@Right_in_the_Middle said:
I read the Harman statement as he didn't provide certain information but that seemed out of context to the rest of the statement.
Interesting to see the gasrooms Hale and Pace back on the board. If @marlowchair is giving true information he is a pretty untrustworthy 'guy' to have given it too. I think he is speculating but at this point I don't see him as being anything other than a Stroud hater.
Harman has nothing more than delay the inevitable failure to get a 75% vote for the US bid. I guess the reasons for preffering this offer will be presented with the offer as it makes no sense to do it before seeing any detail.
If Stroud really did have a "personal" reason to oppose Mr Harman, then it's not exactly looking wrong with this whole hijacking/delaying/pulling out mess!
I think people read what they want to read. Andy's bid was either flawed and witndrawn or fiendishly ignored by incompetent crooked people elected to run the club. Now we will see the detail of the only bid we should have seen months ago and make a decision. For me this has just been a sideshow. It seemed to me marlowchair was all for the new bid to be considered now he seems to be saying we should not sell out to anyone. Which could have been achieved by a vote months ago.
But people are, it seems to me, choosing to misread the two statements and are still making out that the board has somehow acted unfairly.
The Trust statement says they evaluated both bids and overwhelmingly voted in favour of the Americans.
Andy Harman's statement says that valuable information relating to his bid was not available to put before the board and he has subsequently withdrawn his bid.
There really is no conflict in those statements, nor does it suggest any underhand machinations by the "power group".
Read together they simply suggest that A. Harman didn't or couldn't provide the necessary evidence to support his bid and as a result the board voted to accept the only bid available.
Something just does not add up for me. It his statement Andrew states the following "my ambition to become a minority shareholder increasing to a majority holding within two years remains but in light of developments I have reluctantly decided to withdraw my bid from the process". The first part of his statement suggests somehow valuable information was not able to be put before the board when they made their decision. There has been a cock up clearly by someone but its not clear who. He believes it would have made a difference and its frustrating to say the least he has withdrawn. If I had bid and an important part of my bid had not been submitted for whatever reason, I think I would have left it on the table with the additional information provided as there is no guarantee the 75% vote will be passed in which case surely it would have been better to leave it on the table as fall back position. What has gone on to completely withdraw it? Ok he was not backed by the board but as we have all seen lately there could be a second vote..something just does not add up for me.
@mooneyman said: @Vital - There was only one formal bid as Harman withdrew his after failing to provide all the required documentation.
No, the statement says the board assessed in great detail the two offers and voted overwhelmingly in favour of the offer made by Bill Luby and Jim Collis.
It also says Harman withdrew his offer following the trust board decision.
@NiceCarrots said:
Beechdean Group Companies results are now posted at Companies House and make very interesting reading.
Do you think Beechdean has been paying more or less to WWFC since Mr Stroud joined the company as a consultant?
Do you think Beechdean are paying more to sponsor the stand in Div. 1 or Div. 2?
If everything goes through Beechdean Dairies Ltd then it implies that purchases (presumably buying advertising) from WWFC has gone from £45k in 2017 to £5k in 2018. Is that right??
Loan to WWFC @ 4% interest rate at the end of the year was £115k. Interesting that we bought less than £1k of stuff from them in 2018 yet our 'trade' debtor balance within their accounts is £15k.
The swines owe us £1k which I hope we have now received!
@mooneyman said: @Vital - There was only one formal bid as Harman withdrew his after failing to provide all the required documentation.
No, the statement says the board assessed in great detail the two offers and voted overwhelmingly in favour of the offer made by Bill Luby and Jim Collis.
It also says Harman withdrew his offer following the trust board decision.
Whilst I accept what you say, I am not sure that submitting an offer lacking some essential documentation can be legally defined as a valid bid.
Could someone please quote or paste Andy Harman's latest statement on this thread, rather than just referring to it, as it doesn't seem to be on here (unless I've missed it). Thanks.
@eric_plant said:
I've no idea whether @MarlowChairboy is right or not, but £3M doesn't sound like nearly enough to me
They aren't buying the ground. At the last meeting when asked about securing loans against anything other than the ground I think Stroud mentioned we own a kettle....
