Pete has been on Twitter engaging with some of their fans and he has recently posted something along the lines of ‘if you think your situation is bad, you have no idea about our training ground situation’.
Reading a bit further down his timeline, when challenged about why he deleted his Tweet, he adds “Because I have kept my mouth shut about it for five years and am a little disappointed in myself for letting it out now.”
“is there any truth to the rumour that the club will no longer be training on Wednesday evenings on the shale above the main stand at Loakes Park pater?”
”don’t believe all you read in the paper my lad, you’ll be telling me next we are off to Wembley again”
Of course there are legitimate concerns surrounding the negotiations & potential purchase, as well as some pretty obvious questions about Marlow Road given Pete's comments.
Perhaps we should all be mailing Phil with questions for Rob, though I suspect we will only get the standard lawyer responses...
I'm a bit young to have much impression of Beeks the chairman, but I distinctly remember him turning up to do some sort of half-time speech a few years ago absolutely sloshed.
You might not be satisfied with the answers you get but you have to admit that Rob is a lot more accessible and communicative than the average football club owner. He does regular interviews for the website and personal Q & A sessions at Adams Park.
@glasshalffull I agree he should be lauded for making himself available to the fans on a regular basis & on the footballing side of things he is pretty open too; unfortunately he reverts to US lawyer mode when it comes to the business side of things (i get why).
Or he could be throwing his toys out again just because they wouldn't sell it to them, same as he did with the ground at the time. Let's be honest for all the good and not so good things they have done, they do have a track record of getting arsey if things don't go their way
That's a good summary of the salient points of this matter based on what it is in the public domain. With regards to Reading fans' "bedwetting" (notwithstanding abusive and threatening behaviour), I don't think their fears of their club being left to rot after Yongge has disposed of the last remaining asset that could be bundled with the club in a takeover deal were in the least bit unfounded. AFAIK the training ground was a key part of all previous takeover bids, though in the background there may have been other bids that foundered because of the projected running costs of Bearwood that for whatever reason weren't known to those who have their ears to the ground.
As far as WWFC being the bad buys, our name is has been used by the Couhigs/Lomtadze as the public face of negotiations with someone who is a pariah in football, and known to be unabashed at trousering receipts for the sale of club assets (in this case, a training facility that there is only goodwill for from local planning authorities if this specific club use it) before then leaving the club cast adrift. Call me a bedwetter all you want, I'm disgusted the name of the club that I support and represents my hometown is being abused as the front for speculative property dealing that at least has the distinct probability could lead to the demise of a fellow football club. I respect the right of others to feel differently about the matter.
The news on Friday evening doesn't change how dangerous this deal potentially is for our own club, there are serious questions to be answered about the planned usage of the facility, its ownership, which party is liable for its upkeep and how it fits in to the long-term future of WWFC when the Couhigs and Lomtadze are out of the picture. This is where the supporters trust should be taking the lead in representing the interests of supporters of the club, and of its long-term viability and sustainability. The events of the past few days have put an enormous question mark over this, and all WWST are willing to do is play the NDA card.
We can only hope more questions will be answered in the coming days, hopefully the cynic in me will be confounded that we will be barely any the wiser this time next week.
Fair comment, but that ultimately is the reason why the Trust should be making some kind of public comment - even if it’s just to say they can’t comment for legal reasons.
They are after all a members organisation with an obligation to keep their members informed.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand what this has to do with the Trust. They don't own the club. The training ground deal - whether it happens or not - isn't something they have any involvement with.
The Trust is there to represent the interests of the fanbase in relation to major strategic issues that affect the club.
It’s actually an irrelevance whether it owns the ground or any of the club. If it didn’t it would still be its job to try to engage with the club to ensure the interests of supporters were taken into account.
However, in Wycombe’s case we do own the ground and 10 per cent of the club. And therefore given the statement said it was Wycombe Wanderers that was buying Bearwood I think it’s more than reasonable that the Trust are asked to give a view.
But they won't know any more than we do. What do people want? A rehash of the official club statement? The Trust own the ground - that's important - but beyond that I can't see their word carrying any weight, as has been the case since surrendering ownership of the club.
If they don’t know any more than the club statement or there are legal constraints that restrict from saying anything more then just say so. That’s fine.
But the current silence isn’t a particularly great look in the circumstances. It’s a members organisation after all.
