Skip to content

Fans' Council meeting

123578

Comments

  • @mooneyman said:

    @DevC said:
    I do notice too that Alan Cecil reported on this forum (but not this thread) that Mr Harman was providing information on the afternoon of the meeting and that all this information was considered.

    If I remember correctly, Mr Cecil was unable to actually attend this meeting due to other commitments.

    I think the basic point stands, the rest of the board have had ample opportunity to say so if they feel they are being ignored and sidelined. The trust statement said they considered both bids and preferred the americans bid unanimously and at the last meeting they all sat behind the speaker. If someone put that out about me and it wasn't true i wouldn't be sitting on my hands.

  • @drcongo my impression of what I was talking about. Have I seen the bid? Let's just say I've seen as much as @marlowchair

  • @StrongestTeam said:
    I think the basic point stands, the rest of the board have had ample opportunity to say so if they feel they are being ignored and sidelined. The trust statement said they considered both bids and preferred the americans bid unanimously and at the last meeting they all sat behind the speaker. If someone put that out about me and it wasn't true i wouldn't be sitting on my hands.

    Probably me being over pedantic, but the Trust's statement actually said "overwhelmingly" not "unanimously".

  • As Dev pointed out the board have had ample opportunity to resign, make public statements distancing themselves from the process, complain about their treatment but have not. As others have said...if I did not agree with something that had the potential to completely undermine the club and felt the process and the people running it it were flawed or - as suggested by some - corrupt. I would not be sitting and clapping. This is not China or Russia.

  • You would think and hope so wendover and Dev. Sadly some trust directors are caught in a very difficult position. They accept their obligation as elected directors to do their best to do the right thing , but are frustrated and disagree with the majority position of the power group. They are good men and feel that speaking out would also breach their duties and obligations.

    Very difficult position indeed .

  • @marlowchair Do you have any insight - or thoughts - as to why Andy Harman hasn’t clarified his statement? I think this would seriously change the dynamic and would surely enhance his position both in the short and long run (assuming the rumour is true).

    Not addressing this certainly affects his credibility

  • Ugghh, I do have to come back on your reply Marlow. You are backtracking and trying to change your story.

    I can well accept that 12 (ish) may not always agree. Indeed on big complicated issues that is highly unlikely. I can well accept that those outvoted may be frustrated - why would they be anything else ?. But that wasn’t your story.

    Your story was that important information was deliberately withheld from directors prior to their vote. And yet when this became clear, not one of them stood up , demanded a revote, resigned, made this known publically etc.

    I could just about believe that one or two may have decided to keep quiet but every single one - regardless of which way they voted - implicitly accepting a gross
    breech of procedure on a critical issue? No sorry simply not credible to me.

  • @bookertease said:
    @marlowchair Do you have any insight - or thoughts - as to why Andy Harman hasn’t clarified his statement? I think this would seriously change the dynamic and would surely enhance his position both in the short and long run (assuming the rumour is true).

    Not addressing this certainly affects his credibility

    It does seem to but as has been said, alienating the board, even if he had been shafted (I have no idea), may not be the best long game move. I doubt the Americans will now get 75% unless they bring us pots of gold and unicorns. After they fail, the board must surely consider their positions and/or face a no confidence. Once various members are removed, Harman can come back to the board as someone who can be relied on not to air dirty laundry in public.

  • Any further update on season ticket renewal deadline? Standard early bird renewal has always been start of May I thought.

  • after last weeks debacle, then if AH did come back for a third time, then I can tell you that this would be deemed very unpopular by a majority of the fan base. So any one thinking of voting noon the vain attempt AH may come back again is somewhat deluded. Just saying Yankee all the way for me, ad I say that as the trust have told us it is Avery good deal. Well I trust them, despite everything that’s gone before us.

  • How can you say "Yankee all the way for me" you don't even know what they are offering yet !!

  • I agree it would probably be in AH best interest long term wise to say nothing for now

  • edited March 2019

    The trouble is that whatever the reason for the valuable information relating to AH's bid not be made available at the time of the boards discussion, he has chosen to withdraw from the process.
    He wasn't forced to withdraw.
    If he really thought his bid was so much better than the Americans why didn't he press to have it reconsidered with the valuable information included?

    Instead he withdrew his bid. Why was that?

  • How can you even begin to comment on what pressures AH felt with regards to withdrawing from the process @Twizz, bearing in mind that he openly expressed his continued interest in investing in the club in future?

    Does anyone know how many of the board actually voted on this, in light of @AlanCecil’s frankly quite alarming revelation? It’s not like it was an important decision or anything.

    And please give up @TrueBlu, it’s getting incredibly tedious.

  • @YorkExile - exactly why shouldn't I be able to comment and ask the question?
    I don't think I have suggested, at all, what people's answers ought to be.

  • @bookertease said:
    @marlowchair Do you have any insight - or thoughts - as to why Andy Harman hasn’t clarified his statement? I think this would seriously change the dynamic and would surely enhance his position both in the short and long run (assuming the rumour is true).

