I was very involved with the Club during the Hayes era. Hayes was a bully; ran the place like a religious cult where you were either for him or against him; presented himself as a man of the people so that many were taken in by his "vision" for the Club; never took advice from others; and attacked anyone who questioned him or the wisdom of saddling the Club with £millions of debt, often in a very aggressive manner.
We all know how well that situation ended.
For me, there are elements in what we are witnessing now that have similarities to that era, albeit maybe in a somewhat toned down style.
Mr Beeks had a reasonable record when he chaired the Club. However, as anyone who attended a Club AGM under the pre-PLC structure knows, Mr Beeks likewise did everything possible to avoid explaining his decisions as Chairman and demonised anyone who dared to question his decisions.
Sadly, Mr Beeks supported Mr Hayes 100%. For this reason, in my opinion, Mr Beeks should not be allowed anywhere near running the Football Club.
I think Mr. Howard needs to realise that this is a football club (and a 'fan owned' club at that) and as such, fans are entitled to question and hold the board to account for their actions and decision-making. I would like to see an active, constructive but civil and respectful dialogue between the club management and the supporters - something that was clearly missing in the Steve Hayes era.
@TheNixonTapes said:
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.
Lot of good stuff in that post, but I think this bit is key to what's making me feel a bit crap about the situation.
I've read it. I'd have thought his roles in supporter interaction would be along the lines of improving the ticketing experience, rather than being involved in governance which is an entirely separate area. He hasn't been appointed as CEO.
Putting aside the personalities involved for a moment - this has ended up being yet another PR disaster for the club - just like the PR disasters of old. At a time when the team is doing well on the pitch and there is a drive to invite fans into the share scheme this has become an unwelcome distraction. For those who tell us Beeks has 99% support of all fans - I doubt this and besides we were spun the same story about S.H. I was not at the meeting but to respond to a question about Beeks from a trust member in such a way is unprofessional, rude and arrogant and is not a good advertisment for the trust board or its relationship with its members. I sincerely hope that the entrance of Beeks through the side door, once the dust has settled, and the subsequent response to a perfectly valid question about his involvement at the trust meeting does not herald the return of "business as usual."
Heaven forbid, we were to find ourselves in the same financial black hole - it will be the fans, once again, who will be asked to bail out the club and clear up the mess whilst those responsible simply walk away as though nothing has happened.
I am of the view that anybody who is co-opted on to the Board should be subject to a vote at the next AGM as to whether he should be allowed to continue. If, as many posters suggest, Beeks has the vast majority of support, then this could be proved one way or the other by such a vote.
It's Cronyism and I am surprised that an appointment can be made to the board in this way. It is not good practice and not a good advertisment for the trust board, which given our recent history and poor relationship with fans should be looking to be as inclusive of the members as possible.
Comments
I was very involved with the Club during the Hayes era. Hayes was a bully; ran the place like a religious cult where you were either for him or against him; presented himself as a man of the people so that many were taken in by his "vision" for the Club; never took advice from others; and attacked anyone who questioned him or the wisdom of saddling the Club with £millions of debt, often in a very aggressive manner.
We all know how well that situation ended.
For me, there are elements in what we are witnessing now that have similarities to that era, albeit maybe in a somewhat toned down style.
Mr Beeks had a reasonable record when he chaired the Club. However, as anyone who attended a Club AGM under the pre-PLC structure knows, Mr Beeks likewise did everything possible to avoid explaining his decisions as Chairman and demonised anyone who dared to question his decisions.
Sadly, Mr Beeks supported Mr Hayes 100%. For this reason, in my opinion, Mr Beeks should not be allowed anywhere near running the Football Club.
I think Mr. Howard needs to realise that this is a football club (and a 'fan owned' club at that) and as such, fans are entitled to question and hold the board to account for their actions and decision-making. I would like to see an active, constructive but civil and respectful dialogue between the club management and the supporters - something that was clearly missing in the Steve Hayes era.
Maybe Damian Irvine, the newly appointed Head of Commercial activities, will act as a catalyst in this respect.
Lot of good stuff in that post, but I think this bit is key to what's making me feel a bit crap about the situation.
Nothing to do with Commercial Activities, so I doubt very much that Damian Irvine will be involved in this sort of thing. And rightly so.
Read the piece about him on the official website re supporter interaction.
Slightly off-topic but may I say that the Hereford United thread should be required reading for all Wycombe supporters.
I've read it. I'd have thought his roles in supporter interaction would be along the lines of improving the ticketing experience, rather than being involved in governance which is an entirely separate area. He hasn't been appointed as CEO.
Putting aside the personalities involved for a moment - this has ended up being yet another PR disaster for the club - just like the PR disasters of old. At a time when the team is doing well on the pitch and there is a drive to invite fans into the share scheme this has become an unwelcome distraction. For those who tell us Beeks has 99% support of all fans - I doubt this and besides we were spun the same story about S.H. I was not at the meeting but to respond to a question about Beeks from a trust member in such a way is unprofessional, rude and arrogant and is not a good advertisment for the trust board or its relationship with its members. I sincerely hope that the entrance of Beeks through the side door, once the dust has settled, and the subsequent response to a perfectly valid question about his involvement at the trust meeting does not herald the return of "business as usual."
Heaven forbid, we were to find ourselves in the same financial black hole - it will be the fans, once again, who will be asked to bail out the club and clear up the mess whilst those responsible simply walk away as though nothing has happened.
I am of the view that anybody who is co-opted on to the Board should be subject to a vote at the next AGM as to whether he should be allowed to continue. If, as many posters suggest, Beeks has the vast majority of support, then this could be proved one way or the other by such a vote.
It's Cronyism and I am surprised that an appointment can be made to the board in this way. It is not good practice and not a good advertisment for the trust board, which given our recent history and poor relationship with fans should be looking to be as inclusive of the members as possible.