I’m not looking to be particularly critical of the Trust, I think it does a good job and I’ve a lot of time for the people involved. But I do think they ought to be saying something soon.
I have no problem with Rob. As @glasshalffull has said he’s far more available than most owners. He’s responded to me personally on a couple of occasions, when I never expected a response.
I may not agree with all his decisions but I believe he is well intentioned. I do still feel he is culturally not quite there when it comes to English and American sport.
If the training ground can be sorted it will be what we’ve all wanted since ours closed and Rob has been acutely aware of this from day 1.
The owners of our current training ground are still given a golden ticket when visiting the club and this annoys me. One day history will show the truth. Compare that with Rob.
As it is late on St. Patrick's day, I will resist temptation.
Except to say, the puzzling decision of ex-Chairmen and ex-board directors (read communique issued by Trust ) wishing to remain anonymous, whose sole interest was to protect the club, at time of purchase of training ground and whose intentions were definitely not (phew) to make an absolute shedload (read the communique issued by Trust re: Item 4) sounded almost too good to be true at the time.
Given 'anonymous' investors/angels paid £350K March/April 2013, plus rent on 10 year lease March 2013, for the Couhigs to look at (sellers price), £50mn training ground facility makes one wonder what return on investment Beeks, Kane, Keizner are looking for?
Is it possible the Couhigs are copping other peoples' flak, it wasn't the Couhigs who pulled off The Great Training Ground Heist of 2013.
Anybody see the written agreement about how they were keen to sell it back? Anybody seen the original, written agreement?
Comments
Pete has been on Twitter engaging with some of their fans and he has recently posted something along the lines of ‘if you think your situation is bad, you have no idea about our training ground situation’.
Reading a bit further down his timeline, when challenged about why he deleted his Tweet, he adds “Because I have kept my mouth shut about it for five years and am a little disappointed in myself for letting it out now.”
So has Beeks and his friends been taking advantage then?
“is there any truth to the rumour that the club will no longer be training on Wednesday evenings on the shale above the main stand at Loakes Park pater?”
”don’t believe all you read in the paper my lad, you’ll be telling me next we are off to Wembley again”
Of course there are legitimate concerns surrounding the negotiations & potential purchase, as well as some pretty obvious questions about Marlow Road given Pete's comments.
Perhaps we should all be mailing Phil with questions for Rob, though I suspect we will only get the standard lawyer responses...
What a silly question!!
I'm a bit young to have much impression of Beeks the chairman, but I distinctly remember him turning up to do some sort of half-time speech a few years ago absolutely sloshed.
You might not be satisfied with the answers you get but you have to admit that Rob is a lot more accessible and communicative than the average football club owner. He does regular interviews for the website and personal Q & A sessions at Adams Park.
Rob is certainly more forthcoming that the Trust was.
@glasshalffull I agree he should be lauded for making himself available to the fans on a regular basis & on the footballing side of things he is pretty open too; unfortunately he reverts to US lawyer mode when it comes to the business side of things (i get why).
Or he could be throwing his toys out again just because they wouldn't sell it to them, same as he did with the ground at the time. Let's be honest for all the good and not so good things they have done, they do have a track record of getting arsey if things don't go their way
Why is Pete discussing the affairs of a club he has nothing to do with anymore?
That's a good summary of the salient points of this matter based on what it is in the public domain. With regards to Reading fans' "bedwetting" (notwithstanding abusive and threatening behaviour), I don't think their fears of their club being left to rot after Yongge has disposed of the last remaining asset that could be bundled with the club in a takeover deal were in the least bit unfounded. AFAIK the training ground was a key part of all previous takeover bids, though in the background there may have been other bids that foundered because of the projected running costs of Bearwood that for whatever reason weren't known to those who have their ears to the ground.
As far as WWFC being the bad buys, our name is has been used by the Couhigs/Lomtadze as the public face of negotiations with someone who is a pariah in football, and known to be unabashed at trousering receipts for the sale of club assets (in this case, a training facility that there is only goodwill for from local planning authorities if this specific club use it) before then leaving the club cast adrift. Call me a bedwetter all you want, I'm disgusted the name of the club that I support and represents my hometown is being abused as the front for speculative property dealing that at least has the distinct probability could lead to the demise of a fellow football club. I respect the right of others to feel differently about the matter.
