@StrongestTeam said:
If the bids both massively undervalued the club i look forward to other parties now surging forward with bigger bids.
Absolutely. If the trust board do what should have been done a year ago , and announce publicly that a majority stake is available of wwfc, prepare suitable and adequate financial packs and prospectus, and go to open market rather than whoever they’ve been allowed to entertain by power group who control our club ( only one who is elected), we will indeed get substantial offers.
@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.
Interesting.
" It appeared that valuable information relating to my proposal had not been available to put before the Board"
I have read, re read and re read that statement a number of times.
I could be wrong but is he saying that the Board chose not to include or ignore certain financial information relevant to his bid ?
Alan, I know you check the gasroom regularly, could you clarify ?
You are exactly right in what you interpret it as l. That’s what happened. Alan or other directors must answer honestly of course , but I will take a guess they will choose to ignore or issue a “no comment “
It’s not their fault but to honestly answer would admit a gross failing of the process and if they did answer he question honestly they would be hounded out of the board very quickly .
@mooneyman said: @Vital - There was only one formal bid as Harman withdrew his after failing to provide all the required documentation.
False .
Harmans bid was tabled to the board for vote alongside the American bid.
But the contents and some
Important details were “forgotten “ or misrepresented when presented to the entire board prior to the vote .
Cannot be any clearer - Harman put full and complete offer to trust board representative in good faith for tabling at a full meeting and for vote to take place .
Pertinent and important information that was contained in that was NOT presented or included when presented to the full board by the representative/ s when relaying the bid to the trust board before they voted .
@Twizz said:
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.
Not correct . Harmans bid was not presented to the trust board in its entirety prior to their vote. He tabled it to the trust in its entirety though... huge difference .
After the meeting a director who was in the room made Harman aware that his offer as tabled lacked X, y, z . Harman was incredulous, asbhe had provided x,y,z as part of his bid .
He then withdrew his offer completely , knowing it wasn’t the boards first choice , he withdrew it to ensure the board knew their actions meant it no longer stands as a fallback option
@HG1 said:
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.
It’s simple. He obviously feels he doesn’t feel doing business the way it’s being done is something he wants to be involved with
@AlanCecil said: @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.
Incredible that such an important meeting / vote by our trust board did not dictate that all elected members were present and voted . Sorry but that’s not good enough at all.
@AlanCecil said: @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.
Incredible that such an important meeting / vote by our trust board did not dictate that all elected members were present and voted . Sorry but that’s not good enough at all.
Perhaps it's because he is not part of the "Power Group" and any views he had would be ignored.
IF (and it is a big IF) Marlow's allegations can be substantiated, I think it is important that ALL legacy members are made aware of the situation before the vote takes place.
Not correct . Harmans bid was not presented to the trust board in its entirety prior to their vote. He tabled it to the trust in its entirety though... huge difference .
After the meeting a director who was in the room made Harman aware that his offer as tabled lacked X, y, z . Harman was incredulous, asbhe had provided x,y,z as part of his bid .
He then withdrew his offer completely , knowing it wasn’t the boards first choice , he withdrew it to ensure the board knew their actions meant it no longer stands as a fallback option
If this is truly the case then he surely needs to make that known publicly through a press release that actually makes sense on first reading and lays out those facts.
At the moment the majority of people appear to believe that he’s just a time waster who has screwed the club over by delaying the original vote. As it stands he will have very little chance of winning those people over should the Americans bid fail and he comes back to the table.
I must admit if the @marlowchair version of events is true it would be helpful if AH did issue a revised statement that isn’t open to misinterpretation.
I remain relatively neutral and I hope unbiased but if AH was to unambiguously state that his bid was knowingly and deliberately misrepresented to the board by members of that board that would surely be grounds for starting a vote of no confidence ball rolling.
It was revealed during the legacy members meeting in the church that is was Trust Director David Roberton who first made contact with Andrew Harman at an ex-players event. Or at least re-introduced Harman to the equation by updating him on the current state of play and encouraging his formal bid.
Is it safe to assume that it was the same Director who was tasked with presenting Harman's offer to the rest of the board?
Genuine question @marlowchair. How do you know all this? You obviously weren’t at the meeting. Which means that you must have been told by someone their interpretation of events. Is it possible your source has a vested interest?
I appreciate some (but by no means all) of your previous observations on here have proved reasonably accurate but equally so have @AlanCecil’s.
Neither of you were there but both have different tales on what actually occurred. In the absence (so far) of anything intelligible from AH or of anything meaningful (ditto) from the board, it would genuinrly help those of us tasked with making a decision soon on the providence of your intel (or at least as much as can be reasonably given)
@eric_plant said:
Quick question: why hasn't he come out and said this himself rather than issue a barely coherent statement that no one can make head nor tail of?
