Skip to content

Potential new owners

1202123252638

Comments

  • edited January 2019

    Deleted

  • @EwanHoosami if as you say there is substance (And I am not saying you are wrong), why won't Mr Harman make his offer public before the American bid is defeated.

  • @EwanHoosaami I don’t doubt that there is some substance to it but as I’m sure you appreciate you are only able to tell a version of the ‘truth’ behind it (which may be entirely true for all I know) based (presumably) on what you have been told. (And apologies if you have seen it formally written down - if you have and say so accordingly I am more than happy to accept that as being the case and will revise my thinking accordingly).

  • @JohnnyAllAlone said:
    @EwanHoosami if as you say there is substance (And I am not saying you are wrong), why won't Mr Harman make his offer public before the American bid is defeated.

    My thoughts exactly.

  • Didn't someone say all interested parties had signed NDAs?

  • I am afraid @mooneyman that was yet another of the army of red herring from the keyboard of our two friends posting in support of (and very possibly on behalf of) Mr Harman. While NDAs would prevent Harman from disclosing any information (eg financial) given to him by WWFC to firm up his bid, no NDA known to man would prevent Harman confirming that he had bid. Just another superficially credible lie I’m afraid.

    There is no Harman option at the moment so for me those who have a vote have two questions to answer.

    1) do you believe that it is likely that WWFC can survive as a league club without external investment.

    If yes, I suspect I would vote against investment. If no I would be minded to see the risks to WWFC slipping down the leagues as far exceeding the downsides of good quality external investment.

    2) Do I have any reason to doubt the judgement of the dozen or so Wycombe supporters I elected to scrutinise the detail of any investment proposals, each and every one of which has concluded that the American bidders is the best option they have found in four years of searching?

    The answer to that, unless I chose to believe the ever more convoluted conspiracy theories spun by our friends, would be a pretty conclusive “no”. Indeed the combination of evident resources plus universally positive history in a range of investments in sports teams seems to me on the surface to be about as good as it gets.

    I would want to see the detail, which I understand will be available in a couple of weeks but I would see that history for example as far more relevant than what team a prospective investor used to kick a ball for as a young man.

  • Genuinely, what do you seek to achieve by posting the same thing over and over again?

  • sorry but you missed out at least two overs there...

  • @bookertease said:
    @EwanHoosaami I don’t doubt that there is some substance to it but as I’m sure you appreciate you are only able to tell a version of the ‘truth’ behind it (which may be entirely true for all I know) based (presumably) on what you have been told. (And apologies if you have seen it formally written down - if you have and say so accordingly I am more than happy to accept that as being the case and will revise my thinking accordingly).

    Sadly, I can't confirm I have seen anything written down formally, as there is nothing to see per se.
    What I would say is there are a few people on here who know me or at least met me. A few of those, I have travelled to away games with and discussed football in general, WWFC, tactics, team selection, GA, Dobbo, future hopes and dreams. I am pretty sure they would vouch for my sincerity, that I have no agenda & am just an ordinary bloke that loves football & in particular, irrationally, WWFC. Contrary to @DevC inference, I am not here as a supporter of Andy Harman or speaking on his behalf. What I am interested in is fair play, an even playing field & more open communication from the trust.

    I am not a part time club shop employee with a love for LTFC. Andrew is now happy to declare his interest openly, I believe he has always held his cards close to his chest, however in this instance, it hasn't really done him too many favours. There has been talk that he may go public via the BFP, but that's not a given.

    My understanding is that Andrew Harman is having a meeting with the Trust board this Friday 11th January. Andrew has been in discussion with Trevor Stroud for over a year but was previously always told that the club would not accept majority ownership. The emergence of a US investor who has demanded a majority stake has shifted the goalposts somewhat and naturally reawakened Andrew’s interest. He has a coherent plan, some money, and a desire for the club to remain true to its roots in the local community.

    Now given that it appears to be fairly common knowledge on here that AH has given a series of short term loans to the trust/club, (not sure of the terms if any), in order for this club to survive, maybe pay wages, meet creditors demands etc. Do we not feel that Andrew at least deserves an ear or opportunity to put forward a bid on same rule terms?
    Again I underline, I am not advocating a blind AH vote. For all I know his vision maybe a complete crock of shite dreamt up whilst having a drag of a crack pipe, when coupled with his proposal of how it is going to be delivered? I don't know because I'm not privy to that information. Conversely, it may be the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. I am seriously interested in Andrews plan to recreate a youth academy, but guess we will have to wait for the trust to consider if AHs' offer is worthy of moving forward. It may very well be that the USA bid is better, but given they, as I understand it, are "short term investors", will that be "better" in the long term?

