Actually i agree with most of this mornings posts.
Howard shouldnt have reacted as he did.
Constructive challenge is only ever a good thing (but the key word is constructive)
Time for me at least to move on.
Don't believe a word I say! My earlier post was written - tediously slowly - before the very constructive contributions made
whilst I was plodding through my "bowing out" piece. Timing is all !
Eric
My last comment too, but I had heard a rumour and it was confirmed on page 3 or 4 above. If that proves to be incorrect info, I will of course stand corrected.
It's not clearly stated anywhere. DevC says on P4, "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."
Further down the same page, micra responds: "@DevC Re your last para - he was and it probably does."
Surely the fan had the 'bottle' to identify himself when he attended the meeting and asked the question.
I wasn't there, didnt witness the altercation and don't know who asked the question (though I can make an educated guess of 2-3 individuals).
What I will say is that Goon Senior, who doesn't get involved in these sorts of issues, read the verbatim (as I understand) report in the BFP and thought Andrew Howard came off very badly. That, for me, says volumes...
With regard to those dismissing a 'small clique of naysayers' I'll simply say "been there done that" and (literally) "got the t-shirt". Were it not for that small band we would now be in a stadium four times the size we needed. That small clique were the first to raise questions about Mr Hayes; questions which supporters belatedly also picked up on.
If I were you, I'd start listening and then ask similar questions. The answers may be of interest (and not what you might expect). And if the answers are given along the lines of the meeting, that may prompt further questions...
For Mr Howard, I would say this: You are the Managing Director of a Supporter-owned Football Club. If you don't like it when supporters ask these sorts of questions then I am afraid you are in the wrong business.
I understand the supporter in question was the artist formerly known as Che/Benny/ one or two other names along the way. If this is not the case, I am more than happy to stand corrected.
Exactly @Tory_Goon. I simply cant see why you would not question as what IBs future involvement would be bearing in mind his track record. Good post by the way.
It seems @DevC has been desperately trying to coax some old foes back in recent posts to reignite his perverse trolling pleasures. I guess everyone has got to have a hobby.
@wwfcblue Yes that's the one. I assume that your point is that being "on the inside" so to speak he had a much better idea (compared to the average supporters) of exactly what was going on at Wycombe Wanderers. Am I right?
@DevC
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.
This surely has to be in the running for most incoherent drunken post of the year?
For what it's worth my opinion on Howard is that he is playing an important role in sharpening up the club's act, though he has to remember Wycombe Wanderers FC is a supporters owned club, and that means having to face questions that he might think are idiotic or even insulting.
It just so happens the question that he's publicly thrown a strop over and declared to be irrelevant was very pertinent to WWT (whose meeting it was) ratifying the co-option of an individual who WWT dropped heavy hints as a potential part-owner of a key part of WWFC's infrastructure. It might have made some people in the audience groan, but it's the sort of question that must be put by the membership of an organisation if it wants to hold it to account. Whether it's a minority or majority opinion, or seen as moaning for the sake of it is neither here nor there.
@ReadingMarginalista said:
This surely has to be in the running for most incoherent drunken post of the year?
It's a woeful paragraph. @DevC talks of seeing shades of grey but then serves up just the slab of overblown good v bad nonsense that he claims to despair of.
My own final thoughts on the subject. Andrew Howard has made some big strides here and I support what he's trying to do to improve the club's situation.
However, there's no room for intimidating people when taking questions. We had all that bollocks with Hayes - insinuations about 'saying it to his face', hints about his mate 'big Tel' etc. If Andrew Howard doesn't like questions he might want to consider not asking for them. Of course, his friend Ivor Beeks has form for intimidating behaviour in the Vere Suite, so I imagine dissent will not be tolerated at any future meetings.
Regarding Ivor Beeks' previous, if we're hoping to let 'sleeping dogs lie' that'd be much easier if that particular sleeping dog had remained in his retirement kennel. I don't know what infuriates me more - his complete lack of contrition over the Hayes debacle or the endless belief that good old Ivor only has the best interests of Wycombe Wanderers at heart. I don't buy DevC's many attempts to tell me that his training ground chicanery was actually an act of philanthropy. No-one's paying 8.5% interest to people investing in the share scheme are they? The guilty anonymity that accompanied that transaction tells me all I need to know.
Overall, I'm fed up with people trying to shut down debate by insisting on cap-doffing from all. There are WWFC supporters who are far too negative, but there are also people who are far too trusting.
@arnos_grove - I like your penultimate paragraph very much but with one qualification. My sleeping dog allusion referred to the unsatisfactory situation as a whole prior to the Trust takeover not to Mr Beeks. Circumstances are now very different but clearly lessons still need to be learned. The next meeting will be very interesting.
I think I do have to briefly respond, given the rather personal nature of some of the posts.
To Chas, disagreeing with the party line as propogated by the thought police of the peoples republic of Che is not "trolling". Its just disagreeing. Which is the majority view can be debated.