@eric_plant said:
I've no idea whether @MarlowChairboy is right or not, but £3M doesn't sound like nearly enough to me
They aren't buying the ground. At the last meeting when asked about securing loans against anything other than the ground I think Stroud mentioned we own a kettle....
But the sole reason for it is to safeguard the long term future of the club. How long would 3M last? Gone within a couple of years I'd say
@eric_plant said:
I've no idea whether @MarlowChairboy is right or not, but £3M doesn't sound like nearly enough to me
They aren't buying the ground. At the last meeting when asked about securing loans against anything other than the ground I think Stroud mentioned we own a kettle....
But the sole reason for it is to safeguard the long term future of the club. How long would 3M last? Gone within a couple of years I'd say
If we did nothing differently we'd be ok in principle for 6 years? If we invest wisely maybe we get nearer break even, if we're lucky we do that anyway and maybe have a cup run and or player sales. Either way its more than we have now and get some expertise in. Realistically it gets us down the road a bit until the next crisis and thats better than most clubs at our level are doing.
@eric_plant I think that is their plan isn't it? Steady the ship - find a buyer...bargain with only two careful owners...off with a suitcase of money. I'm with you we should go with the ones who are offering at least £6 million.
@eric_plant said:
I've no idea whether @MarlowChairboy is right or not, but £3M doesn't sound like nearly enough to me
They aren't buying the ground. At the last meeting when asked about securing loans against anything other than the ground I think Stroud mentioned we own a kettle....
But the sole reason for it is to safeguard the long term future of the club. How long would 3M last? Gone within a couple of years I'd say
If we did nothing differently we'd be ok in principle for 6 years? If we invest wisely maybe we get nearer break even, if we're lucky we do that anyway and maybe have a cup run and or player sales. Either way its more than we have now and get some expertise in. Realistically it gets us down the road a bit until the next crisis and thats better than most clubs at our level are doing.
You haven't really sold it to me there if I'm honest
I think the theory is they inject three million (or 2.5 as they've already bunged in 500k) and revamp management making savings, improving crisps, de-clouding beer and improving other commercial aspects...sponsorship, etc etc which would get the club back on it's feet and a realistic investment for someone else (Russian, Chinese, Thai, delete where applicable) to hide their money/take us to the Premiership? Or have I got that wrong?
For me, one of the most important points with the American's bid will be the make up of the new Board. If either Stroud or Beeks have any involvement then I'm out.
@eric_plant said:
I've no idea whether @MarlowChairboy is right or not, but £3M doesn't sound like nearly enough to me
They aren't buying the ground. At the last meeting when asked about securing loans against anything other than the ground I think Stroud mentioned we own a kettle....
But the sole reason for it is to safeguard the long term future of the club. How long would 3M last? Gone within a couple of years I'd say
If we did nothing differently we'd be ok in principle for 6 years? If we invest wisely maybe we get nearer break even, if we're lucky we do that anyway and maybe have a cup run and or player sales. Either way its more than we have now and get some expertise in. Realistically it gets us down the road a bit until the next crisis and thats better than most clubs at our level are doing.
You haven't really sold it to me there if I'm honest
I hear you, and I'd rather we didn't have to do this , and im still not certain we do , but i think it would be churlish to suggest £3m won't help if invested sensibly.
@mooneyman said:
For me, one of the most important points with the American's bid will be the make up of the new Board. If either Stroud or Beeks have any involvement then I'm out.
I seem to recall them saying Trevor would be involved in the new set up when they came over and did the Q & A
@Its_Cold_Up_North Unlike others, I reveal my true identity here but will only respond on a factual basis rather than on speculation and rumour.
I had to miss Monday's important Trust Board meeting due to a long standing booking to be elsewhere. From what I do know, the Board considered all the information that both parties had submitted including that which came in during the afternoon of the meeting.
Whatever money is “invested” by either party is only a stop gap. The club is losing £750k per annum. The investment money will only plug that hole temporarily.
The absolute key element of either bid is having a clearly thought-out plan to stem the losses and get the club to as near break-even as possible. What happens on the field will ultimately be a direct result of what happens off it. The investment money has got to be used to effect that change (rather than just going on players wages).
Now many people (quite justifiably) will just want to come along to Adams Park on a Saturday to watch a game of football then go home again. However, it has to be sustainable in the long term. Short-term fixes to alleviate a cash-flow hole will not solve the long-term problem.