This, a lot. @marlowchair your insights are both worrying and informative, they often turn out to have truth, but dropping some info into a forum anonymously will only ever have limited reach.
If he feels he's been sidelined, misrepresented or otherwise wrong then at the least he should say so publicly. His statement could also equally mean he ballsed up his approach or his lawyers did.
I agree with you and many others here in that not only the most recent statement by Harman but also previous ones about this process have been very ambiguous and dare I say poorly written.
As I said before I’m not a proponent of Harmans bid anymore than I am the American bid, I have however battled strongly for his bid to be evenly considered , not because I prefer or favour his bid or him, but because our membership deserve a thorough process with all market options considered without bias.
Booker I can’t answer how I know all this, I hope you understand. I would say though that I’m obviously very aware that vested interest will
Always see information provided with intent. I am not privy to this info by word of mouth or second or third hand individual source.
Mr Harman, his lawyers and the board all sound crap and incompetent to me. And possibly corrupt. As neither side apparently seems able to make any sort of plain unambiguous statement that Is not open to misinterpretation i move @marlowchair takes over immediately.
Andy Harman never stood a chance as it was not in "the inner circle's" interests.
Stroud wasn't offered anything and therefore the bid had to be ruled out before a bunch of members got excited and ruined the creditors' deal with the private equity investors.
Allegedly - I put this in in order not to be deleted - Stroud and Beeks have been dismissive of Harman's bid and thus didn't want to let us see the details.
Funny about the mistakes in that BBDO report at the presentation back in September, then they claim not to have known about Rule 102 allowing the private equity investors to put a charge against the stadium thus offering their first choice to become their lender of first choice and now they have by happenstance undervalued (or undermined?) the figures that Harman put in his deal.
I'll let others determine whether this was by chance or by design.
As Mark Twain said," It is easier to fool people than convince them that they have been fooled." It would be foolish to dismiss Marlow Chair's comments as he/she is spot on.
@NiceCarrots said:
Andy Harman never stood a chance as it was not in "the inner circle's" interests.
Stroud wasn't offered anything and therefore the bid had to be ruled out before a bunch of members got excited and ruined the creditors' deal with the private equity investors.
Allegedly - I put this in in order not to be deleted - Stroud and Beeks have been dismissive of Harman's bid and thus didn't want to let us see the details.
Funny about the mistakes in that BBDO report at the presentation back in September, then they claim not to have known about Rule 102 allowing the private equity investors to put a charge against the stadium thus offering their first choice to become their lender of first choice and now they have by happenstance undervalued (or undermined?) the figures that Harman put in his deal.
I'll let others determine whether this was by chance or by design.
As Mark Twain said," It is easier to fool people than convince them that they have been fooled." It would be foolish to dismiss Marlow Chair's comments as he/she is spot on.
Which counts for zero if the "sidelined" directors don't agree they have been and sit quietly behind Stroud at the podium, and the "wronged" potential investor doesn't say he has been and puts out a statement that would have you questioning his competence. Surely even you can see why some of those following intensely and those who only see the presentations will think you are bitter or have an agenda. I'm sure there could be more here but don't see how you'd get anywhere unless key people are prepared to go on record with very serious allegations. If they aren't then the insinuators will face accusations of time wasting and obstruction at this very important stage.
@NiceCarrots I just do not understand how you can have any information on which to make those allegations, and they are serious allegations you are making, without it being known to others closer to the process whose duty it would be to make that information known to the trust membership.
Therefore, I'm afraid, it just looks like you are making unsubstantiated allegations.
If you want to change the process you have to persuade those people whose duty it would be to make the information known to stand up and be counted.
Booker I can’t answer how I know all this, I hope you understand. I would say though that I’m obviously very aware that vested interest will
Always see information provided with intent. I am not privy to this info by word of mouth or second or third hand individual source.
I do understand that you are not in a position to answer but I hope you understand why it is an intriguing question for me and probably some others.
You are not a current member of the Board and not getting your information verbally from others. This can only mean, from what you say, that you have access to the documentation. This implies that you must do work for the club in a technical manner or for the legal firm the processes these things, or are a dab hand at espionage (or maybe you are Richie and get called in to do the photocopying*).
If the former I think it definitely supports your comment about the incompetence of the Board.
*that was a joke. Apologies I know you don’t like levity on this subject but you, i and everyone else on here are just a random collection of atoms and molecules that absurdly think 3 points at Shrewsbury this afternoon is pretty much the most important point in history at this particular time. It is by the way. COYB!!