The news on Friday evening doesn't change how dangerous this deal potentially is for our own club, there are serious questions to be answered about the planned usage of the facility, its ownership, which party is liable for its upkeep and how it fits in to the long-term future of WWFC when the Couhigs and Lomtadze are out of the picture. This is where the supporters trust should be taking the lead in representing the interests of supporters of the club, and of its long-term viability and sustainability. The events of the past few days have put an enormous question mark over this, and all WWST are willing to do is play the NDA card.
We can only hope more questions will be answered in the coming days, hopefully the cynic in me will be confounded that we will be barely any the wiser this time next week.
’…… all WWST are willing to do is play the NDA card.’ A non disclosure agreement is not an excuse, it’s a legally binding contractual commitment.
Which you don't have to sign
Agreed, but there is no evidence that the Trust was even aware of this deal being negotiated, let alone party to signing or not signing a NDA.
Fair comment, but that ultimately is the reason why the Trust should be making some kind of public comment - even if it’s just to say they can’t comment for legal reasons.
They are after all a members organisation with an obligation to keep their members informed.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand what this has to do with the Trust. They don't own the club. The training ground deal - whether it happens or not - isn't something they have any involvement with.
The Trust is there to represent the interests of the fanbase in relation to major strategic issues that affect the club.
It’s actually an irrelevance whether it owns the ground or any of the club. If it didn’t it would still be its job to try to engage with the club to ensure the interests of supporters were taken into account.
However, in Wycombe’s case we do own the ground and 10 per cent of the club. And therefore given the statement said it was Wycombe Wanderers that was buying Bearwood I think it’s more than reasonable that the Trust are asked to give a view.
Owning 10% of the Club may be relevant!
But they won't know any more than we do. What do people want? A rehash of the official club statement? The Trust own the ground - that's important - but beyond that I can't see their word carrying any weight, as has been the case since surrendering ownership of the club.
If they don’t know any more than the club statement or there are legal constraints that restrict from saying anything more then just say so. That’s fine.
But the current silence isn’t a particularly great look in the circumstances. It’s a members organisation after all.
I’m not looking to be particularly critical of the Trust, I think it does a good job and I’ve a lot of time for the people involved. But I do think they ought to be saying something soon.
So you want the Trust to issue a statement to say that they have nothing to say?
No not all. I want it to issue a statement letting its members know what its views are.
I just accept there may be reasons why they may have to limit what they say but would still rather that than nothing at all.
Get it?
I have no problem with Rob. As @glasshalffull has said he’s far more available than most owners. He’s responded to me personally on a couple of occasions, when I never expected a response.
I may not agree with all his decisions but I believe he is well intentioned. I do still feel he is culturally not quite there when it comes to English and American sport.
If the training ground can be sorted it will be what we’ve all wanted since ours closed and Rob has been acutely aware of this from day 1.
The owners of our current training ground are still given a golden ticket when visiting the club and this annoys me. One day history will show the truth. Compare that with Rob.
It'd be quite worrying if they didn't know about it.
Is the whole point of the Trust not be a communication vehicle between the club and the fans?
So the question is, do they know what's going on? If not, that's worrying.
Or do they know and are bound by some sort of confidentiality clause?
Or do they not give updates any more?
I think they need to give an update on whether or not they still give updates.
If I paid a tenner for the privilege of getting updates, I'd be furious.
As it is late on St. Patrick's day, I will resist temptation.
Except to say, the puzzling decision of ex-Chairmen and ex-board directors (read communique issued by Trust ) wishing to remain anonymous, whose sole interest was to protect the club, at time of purchase of training ground and whose intentions were definitely not (phew) to make an absolute shedload (read the communique issued by Trust re: Item 4) sounded almost too good to be true at the time.
Given 'anonymous' investors/angels paid £350K March/April 2013, plus rent on 10 year lease March 2013, for the Couhigs to look at (sellers price), £50mn training ground facility makes one wonder what return on investment Beeks, Kane, Keizner are looking for?
Is it possible the Couhigs are copping other peoples' flak, it wasn't the Couhigs who pulled off The Great Training Ground Heist of 2013.
Anybody see the written agreement about how they were keen to sell it back? Anybody seen the original, written agreement?
Just asking for a friend.