Whoever finally wins the bid needs to really take the thing by the scruff of the neck to move it forward. There are some very good people both among the supporter base and sponsor base who need to be encouraged back to help the club. I still think there are massive off-field opportunities to move the club forward but more people need to be brought into the fold to help without being marginalised or treated as if they don’t belong there.
I’m eager to see what the American bid is but I’m also eager to see a coherent plan rather than the same old “we need more bums on seats” mantra. The 2 Americans seem decent guys as is Andrew Harman. However, for me, it will boil down to “the devil being in the detail”.
@JohnnyAllAlone said: @MarlowChair Please confirm where you have got the value of the Americans bid from. This has not yet been made public.......or is it speculation again.
Also please remember that Mr Harman's own statement says that "valuable information relating to his proposal was not made available" before the Trust Board made their decision (and after the agreed deadline for the proposal to be received).
I am not going to speculate on what this could have been but just take on board that it would have been of value to the decision process, so maybe it would have been better if it had been delivered on time.
Now let's see what is on the table and decide from there.
Harmans statement isn’t very well worded in my opinion. Information that was part of his offer was not made available by the trust directors tasked with tabling it to the trust board before the vote , it wasn’t Harman or his team who failed to table it .
This has been admitted and is now known to be the case by the trust board however the “bird had flown” so to speak and the vote run and won .
My numbers are not speculation, those are the numbers . I’ll allow my record here in the past to either give you cause to believe those numbers or disregard them on that basis.
Comments
Beechdean Group Companies results are now posted at Companies House and make very interesting reading.
Do you think Beechdean has been paying more or less to WWFC since Mr Stroud joined the company as a consultant?
Do you think Beechdean are paying more to sponsor the stand in Div. 1 or Div. 2?
If Stroud really did have a "personal" reason to oppose Mr Harman, then it's not exactly looking wrong with this whole hijacking/delaying/pulling out mess!
I think people read what they want to read. Andy's bid was either flawed and witndrawn or fiendishly ignored by incompetent crooked people elected to run the club. Now we will see the detail of the only bid we should have seen months ago and make a decision. For me this has just been a sideshow. It seemed to me marlowchair was all for the new bid to be considered now he seems to be saying we should not sell out to anyone. Which could have been achieved by a vote months ago.
But people are, it seems to me, choosing to misread the two statements and are still making out that the board has somehow acted unfairly.
The Trust statement says they evaluated both bids and overwhelmingly voted in favour of the Americans.
Andy Harman's statement says that valuable information relating to his bid was not available to put before the board and he has subsequently withdrawn his bid.
There really is no conflict in those statements, nor does it suggest any underhand machinations by the "power group".
Read together they simply suggest that A. Harman didn't or couldn't provide the necessary evidence to support his bid and as a result the board voted to accept the only bid available.
Something just does not add up for me. It his statement Andrew states the following "my ambition to become a minority shareholder increasing to a majority holding within two years remains but in light of developments I have reluctantly decided to withdraw my bid from the process". The first part of his statement suggests somehow valuable information was not able to be put before the board when they made their decision. There has been a cock up clearly by someone but its not clear who. He believes it would have made a difference and its frustrating to say the least he has withdrawn. If I had bid and an important part of my bid had not been submitted for whatever reason, I think I would have left it on the table with the additional information provided as there is no guarantee the 75% vote will be passed in which case surely it would have been better to leave it on the table as fall back position. What has gone on to completely withdraw it? Ok he was not backed by the board but as we have all seen lately there could be a second vote..something just does not add up for me.
No, the statement says the board assessed in great detail the two offers and voted overwhelmingly in favour of the offer made by Bill Luby and Jim Collis.
It also says Harman withdrew his offer following the trust board decision.
If everything goes through Beechdean Dairies Ltd then it implies that purchases (presumably buying advertising) from WWFC has gone from £45k in 2017 to £5k in 2018. Is that right??
Loan to WWFC @ 4% interest rate at the end of the year was £115k. Interesting that we bought less than £1k of stuff from them in 2018 yet our 'trade' debtor balance within their accounts is £15k.
The swines owe us £1k which I hope we have now received!
