I was at the meeting and Ah's reaction to the first question was not good. He interrupted the question and then came from the front up to the questioner in quite an intimidating fashion. Yes he later apologised but in a casual manner durin one of his soliloquies. I like AH, and I like what he has done for the club. HOWEVER, he needs to reflect on his actions. All trust members are entitled to ask ANY question they like without the fear of an aggressive response. AH you co opted Beeks onto the board, you should understand and appreciate that there is some feeling within the trust membership that Beeks was somewhat complicit in the previous regime.
I thought the question was probably not the best, either way ALL trust members can ask any question they like, you need to come to terms with that fact.
AH take a breath and realise we are all on the same side.
When Hayes started putting money in to the club, although we signed some great players there was always a feeling as the money mounted up in 'loan notes' that it would need to be accounted for at some point, and so it came true when Hayes then demanded 100% of the club in return, along with the stadium fiasco etc
Howard seems very much to be pushing us to be a sustainable, profitable, fan owned club.
He is not pumping loads of money in, he is helping us realise our commercial worth
Looking at the fact we should make a profit next season it feels like so far he is doing a very good job.
He also appears to have no interest in owning the club.
The meeting on Tues was overwhelmingly positive, the first I've been to in a long time where it really felt we were moving forward.
As soon as we get to the Q&A, the very first question was sniping about Beeks and you could hear the collective 'groan' in the room. Maybe Howard shouldn't have reacted the way he did (he did stand up and apologise fairly quickly) but considering how positive the meeting had been, it's a shame that the first question had to be of that nature rather than something constructive. The fact as I mentioned earlier that 90% of the room broke into applause suggests that the vast majority of members felt the same way.
I certainly didn't feel like applauding. It was pack mentality at it's worst cheering on a bully.
It was wrong that the questioner was howled down by a ranting Howard, instead of being allowed to make his point.
From where I was sitting I couldn't even hear the full question before the guy was interrupted. I've since gathered that it was about Ivor Beeks and his involvement with the training ground sale, a worthy topic if ever I heard one.
It seems AH would rather have an angry confrontation than address an issue calmly. I was at a meeting last year where he lost his temper twice and ranted at a couple of ordinary fans who had loaned the club money.
It's a shame because he's obviously doing a good job on many levels but lacks basic respect for others.
Morris Ital our Rediffusion had a knackered speaker as well, I thought it was Larry the Lamp, never understood why a baby sheep was called that. As for Muffin the Tool, well really.
@casual_observer - welcome to the Gasroom. Agree with your last para. There is a lot of "previous" behind the confrontation and AH said at a previous meeting that he disliked the politics. As a newcomer you may be unfamiliar with the context.
Maybe the same old gasroomers should stop bleating on about the same old subjects at these meetings. Good on AH for standing his ground. The moaners should not forget that they are a small minority!
@FrijidPink Someone has to question things that don't sit comfortable. But you keep on blindly following the company line and don't worry your pretty little pink head.
@Morris_Ital said:
M3G
It seems that some gasroomers preferred it under Hayes because they had something to biatch about
The irony is that the same argument was put forward then. It was a minority that initially questioned the way things were progressing under Hayes and we were accused of lacking ambition and of wanting to see the club back in the conference. Not all of us feel the need to doff our cap to those at the top table; progress is made by ensuring they get things right. Appointing people on the basis of the old pals act is a kick in the teeth to those of us that were proved right about Hayes.
The irony is that the same argument was put forward then. It was a minority that initially questioned the way things were progressing under Hayes and we were accused of lacking ambition and of wanting to see the club back in the conference. Not all of us feel the need to doff our cap to those at the top table; progress is made by ensuring they get things right. Appointing people on the basis of the old pals act is a kick in the teeth to those of us that were proved right about Hayes.
The assumption you're wrongly making is that those that aren't sceptical from the off about AH are naively following the party line and what is more to add insult to injury did the same during the Hayes era add to this a sizeable helping of moral superiority and tadah there's a gasrmoomer.