Unless this deal is structured as a minority stake with a view to a majority stakeholding down line, then there doesn’t appear to be a chance of getting the required 75% anyway.
I, too, support @StrongestTeam's post and would add that @NiceCarrots has gone beyond the previous level of mean insinuations into straight-up defamation in his second paragraph.
Jesus H. As I mentioned before I spoke to a board member who was a decent rational human being who holds a responsible position outside his turning up for Wycombe and he thought the Harman bid was a crock and the yanks was not and explained why. But Andy got his chance and it seems fell short for whatever reason. I have no idea if he is right or wrong, but there was no indication to me and I like to think of myself as a decent but quite cynical judge of character that he was some sort of loon on the take. It may be that I don't like the bid actually and vote against it as many will, but the implication that people are on back handers on a public forum is disgraceful. @NiceCarrots@marlowchair just vote against the bid.
Comments
Absolutely. If the trust board do what should have been done a year ago , and announce publicly that a majority stake is available of wwfc, prepare suitable and adequate financial packs and prospectus, and go to open market rather than whoever they’ve been allowed to entertain by power group who control our club ( only one who is elected), we will indeed get substantial offers.
You are exactly right in what you interpret it as l. That’s what happened. Alan or other directors must answer honestly of course , but I will take a guess they will choose to ignore or issue a “no comment “
It’s not their fault but to honestly answer would admit a gross failing of the process and if they did answer he question honestly they would be hounded out of the board very quickly .
Quite agree. If only some of the shallow (callow) youngsters (relatively!) on Facebook could see things in that kind of light.
False .
Harmans bid was tabled to the board for vote alongside the American bid.
But the contents and some
Important details were “forgotten “ or misrepresented when presented to the entire board prior to the vote .
Cannot be any clearer - Harman put full and complete offer to trust board representative in good faith for tabling at a full meeting and for vote to take place .
Pertinent and important information that was contained in that was NOT presented or included when presented to the full board by the representative/ s when relaying the bid to the trust board before they voted .
It is 2/
And yet I’ve been labelled a conspiracy theorist for telling everyone all along Harmans bid wasn’t being given due hearing compared to the USA bid .
It’s apalling
Not correct . Harmans bid was not presented to the trust board in its entirety prior to their vote. He tabled it to the trust in its entirety though... huge difference .
After the meeting a director who was in the room made Harman aware that his offer as tabled lacked X, y, z . Harman was incredulous, asbhe had provided x,y,z as part of his bid .
He then withdrew his offer completely , knowing it wasn’t the boards first choice , he withdrew it to ensure the board knew their actions meant it no longer stands as a fallback option
It’s simple. He obviously feels he doesn’t feel doing business the way it’s being done is something he wants to be involved with
Incredible that such an important meeting / vote by our trust board did not dictate that all elected members were present and voted . Sorry but that’s not good enough at all.
Perhaps it's because he is not part of the "Power Group" and any views he had would be ignored.
IF (and it is a big IF) Marlow's allegations can be substantiated, I think it is important that ALL legacy members are made aware of the situation before the vote takes place.
If this is truly the case then he surely needs to make that known publicly through a press release that actually makes sense on first reading and lays out those facts.
At the moment the majority of people appear to believe that he’s just a time waster who has screwed the club over by delaying the original vote. As it stands he will have very little chance of winning those people over should the Americans bid fail and he comes back to the table.
If these @marlowchair revelations are true then this is astonishing
He won’t come back to any table while those sitting at the head of it remain
Quick question: why hasn't he come out and said this himself rather than issue a barely coherent statement that no one can make head nor tail of?
I must admit if the @marlowchair version of events is true it would be helpful if AH did issue a revised statement that isn’t open to misinterpretation.
I remain relatively neutral and I hope unbiased but if AH was to unambiguously state that his bid was knowingly and deliberately misrepresented to the board by members of that board that would surely be grounds for starting a vote of no confidence ball rolling.
It was revealed during the legacy members meeting in the church that is was Trust Director David Roberton who first made contact with Andrew Harman at an ex-players event. Or at least re-introduced Harman to the equation by updating him on the current state of play and encouraging his formal bid.
Is it safe to assume that it was the same Director who was tasked with presenting Harman's offer to the rest of the board?
No it wouldn’t be safe to assume that
Genuine question @marlowchair. How do you know all this? You obviously weren’t at the meeting. Which means that you must have been told by someone their interpretation of events. Is it possible your source has a vested interest?
I appreciate some (but by no means all) of your previous observations on here have proved reasonably accurate but equally so have @AlanCecil’s.