The worst thing about this news is the inevitable reappearance of Pete and repeat.
Whilst I accept what you say, I am not sure that submitting an offer lacking some essential documentation can be legally defined as a valid bid.
From my understanding, @mooneyman has pretty well nailed it, without unnecessary addition. To the point as it were.
Could someone please quote or paste Andy Harman's latest statement on this thread, rather than just referring to it, as it doesn't seem to be on here (unless I've missed it). Thanks.
I've no idea whether @MarlowChairboy is right or not, but £3M doesn't sound like nearly enough to me
They aren't buying the ground. At the last meeting when asked about securing loans against anything other than the ground I think Stroud mentioned we own a kettle....
Bloody expensive kettle, let's hope for that money it makes the tea as well
But the sole reason for it is to safeguard the long term future of the club. How long would 3M last? Gone within a couple of years I'd say
If we did nothing differently we'd be ok in principle for 6 years? If we invest wisely maybe we get nearer break even, if we're lucky we do that anyway and maybe have a cup run and or player sales. Either way its more than we have now and get some expertise in. Realistically it gets us down the road a bit until the next crisis and thats better than most clubs at our level are doing.
@eric_plant I think that is their plan isn't it? Steady the ship - find a buyer...bargain with only two careful owners...off with a suitcase of money. I'm with you we should go with the ones who are offering at least £6 million.
You haven't really sold it to me there if I'm honest
I think the theory is they inject three million (or 2.5 as they've already bunged in 500k) and revamp management making savings, improving crisps, de-clouding beer and improving other commercial aspects...sponsorship, etc etc which would get the club back on it's feet and a realistic investment for someone else (Russian, Chinese, Thai, delete where applicable) to hide their money/take us to the Premiership? Or have I got that wrong?
For me, one of the most important points with the American's bid will be the make up of the new Board. If either Stroud or Beeks have any involvement then I'm out.
I hear you, and I'd rather we didn't have to do this , and im still not certain we do , but i think it would be churlish to suggest £3m won't help if invested sensibly.
I seem to recall them saying Trevor would be involved in the new set up when they came over and did the Q & A
I would imagine if the vote goes their way there will be a transition...but if I was Trevor(and his mob) I would be glad to be out of it.
@Its_Cold_Up_North Unlike others, I reveal my true identity here but will only respond on a factual basis rather than on speculation and rumour.
I had to miss Monday's important Trust Board meeting due to a long standing booking to be elsewhere. From what I do know, the Board considered all the information that both parties had submitted including that which came in during the afternoon of the meeting.
Whatever money is “invested” by either party is only a stop gap. The club is losing £750k per annum. The investment money will only plug that hole temporarily.
The absolute key element of either bid is having a clearly thought-out plan to stem the losses and get the club to as near break-even as possible. What happens on the field will ultimately be a direct result of what happens off it. The investment money has got to be used to effect that change (rather than just going on players wages).
Now many people (quite justifiably) will just want to come along to Adams Park on a Saturday to watch a game of football then go home again. However, it has to be sustainable in the long term. Short-term fixes to alleviate a cash-flow hole will not solve the long-term problem.
Whoever finally wins the bid needs to really take the thing by the scruff of the neck to move it forward. There are some very good people both among the supporter base and sponsor base who need to be encouraged back to help the club. I still think there are massive off-field opportunities to move the club forward but more people need to be brought into the fold to help without being marginalised or treated as if they don’t belong there.
I’m eager to see what the American bid is but I’m also eager to see a coherent plan rather than the same old “we need more bums on seats” mantra. The 2 Americans seem decent guys as is Andrew Harman. However, for me, it will boil down to “the devil being in the detail”.
Excellent post Mr Worboys.
Agreed!??
@A_Worboys is the club really losing £750k per annum? It may have done so last year but the two previous years?
Harmans statement isn’t very well worded in my opinion. Information that was part of his offer was not made available by the trust directors tasked with tabling it to the trust board before the vote , it wasn’t Harman or his team who failed to table it .
This has been admitted and is now known to be the case by the trust board however the “bird had flown” so to speak and the vote run and won .
My numbers are not speculation, those are the numbers . I’ll allow my record here in the past to either give you cause to believe those numbers or disregard them on that basis.