As I've said before my attitude to AH is a very practical one up to this point. His appointment has been a good one for my team and nothing I have read here has lead me to think otherwise therefore until I judge there is something rotten in the state of Denmark he gets my support and as for IBs appointment being a kick in your teeth, well move your head.
It is no surprise who it was who asked the question. It has become rather typical of him and his clique - no solutions, no compromise, just a constant splurge of dogmatic negativity. While Howard would have been better not to react in the way he did, it does rather place his actions into context.
It is all rather sad really. We currently have a young managment team building a reputation for developing young talent supported by a close working relationship with
a chairman off the field who appears to be running the club professionally. We cannot expect to achieve the heights of last season every year, but the club has a feel about it that it is moving forwards.
But despite that, this small clique still appear to be hankering for the bad old days, marching around their field with their signs "Hayes bad, Trust good" with no acknowledgment of any shades of grey. And it surely only a matter of time before the going gets a little tough and we wake up one morning to find that the signs have apparently said "Howard bad, Trust good" all along, unthinking attack dog Twattler slaveringly following his masters lead snapping at the heels of all those seeing shades of grey and Che and co walking on two legs and sleeping in beds.
Dont let this little clique spoil the opportunity for the club to move forward under a dynamic impressive leadership. Constructive criticism yes but not negativity for the sake of it.
@DevC I don't think you get it, but then why would you. You were a Hayes supporter and gladly accepted and just went along with all he wanted to do didn't you. Company drivel I hear every day in most management meetings I attend, its utter bullshit, tow the company line, preach the same message to all. Not allowed to say how it really is. As for little clique (sic), well there are plenty of objectors who have purposely avoided contributing to this thread and who would never post on this forum. They have already resigned from the Trust and made there feelings known through written letter and emails. You just don't get it do you?
I don't think the context is that relevant. Mr Howard reacted badly to a valid question in a way that has damaged his reputation. He should be able to deal with criticism and be able to respond in a reasonable, persuasive manner. This is a key part of his role. Hopefully he will learn from this, and react more positively in the future.
However, it's only a minor fault; and everyone can see the major strides forward that Wycombe have made under his leadership.
Let's support Andrew Howard up until the point (which will hopefully never occur) that he is no longer acting in the best interests of the club. But that support doesn't mean not asking questions. We won't be able to tell if he continues to deserve our support unless we apply some level of scrutiny as Trust members.
I suspect @DevC is playing devil's advocate a little. He was pretty good at asking difficult questions of the Trust in the Woodward era, as he was absolutely right to do.
As for me, I have a healthy mistrust of whoever's in power at any time. That doesn't mean I don't support them - it means that I think difficult questions should always be posed and always answered. Lines of accountability, be it in a democratic government or a supporter-owned football club, must always be upheld and strengthened.
Andrew Howard's response was very disappointing in that respect. I would hope he's learned his lesson and will be more forthcoming at future meetings. As for Ivor Beeks, he clearly can't stay away from the club and in my opinion that's a positive character attribute. However a gesture of contrition for his role in the Hayes era is probably appropriate. It would be nice for him to prove he has the best interests of the club at heart by gifting back the training ground without charging the interest. That, for me, would draw a close to this saga and mean we could all move forward as One Wycombe (do we still go by that ridiculous slogan?!)
Oh, dear this is all getting tiresome and depressing - ne'r the twain shall meet. Hope I'm not alone in wanting to let sleeping attack dogs lie. If the detractors are eventually able to crow (RIP) "I told you so" - then so be it, but could they not agree to a ceasefire whilst things are looking so good for the future? That, by the way, is a rhetorical question and also - many will be pleased to hear- my last comment on this topic.
Comments
Sorry, no. I only remember Andy Pandy as a bit of a Wooss!
He wasn't a wooss he was an individual oh and the little ted rumour was just that loopy loo loved a bit of stripey jumpsuit action.
@Morris_Ital said:
Gotcha!
Sorry for being pedantic but it was looby loo not loopy loo.
Tasteless Sun headline or Noel Edmonds award
You're right I blame the knackered speaker on our Pye T.V at least I've still got Barry the lamb.