To Mr Marginalista, well you are entitled to your view of my post of course, (although perhaps suggesting that the first part of your posting name is more noun than adjective?)
To Arnos, I think we have all agreed that Howard should have handled the question better. A weary resignation would perhaps have pricked the bubble more effectively. i trusat he wil learn from that. As an aside, I have to say there have been far worse "crimes" at previous "suuporter liaison meetings.
To All. The bottom line for me on all of this is that the Chairman and the fan representatives, theTrust Board, have concluded that the football club managment is stronger by taking advantage of Beeks experience and contacts in having him on the Board. They presumably feel that the prospects of success for the club are higher as a result. Certainly the Football Club Board feels infinitely stronger and more professional than it has for many a moon. Personally I think that is a good thing.
The issue here is one of transparency. Beeks hides behind a consortium to purchase the training ground and when his name leaks out he is lauded as a saviour. People have short memories given the fact Beeks ushered in S.H who presided over the club nearly going into extinction in the first place. Beeks ends up being given a seat back on the board. It is no wonder fans baulk at the idea of being given more of the same medicine which made the club so ill in the first place. A man, let us not forget, who (as others have said) has never made any apology of shown any sense of contrition or humility over the financial mess the club was left in. It was the FANS who turned up to games and it was the FANS who purchased the season tickets, merchandise and club share scheme. It's interesting to me that during the bad times the board comes to us cap in hand "its your club now" - one good season and its "you watch the football and we'll run the club." It's that level of arrogance that nearly ruined this club in the first place.
@DevC - You're entitled to your faith in the WWT board in giving AH a large amount of control over WWFC operations, to the point of co-opting Beeks back onto the board. You overstep the mark with your opposition to supporters and WWT members asking clarification on whether the person being co-opted has any personal financial interests in WWFC. This has not been declared to the membership, therefore it is only natural that clarification will be sought. How this fits into some Orwellian dystopia that you imagine South Bucks has become I don't know.
With regards to my handle on here, I'm not sure I get whatever clever cryptic point you were trying to make. 'Reading' is usually only an adjective qualifying nouns unsuitable for a family-friendly internet forum such as this.
Comments
Actually i agree with most of this mornings posts.
Howard shouldnt have reacted as he did.
Constructive challenge is only ever a good thing (but the key word is constructive)
Time for me at least to move on.
@DevC hi Dev, you might have missed my question over the other page, but where does it say who asked the question?
Don't believe a word I say! My earlier post was written - tediously slowly - before the very constructive contributions made
whilst I was plodding through my "bowing out" piece. Timing is all !
Eric
My last comment too, but I had heard a rumour and it was confirmed on page 3 or 4 above. If that proves to be incorrect info, I will of course stand corrected.
I've trawled through every page and can't see it anywhere. Are you sure?
It's not clearly stated anywhere. DevC says on P4, "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."
Further down the same page, micra responds: "@DevC Re your last para - he was and it probably does."
So who is the fan in question?
Why doesn't the "fan" have the bottle to identify himself?
@DevC Dev?
Surely the fan had the 'bottle' to identify himself when he attended the meeting and asked the question.
I wasn't there, didnt witness the altercation and don't know who asked the question (though I can make an educated guess of 2-3 individuals).
What I will say is that Goon Senior, who doesn't get involved in these sorts of issues, read the verbatim (as I understand) report in the BFP and thought Andrew Howard came off very badly. That, for me, says volumes...
With regard to those dismissing a 'small clique of naysayers' I'll simply say "been there done that" and (literally) "got the t-shirt". Were it not for that small band we would now be in a stadium four times the size we needed. That small clique were the first to raise questions about Mr Hayes; questions which supporters belatedly also picked up on.
If I were you, I'd start listening and then ask similar questions. The answers may be of interest (and not what you might expect). And if the answers are given along the lines of the meeting, that may prompt further questions...
For Mr Howard, I would say this: You are the Managing Director of a Supporter-owned Football Club. If you don't like it when supporters ask these sorts of questions then I am afraid you are in the wrong business.
I understand the supporter in question was the artist formerly known as Che/Benny/ one or two other names along the way. If this is not the case, I am more than happy to stand corrected.
Andrew Howard is Chairman, rather than Managing Director but that's spot on really.
Exactly @Tory_Goon. I simply cant see why you would not question as what IBs future involvement would be bearing in mind his track record. Good post by the way.
@DevC That would be Dale Hurman I presume, the same man who accepted a job offer from Steve Hayes.
It seems @DevC has been desperately trying to coax some old foes back in recent posts to reignite his perverse trolling pleasures. I guess everyone has got to have a hobby.
@wwfcblue Yes that's the one. I assume that your point is that being "on the inside" so to speak he had a much better idea (compared to the average supporters) of exactly what was going on at Wycombe Wanderers. Am I right?
DevC Hear Hear. Best post so far on this subject!
This surely has to be in the running for most incoherent drunken post of the year?
For what it's worth my opinion on Howard is that he is playing an important role in sharpening up the club's act, though he has to remember Wycombe Wanderers FC is a supporters owned club, and that means having to face questions that he might think are idiotic or even insulting.