Neither of you were there but both have different tales on what actually occurred. In the absence (so far) of anything intelligible from AH or of anything meaningful (ditto) from the board, it would genuinrly help those of us tasked with making a decision soon on the providence of your intel (or at least as much as can be reasonably given)
This, a lot. @marlowchair your insights are both worrying and informative, they often turn out to have truth, but dropping some info into a forum anonymously will only ever have limited reach.
If he feels he's been sidelined, misrepresented or otherwise wrong then at the least he should say so publicly. His statement could also equally mean he ballsed up his approach or his lawyers did.
I agree with you and many others here in that not only the most recent statement by Harman but also previous ones about this process have been very ambiguous and dare I say poorly written.
As I said before I’m not a proponent of Harmans bid anymore than I am the American bid, I have however battled strongly for his bid to be evenly considered , not because I prefer or favour his bid or him, but because our membership deserve a thorough process with all market options considered without bias.
Booker I can’t answer how I know all this, I hope you understand. I would say though that I’m obviously very aware that vested interest will
Always see information provided with intent. I am not privy to this info by word of mouth or second or third hand individual source.
Mr Harman, his lawyers and the board all sound crap and incompetent to me. And possibly corrupt. As neither side apparently seems able to make any sort of plain unambiguous statement that Is not open to misinterpretation i move @marlowchair takes over immediately.
Andy Harman never stood a chance as it was not in "the inner circle's" interests.
Stroud wasn't offered anything and therefore the bid had to be ruled out before a bunch of members got excited and ruined the creditors' deal with the private equity investors.
Allegedly - I put this in in order not to be deleted - Stroud and Beeks have been dismissive of Harman's bid and thus didn't want to let us see the details.
Funny about the mistakes in that BBDO report at the presentation back in September, then they claim not to have known about Rule 102 allowing the private equity investors to put a charge against the stadium thus offering their first choice to become their lender of first choice and now they have by happenstance undervalued (or undermined?) the figures that Harman put in his deal.
I'll let others determine whether this was by chance or by design.
As Mark Twain said," It is easier to fool people than convince them that they have been fooled." It would be foolish to dismiss Marlow Chair's comments as he/she is spot on.
Which counts for zero if the "sidelined" directors don't agree they have been and sit quietly behind Stroud at the podium, and the "wronged" potential investor doesn't say he has been and puts out a statement that would have you questioning his competence. Surely even you can see why some of those following intensely and those who only see the presentations will think you are bitter or have an agenda. I'm sure there could be more here but don't see how you'd get anywhere unless key people are prepared to go on record with very serious allegations. If they aren't then the insinuators will face accusations of time wasting and obstruction at this very important stage.
I totally agree @StrongestTeam
So do I.
@NiceCarrots I just do not understand how you can have any information on which to make those allegations, and they are serious allegations you are making, without it being known to others closer to the process whose duty it would be to make that information known to the trust membership.
Therefore, I'm afraid, it just looks like you are making unsubstantiated allegations.
If you want to change the process you have to persuade those people whose duty it would be to make the information known to stand up and be counted.
I do understand that you are not in a position to answer but I hope you understand why it is an intriguing question for me and probably some others.
You are not a current member of the Board and not getting your information verbally from others. This can only mean, from what you say, that you have access to the documentation. This implies that you must do work for the club in a technical manner or for the legal firm the processes these things, or are a dab hand at espionage (or maybe you are Richie and get called in to do the photocopying*).
If the former I think it definitely supports your comment about the incompetence of the Board.
*that was a joke. Apologies I know you don’t like levity on this subject but you, i and everyone else on here are just a random collection of atoms and molecules that absurdly think 3 points at Shrewsbury this afternoon is pretty much the most important point in history at this particular time. It is by the way. COYB!!
Unless this deal is structured as a minority stake with a view to a majority stakeholding down line, then there doesn’t appear to be a chance of getting the required 75% anyway.
After w
Add me to that list approving StrongestTeam’s excellent post.
I, too, support @StrongestTeam's post and would add that @NiceCarrots has gone beyond the previous level of mean insinuations into straight-up defamation in his second paragraph.
Jesus H. As I mentioned before I spoke to a board member who was a decent rational human being who holds a responsible position outside his turning up for Wycombe and he thought the Harman bid was a crock and the yanks was not and explained why. But Andy got his chance and it seems fell short for whatever reason. I have no idea if he is right or wrong, but there was no indication to me and I like to think of myself as a decent but quite cynical judge of character that he was some sort of loon on the take. It may be that I don't like the bid actually and vote against it as many will, but the implication that people are on back handers on a public forum is disgraceful. @NiceCarrots @marlowchair just vote against the bid.