard was appointed by the Trust board for his business experience, drive, etc. If he stood for election he would have been voted on easily by hundreds of Wycombe fans, as would Ivor Beeks, but they would have needed to address and communicate with 1000 members rather than 10 board members. That for me is preferable for a supporter owned club.
I think what you're suggesting is fine for a privately owned club, and I do think that's where Wycombe will end up within 2 seasons, unless a more democratic, supporter focussed approach is adopted, because the share scheme won't be properly embraced and the figures simply won't add up.
@DevC FFS I fell asleep reading that! Please always do the short response.
@DevC Re your last para - he was and it probably does.
@DevC Best post so far on the new Gasroom! Wow..
England long ago replaced 'nation of shopkeepers' with 'nation of spivs' so it's nice to see one of WWFC's greatest spivs return to the top table!
well said @peterparrotface - if the football club board are only held to account by the Trust Board (and aggressively hector those not on the Trust board who try to hold them to account), then there's little point to the club remaining Trust owned.
Wow my arse. Pontificating bullshit, still standing up for Hayes DevC? He was more than a pantomime baddie.
The problem is that Tuesday's meeting showed that Howard's method dealing with constructive criticism is to shout, intimidate and avoid addressing the question in hand. In what way is that an understandable reaction to the first question he was asked on Tuesday?
Absolutely. Anyone would think he was dealing with Keith Ryan! Honestly some people.
Howard's arrogant and rude response to the first question has on reflection stopped me from making a substantial contribution to the share scheme. I have no doubt he is a very able businessman and will bring success to the club if he maintains his enthusiasm. However he should show respect to ALL supporters.
Get over yourselves the man made an apology move on
never have I read such a bunch of priggish twaddle in my life
This forum gets more like a vicarage tea party every day.
I do not consider it "priggish" to question the rude and aggressive response to a supporters simple question. After all it was meant to be a question and answer session and it was the first question of the night.
AH has acknowledged he was wrong that is why he apologised .
I consider it priggish not to accept we all can say and react in a manner we would later regret I also think it poor form not to take a mans apology as it was given.
Interesting that AH has apologised. I have not seen that. This is not wholly insignificant as I don't think I recall the previous regimes admitting any kind of short-coming. I really want to like and support the guy as I think he has balls to push us forward. However this weeks has unsettled me.
My sources tell me that Howard lost his rag in an even bigger way after the meeting with the same individual, pointing fingers and making threats to them in front of some Trust bigwigs! AFAIK as of Thursday, Howard hadn't made any apology.
http://m.bucksfreepress.co.uk/sport/13376906.Blues_chairman_leaps_to_Beeks__defence_at_fans__forum/
3rd line
Morris it is a worry to some of us that the club's chairman can lose his rag at a meeting on being asked the very simple question of who owns the training ground. As owners of the club are we not entitled to know who we are paying rent to?
Good shout mooneyman!
Moneyman- absolutely. 100%. no doubt about it .
I suspect that he totally misread the question and thought it was a personal attack on his friend which of course it wasn't and as a previous poster said wasn't able to control his inner chimp and reacted badly.
May I ask three questions of you.
Do you believe up to now that AH's appointment as chairman has had a positive impact on the club.
Has AH shown any indication that he wants to usurp the trust and take the club in a negative Hayes like direction.
Do you believe until he does and coupled with the apology we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm no AH cheerleader it might go wrong but so far so good let's not throw out the infant with the dirty H2o .
I would answer firstly Yes, secondly not now convinced after last tuesday and thirdly a qualified yes.
Been concerned for some time that Andrew Howard has got off '(Keith) Scott free' on the Gasroom. After Tuesday's 'inner-chimp' I for one will now be calling him 'Hector', other than next week in France where he will go by the moniker 'Ector. In fact anyone remember that French kids TV show 'Hectors House'? Does this make Beeks Miss Kiki?
So we agree
Hector's House was another French import? Shocking. Another childhood illusion shattered
I still loved it, "Silly old Hector"!
On the subject of AH - yes it's disappointing he reacted as he did (I wasn't there so I'm relying on other's comments) but also cheering that he had the grace to apologise (ditto). So on balance a slight negative but not enough to set my alarm bells ringing. Similarly IB. I'd much prefer it if he wasn't formally involved (just too much of a bitter taste) but we should all have learnt enough from recent history to not let our leaders take us to the brink again - whichever way you cut it I still think the trust has enough of a say at the moment for that not to happen. We are a broad church - even if we are apparently all rich Tories (thanks YouGov) so let's carry on in a positive way and just keep an extra eye on those we don't particularly respect or trust.
Fair comment.
It's more an Andy Pandy and little Ted relationship
So I'm guessing you weren't at the meeting!
You haven't seen the episode where Andy loses his rag it was like John Sweeney vs the Scientoloists.