It just so happens the question that he's publicly thrown a strop over and declared to be irrelevant was very pertinent to WWT (whose meeting it was) ratifying the co-option of an individual who WWT dropped heavy hints as a potential part-owner of a key part of WWFC's infrastructure. It might have made some people in the audience groan, but it's the sort of question that must be put by the membership of an organisation if it wants to hold it to account. Whether it's a minority or majority opinion, or seen as moaning for the sake of it is neither here nor there.
It's a woeful paragraph. @DevC talks of seeing shades of grey but then serves up just the slab of overblown good v bad nonsense that he claims to despair of.
My own final thoughts on the subject. Andrew Howard has made some big strides here and I support what he's trying to do to improve the club's situation.
However, there's no room for intimidating people when taking questions. We had all that bollocks with Hayes - insinuations about 'saying it to his face', hints about his mate 'big Tel' etc. If Andrew Howard doesn't like questions he might want to consider not asking for them. Of course, his friend Ivor Beeks has form for intimidating behaviour in the Vere Suite, so I imagine dissent will not be tolerated at any future meetings.
Regarding Ivor Beeks' previous, if we're hoping to let 'sleeping dogs lie' that'd be much easier if that particular sleeping dog had remained in his retirement kennel. I don't know what infuriates me more - his complete lack of contrition over the Hayes debacle or the endless belief that good old Ivor only has the best interests of Wycombe Wanderers at heart. I don't buy DevC's many attempts to tell me that his training ground chicanery was actually an act of philanthropy. No-one's paying 8.5% interest to people investing in the share scheme are they? The guilty anonymity that accompanied that transaction tells me all I need to know.
Overall, I'm fed up with people trying to shut down debate by insisting on cap-doffing from all. There are WWFC supporters who are far too negative, but there are also people who are far too trusting.
@arnos_grove - I like your penultimate paragraph very much but with one qualification. My sleeping dog allusion referred to the unsatisfactory situation as a whole prior to the Trust takeover not to Mr Beeks. Circumstances are now very different but clearly lessons still need to be learned. The next meeting will be very interesting.
I don't know why time has suddenly started from the Hayes era. The rot was already firmly set in by that point in time.
I think I do have to briefly respond, given the rather personal nature of some of the posts.
To Chas, disagreeing with the party line as propogated by the thought police of the peoples republic of Che is not "trolling". Its just disagreeing. Which is the majority view can be debated.
To Mr Marginalista, well you are entitled to your view of my post of course, (although perhaps suggesting that the first part of your posting name is more noun than adjective?)
To Arnos, I think we have all agreed that Howard should have handled the question better. A weary resignation would perhaps have pricked the bubble more effectively. i trusat he wil learn from that. As an aside, I have to say there have been far worse "crimes" at previous "suuporter liaison meetings.
To All. The bottom line for me on all of this is that the Chairman and the fan representatives, theTrust Board, have concluded that the football club managment is stronger by taking advantage of Beeks experience and contacts in having him on the Board. They presumably feel that the prospects of success for the club are higher as a result. Certainly the Football Club Board feels infinitely stronger and more professional than it has for many a moon. Personally I think that is a good thing.
And before anyone points it out, the typing in that post perhaps does deserve the "drunken post of the year" award. Must do better!
@DevC - excellent post. Epitome of sense and sobriety!
@DevC "given the rather personal nature of some of the posts" "party line as propogated by the thought police of the peoples republic of Che".
I trust that you'll reflect on the inherent hypocrisy of your post?
The issue here is one of transparency. Beeks hides behind a consortium to purchase the training ground and when his name leaks out he is lauded as a saviour. People have short memories given the fact Beeks ushered in S.H who presided over the club nearly going into extinction in the first place. Beeks ends up being given a seat back on the board. It is no wonder fans baulk at the idea of being given more of the same medicine which made the club so ill in the first place. A man, let us not forget, who (as others have said) has never made any apology of shown any sense of contrition or humility over the financial mess the club was left in. It was the FANS who turned up to games and it was the FANS who purchased the season tickets, merchandise and club share scheme. It's interesting to me that during the bad times the board comes to us cap in hand "its your club now" - one good season and its "you watch the football and we'll run the club." It's that level of arrogance that nearly ruined this club in the first place.
Rubbish.
@DevC - You're entitled to your faith in the WWT board in giving AH a large amount of control over WWFC operations, to the point of co-opting Beeks back onto the board. You overstep the mark with your opposition to supporters and WWT members asking clarification on whether the person being co-opted has any personal financial interests in WWFC. This has not been declared to the membership, therefore it is only natural that clarification will be sought. How this fits into some Orwellian dystopia that you imagine South Bucks has become I don't know.
With regards to my handle on here, I'm not sure I get whatever clever cryptic point you were trying to make. 'Reading' is usually only an adjective qualifying nouns unsuitable for a family-friendly internet forum such as this.
cracking post Nixy