    Whichever way, I would hope to hear via trust communications the details behind both bids, as I am sure would many legacy members, sooner rather than later, so that I/we can make an informed decision, as opposed to a vote on what gives the warm glow!

  • edited January 2019

    ``It's not cricket @RogertheBandito.

  • no NDA known to man would prevent Harman confirming that he had bid

    Utterly laughable.

  • Extremely well said @EwanHoosaami ... totally agree !!

  • I feel the Trust could end up shooting themselves (and ultimately the club) in the foot if they don't come clean on the alleged Harman interest.

    They need to come out and either deny there has been a bid, If that is the case, OR, if there was a bid, then specify in broad terms why the Board considered it wasn't worthy of putting to the members and where the American bid was considered superior.

    If they don't do this then a few legacy members may consider voting against the American bid, which could tip the vote the wrong side of the 75%.

    I appreciate Dev will trot out the usual comment that the Board know best and we should all follow like sheep. I believe he had the same view with the Sharkie debacle.

  • I wonder if anyone has thought what leaking the existence of a potential white knight would have on the vote mmm..

  • @mooneyman said:
    I feel the Trust could end up shooting themselves (and ultimately the club) in the foot if they don't come clean on the alleged Harman interest.

    They need to come out and either deny there has been a bid, If that is the case, OR, if there was a bid, then specify in broad terms why the Board considered it wasn't worthy of putting to the members and where the American bid was considered superior.

    I can tell you. Harman has never actually bid, as I stated before, a majority shareholding was never considered, consequently, a bid was never tendered, so I am led to believe. What successful businessman would ever give over XXXX£s to an organisation without having a major say in how it was spent or the organisation run? I'm no Alan Sugar but even I can see it's a non starter. Andrews' interest has been rekindled since a majority stake holding has been offered to the Americans.

    Perhaps we need to ask, if it is indeed a fact, why the trust wouldn't/didn't offer the same terms to both parties? Again, not arguing for or against any of the three parties involved, but my vote counts and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask questions and expect honest answers.

  • Sorry @EwanHoosaami I have read enough of your posts over the years to trust your judgement and integrity and unlike others I have had debates with on here I am positive you have no personal issues with anyone on the Trust Board, so that wasn’t my point.

    My point was that what is said to someone can, and often is, very different to what is written in black and white. So there may have been some spin on what you were told either inadvertently or intentionally. Depends I guess on your relationship with AH which I obviously know nothing about.

    So he may have said that he wanted to bring back the Academy for example, but the details to do so may not be that sustainable for the club. (I must stress I’m not pushing a viewpoint here - he may indeed have a really good business-type plan).

    Given that most Wycombe supporters can see the benefit of someone with some (likely) emotional investment also financially investing, the obvious question is: what is there about the proposed bid (or bidder?) that the Trust Board like less than the American one? That isnt necessarily a question I was expecting an answer for, more a puzzle for me.

    But as I commented earlier, this is now the elephant in the (Gas)room, and if the Trust are seriously after 75% of legacy members they probably have to do something about it in the next couple of weeks.

  • Just to be clear, @EwanHoosaami , I was referring to @NiceCarrots and @marlowchair rather than yourself (assuming of course you are not the same person). Apologies for any confusion.

    You (like them previously) do seem to have an extraordinary knowledge of Harman’s dealings with the club and innermost feelings for someone not posting on his behalf.

    @mooneyman , as I have said to you before, the trust can’t answer a question unless they are asked it. Despite numerous opportunities, Harmans interest never seems to be mentioned apart from on this board. I find that really odd. Nonetheless you may well be right that it might well be worth the Trust emphasising again the history of how the US bid was determined to be the best option.

    @EwanHoosaami and/or @mooneyman,
    I wonder if you could answer the two questions I asked above
    1) do you believe there is a strong liklihood of the club being able to remain in the league without external investment?
    2) do you have any reason to doubt the judgement of each of the dozen or so people you elected to represent you in assessing investment proposals, all of whom appear to have concluded the same way.
    @EwanHoosaami if I may could I ask you a third question. While we all no doubt regret the loss of the academy, do you have an estimate of the annual cost of running one and set up from scratch, how many years it may take before their is any prospect of a financial or playing return?

  • Unless board members aren’t telling the truth. We were told there were 2 minority share interests and one majority (being the Yankees) interest in the club ownership so where has the AH majority owners come from

  • Thanks for the clarification @EwanHoosaami. That simplifies the situation as we only have one bid (which actually still has to be firmed up) to vote on. I feel it would be morally wrong to invite another bid at this stage.