I was at the meeting and Ah's reaction to the first question was not good. He interrupted the question and then came from the front up to the questioner in quite an intimidating fashion. Yes he later apologised but in a casual manner durin one of his soliloquies. I like AH, and I like what he has done for the club. HOWEVER, he needs to reflect on his actions. All trust members are entitled to ask ANY question they like without the fear of an aggressive response. AH you co opted Beeks onto the board, you should understand and appreciate that there is some feeling within the trust membership that Beeks was somewhat complicit in the previous regime.
I thought the question was probably not the best, either way ALL trust members can ask any question they like, you need to come to terms with that fact.
AH take a breath and realise we are all on the same side.
Because he is the Sepp Blatter of South Bucks
Interesting though that 90% of the room applauded Howard during the confrontation so maybe the concerned are very much in the minority
Right at the beginning of Hayes reign you would probably have found that the great majority would have applauded him at a meeting!
It's a different situation surely?
When Hayes started putting money in to the club, although we signed some great players there was always a feeling as the money mounted up in 'loan notes' that it would need to be accounted for at some point, and so it came true when Hayes then demanded 100% of the club in return, along with the stadium fiasco etc
Howard seems very much to be pushing us to be a sustainable, profitable, fan owned club.
He is not pumping loads of money in, he is helping us realise our commercial worth
Looking at the fact we should make a profit next season it feels like so far he is doing a very good job.
He also appears to have no interest in owning the club.
The meeting on Tues was overwhelmingly positive, the first I've been to in a long time where it really felt we were moving forward.
As soon as we get to the Q&A, the very first question was sniping about Beeks and you could hear the collective 'groan' in the room. Maybe Howard shouldn't have reacted the way he did (he did stand up and apologise fairly quickly) but considering how positive the meeting had been, it's a shame that the first question had to be of that nature rather than something constructive. The fact as I mentioned earlier that 90% of the room broke into applause suggests that the vast majority of members felt the same way.
I certainly didn't feel like applauding. It was pack mentality at it's worst cheering on a bully.
It was wrong that the questioner was howled down by a ranting Howard, instead of being allowed to make his point.
From where I was sitting I couldn't even hear the full question before the guy was interrupted. I've since gathered that it was about Ivor Beeks and his involvement with the training ground sale, a worthy topic if ever I heard one.
It seems AH would rather have an angry confrontation than address an issue calmly. I was at a meeting last year where he lost his temper twice and ranted at a couple of ordinary fans who had loaned the club money.
It's a shame because he's obviously doing a good job on many levels but lacks basic respect for others.
Morris Ital our Rediffusion had a knackered speaker as well, I thought it was Larry the Lamp, never understood why a baby sheep was called that. As for Muffin the Tool, well really.
Reminds me of an old joke...
Is Muffin the Mule a sexual offence...?
.....No, but you might get a Moby Dick..
Boom boom.
Weird double thread going on here.....
'Boom Boom' - ' Mr Derek, why is your hand under my cloak'? or is a bit of Basil Brush too off-thread?
@casual_observer - welcome to the Gasroom. Agree with your last para. There is a lot of "previous" behind the confrontation and AH said at a previous meeting that he disliked the politics. As a newcomer you may be unfamiliar with the context.
Maybe the same old gasroomers should stop bleating on about the same old subjects at these meetings. Good on AH for standing his ground. The moaners should not forget that they are a small minority!
@FrijidPink Someone has to question things that don't sit comfortable. But you keep on blindly following the company line and don't worry your pretty little pink head.
M3G
It seems that some gasroomers preferred it under Hayes because they had something to biatch about
@Morris_Ital I cant separate Hayes from his biggest supporter Beeks. That's the problem. But don't worry its water under a bridge.
The irony is that the same argument was put forward then. It was a minority that initially questioned the way things were progressing under Hayes and we were accused of lacking ambition and of wanting to see the club back in the conference. Not all of us feel the need to doff our cap to those at the top table; progress is made by ensuring they get things right. Appointing people on the basis of the old pals act is a kick in the teeth to those of us that were proved right about Hayes.