    Not addressing this certainly affects his credibility

    I agree with you. I don’t think he has handled the process well himself PR wise at all. I believe he is poorly advised and that in itself must cast some doubt over his suitability as an owner. I’ve never been an advocate for his or the US bid , but certainly advocate fair process and a full and through market test to find the best price and best buyer ..... something we still haven’t done.

  • @DevC said:
    Ugghh, I do have to come back on your reply Marlow. You are backtracking and trying to change your story.

    I can well accept that 12 (ish) may not always agree. Indeed on big complicated issues that is highly unlikely. I can well accept that those outvoted may be frustrated - why would they be anything else ?. But that wasn’t your story.

    Your story was that important information was deliberately withheld from directors prior to their vote. And yet when this became clear, not one of them stood up , demanded a revote, resigned, made this known publically etc.

    I could just about believe that one or two may have decided to keep quiet but every single one - regardless of which way they voted - implicitly accepting a gross
    breech of procedure on a critical issue? No sorry simply not credible to me.

    It’s how it is. Whether it’s credible to you or not means nothing.

  • Thanks @marlowchair. A helpful contribution to the debate

  • @Twizz - I am simply making the point that using phrases like "he has chosen to withdraw from the process" and "he wasn't forced to withdraw" are too simplistic and imply weakness on his part. Maybe he withdrew to save face for himself/the club. Maybe he withdrew as it was the only way he could position himself to put in a future bid. "If he really thought his bid was so much better than the Americans why didn't he press to have it reconsidered with the valuable information included?" How exactly do you envisage that playing out? The trust board have already voted. Who exactly is he appealing to?

  • @marlowchair said:

    It’s how it is. Whether it’s credible to you or not means nothing.

    You are quite right, Marlow. I don't have a vote (quite correctly) so my view on all this is largely irrelevant.

    It is for others to judge for themselves whether they believe that it is remotely credible that EVERY SINGLE ONE of twelve (?) guys is aware of a gross failure of process on a major issue yet NOT A SINGLE ONE has done anything about it. Or they may conclude that your proposition is at best a gross exaggeration and at worst something much worse.

  • edited March 2019

    We know at least one of them wasn't there Dev, so that's immediately chipping away at your argument. And even if they were there, they might be hanging on in the hope of a job and scraps from the American table.

    If it's so unbelievable that NOT A SINGLE ONE of them would have failed to speak up, then it is equally unbelievable that NOT A SINGLE ONE would come forward to say that the board were presented with all of AH's provided information. This is called confirmation bias, you're choosing the one side of a 50/50 coin that supports what you already believe. Some people are able to recognise their own confirmation bias. Some are not.

  • Sounds like we need to get shot of all of them. No-one coming forward to speak up against the way the bid was handled...no-one coming forward to speak out FOR the way the bid was handled. All either corrupt, frightened or hoping to get something from the Yanks. We need to find some incorruptible, loud-mouthed, business minded go-getters to lead us through the No-Deal Wycexit.

  • Sorry to say last time. (Not so long ago) there was talk of a vote of no confidence which seemed to amount to nothing, so I fear your suggestion is dead in the water, with little appetite from anyone

  • @drcongo said:
    We know at least one of them wasn't there Dev, so that's immediately chipping away at your argument. And even if they were there, they might be hanging on in the hope of a job and scraps from the American table.

    If it's so unbelievable that NOT A SINGLE ONE of them would have failed to speak up, then it is equally unbelievable that NOT A SINGLE ONE would come forward to say that the board were presented with all of AH's provided information. This is called confirmation bias, you're choosing the one side of a 50/50 coin that supports what you already believe. Some people are able to recognise their own confirmation bias. Some are not.

    Additionally to this , Deva argument falls flat when one asks that “ so you would have us believe that every single one of the 12 directors sat idly and failed to speak up when the board decided to breach our constitution and place a charge against Adams Park to someone in the process of bidding to buy the club “.......

    That happened , so why is the latest situation so unbelievable Dev ?

    Answer .... it isn’t .

  • @marlowchair - You don't argue with the Power Group or you find a horse's head in your bed!

  • that of course is a judgement for each individual to make Marlow.

    There may be some who believe you that twelve (?) guys are deliberately seriously misled on the most important issue they will ever have to deal with in that role, yet NOT ONE of them is fussed enough to do anything about it.

    Others may conclude that such a scenario is simply not even vaguely credible. They may smile at your attempts to deflect with irrelevant distractions like whether a loan from the Americans was sensible or not. They may well conclude that your latest attempt to at best grossly exaggerate and at worst bareface lie in an attempt to discredit the American bid so that your presumed mate Mr Harman may yet become owner discredits pretty much anything you post on the subject.

    Or they may conclude somewhere in between while wishing you would just stick to the facts.

    Who knows.

  • Anyway. We are now a week on. Still no word from the board as to the next step. Have uncle Sams friends also pulled out ! Hence no word. Instead foraging around for money to buy the crisps

  • Have to say the same thought struck me trublue. Hard to blame them if they did.

  • Fao dev. No need for your continuous '12 (?)' remark. There are currently 11 trust board directors.

  • “... irrelevant distractions like whether a loan from the Americans was sensible or not.” Wonderful stuff, cheers Dev.

Sign In or Register to comment.