    @DevC The answers to your questions are 1 yes 2 not convinced

  • @DevC 1) no 2) I did not vote back in the day as I wasn't a legacy member then.
    3) Not a clue, in particular as I'm not the oe proposing to put a new academy together nor the one intending to finance it.
    Don't tell me, you do?
    I have stated I'm interested in a fair and even process and yes I am reasonably well informed about Mr Harmans interest in the purchase of the club. I am not nicecarrots or Marlow chair. I will also add, as I have confirmed to Alan Cecil, (who does know me vaguely),that none of my information has come from current or past board/trust members. Also I will admit.to having information from more than one source so it's not a single conduit feed. Hope this clears up any agenda bias or doubt as to my intentions.

  • @EwanHoosaami
    1) fair enough
    2) god that’s a painfully weak response. The trust board were elected by all trust members not just legacy ones. But ok possible you didn’t personallyn vote. So if you must replace “you elected” with “elected by ww trust members
    3) no I don’t know full costings but if I was using that as the main basis for preferring the phantom bid of a guy with no experience of running sports clubs over the real world bid of those who do, i’d ar least try to assess how realistic it was. Vague memory is that Woodward quoted £300k per year when it was closed. If you start with just one age cohort (say eight year olds) the initial first year cost would be much lower but it’s still going to be significant. It will be ten years before they are ready to play in the men’s team. Cost at £30k per year per age cohort comes to maybe close to £2m before you can start to get a return.(certainly at least £1m) Starts to look a little difficult to me for a club in dire financial distress now. I’d want some facts before backing even a real bid based on that promise. It’s a bit like believing a promise to spend £350m per week on the NHS.

  • I just wish Andrew Howard and Andrew Harman didn’t have the same initials.

  • Give it a rest Dev.

    You are not an equal participant in this discussion. You sit hundreds of miles away and make literally no financial contribution to the football club, and yet feel it is your right to lecture fans who spend hundreds, thousands following the club on its financial situation.

  • No I do feel it’s my right to express an opinion though.

    Do you have anything of substance to say or just want to “play the man”

  • You do overly lecture real wycombe supporters though Dev.

  • Out of interest with the greatest possible respect , could you explain why you believe we can stay in the league without investment contrary to the view of those with a more detailed understanding of the finances than us and why if I have understood you correctly you doubt the judgement of each and every one of the wycombe supporters we elected to scrutinise bids on our behalf?

  • @DevC FFS! I really can no longer be bothered, as said above give it a rest. I never voted whenever it was regardless of my status at the time. You carry on with your endless waffle and undertones. I have made it perfectly clear my neutral status and my reasons. Cant answer theoretical possiblys & maybes. As i clearly stated I'm not the one proposing the resurrection of the acadamey or the funding but will be very interested to read if the opprtunity is there to investigate. If it's your desire to somehow hope to "catch me out" then you are going to be disappointed. There is nothing to see here.

  • I'm always delighted to see people with inside information post on this board because, goodness knows, we never get any of it from official channels. But...

    @EwanHoosaami said:
    Contrary to @DevC inference, I am not here as a supporter of Andy Harman or speaking on his behalf.

    And then a few lines later in the same post:

    @EwanHoosaami said:
    Andrew is now happy to declare his interest openly, I believe he has always held his cards close to his chest, however in this instance, it hasn't really done him too many favours ... The emergence of a US investor who has demanded a majority stake has shifted the goalposts somewhat and naturally reawakened Andrew’s interest. He has a coherent plan, some money, and a desire for the club to remain true to its roots in the local community.

    Given the only evidence that Andy Harman wants to go public is from your posts, @EwanHoosaami, then either you're taking significant liberties in revealing all this or you are indeed speaking on his behalf.

    Nothing wrong with that of course, and I'm delighted to hear a little more than confirms my long-held suspicions that the Club and Trust boards lack basic competence, but it would sit better with me if you were up front about why you're now putting all this into the public domain.

  • There have been several expressions of interest recently.

    The Trust board themselves have been kept in the dark a lot of the time by the people who really pull the strings.

    The club's creditors and their spokesperson have their preferred option.

    We held a meeting where 4 options were discussed, there was a broad feeling that we should explore these options further which morphed into the BFP's "Green Light for Blues Takeover" - a wholly inaccurate representation of the members' feedback.

    Directors were telling people it was their preferred option before the meeting took place.

    There are rumours that if they can't get past the 75% hurdle rate they have found a way around it.

    What should have happened is board go to members, get mandate, go to market and get the best deal for its members.

    Once again the tail is wagging the dog.

    It is OUR club after all.

    Let's hope OUR vote matters.

  • I just want to vouch for @EwanHoosaami too. Having met him several times I don't believe he has any agenda and is completely sincere.

Sign In or Register to comment.