Short of jumping down > @Doob said:
The assumption you're wrongly making is that those that aren't sceptical from the off about AH are naively following the party line and what is more to add insult to injury did the same during the Hayes era add to this a sizeable helping of moral superiority and tadah there's a gasrmoomer.
As I've said before my attitude to AH is a very practical one up to this point. His appointment has been a good one for my team and nothing I have read here has lead me to think otherwise therefore until I judge there is something rotten in the state of Denmark he gets my support and as for IBs appointment being a kick in your teeth, well move your head.
@Morris_Ital if your last para doesn't prove @M3G point then I don't know what will.
What a deeply depressing thread this has become.
It is no surprise who it was who asked the question. It has become rather typical of him and his clique - no solutions, no compromise, just a constant splurge of dogmatic negativity. While Howard would have been better not to react in the way he did, it does rather place his actions into context.
It is all rather sad really. We currently have a young managment team building a reputation for developing young talent supported by a close working relationship with
a chairman off the field who appears to be running the club professionally. We cannot expect to achieve the heights of last season every year, but the club has a feel about it that it is moving forwards.
But despite that, this small clique still appear to be hankering for the bad old days, marching around their field with their signs "Hayes bad, Trust good" with no acknowledgment of any shades of grey. And it surely only a matter of time before the going gets a little tough and we wake up one morning to find that the signs have apparently said "Howard bad, Trust good" all along, unthinking attack dog Twattler slaveringly following his masters lead snapping at the heels of all those seeing shades of grey and Che and co walking on two legs and sleeping in beds.
Dont let this little clique spoil the opportunity for the club to move forward under a dynamic impressive leadership. Constructive criticism yes but not negativity for the sake of it.
@DevC have I missed something? Where does it say who asked the question?
@DevC I don't think you get it, but then why would you. You were a Hayes supporter and gladly accepted and just went along with all he wanted to do didn't you. Company drivel I hear every day in most management meetings I attend, its utter bullshit, tow the company line, preach the same message to all. Not allowed to say how it really is. As for little clique (sic), well there are plenty of objectors who have purposely avoided contributing to this thread and who would never post on this forum. They have already resigned from the Trust and made there feelings known through written letter and emails. You just don't get it do you?
I don't think the context is that relevant. Mr Howard reacted badly to a valid question in a way that has damaged his reputation. He should be able to deal with criticism and be able to respond in a reasonable, persuasive manner. This is a key part of his role. Hopefully he will learn from this, and react more positively in the future.
However, it's only a minor fault; and everyone can see the major strides forward that Wycombe have made under his leadership.
Let's support Andrew Howard up until the point (which will hopefully never occur) that he is no longer acting in the best interests of the club. But that support doesn't mean not asking questions. We won't be able to tell if he continues to deserve our support unless we apply some level of scrutiny as Trust members.
I suspect @DevC is playing devil's advocate a little. He was pretty good at asking difficult questions of the Trust in the Woodward era, as he was absolutely right to do.
As for me, I have a healthy mistrust of whoever's in power at any time. That doesn't mean I don't support them - it means that I think difficult questions should always be posed and always answered. Lines of accountability, be it in a democratic government or a supporter-owned football club, must always be upheld and strengthened.
Andrew Howard's response was very disappointing in that respect. I would hope he's learned his lesson and will be more forthcoming at future meetings. As for Ivor Beeks, he clearly can't stay away from the club and in my opinion that's a positive character attribute. However a gesture of contrition for his role in the Hayes era is probably appropriate. It would be nice for him to prove he has the best interests of the club at heart by gifting back the training ground without charging the interest. That, for me, would draw a close to this saga and mean we could all move forward as One Wycombe (do we still go by that ridiculous slogan?!)
Oh, dear this is all getting tiresome and depressing - ne'r the twain shall meet. Hope I'm not alone in wanting to let sleeping attack dogs lie. If the detractors are eventually able to crow (RIP) "I told you so" - then so be it, but could they not agree to a ceasefire whilst things are looking so good for the future? That, by the way, is a rhetorical question and also - many will be pleased to hear- my last comment on this topic.