Skip to content

Potential new owners

1293032343538

Comments

  • Let me just come back on a couple of points if I may.

    @arnos_grove , of course the judgement you form should be informed by all factors including the history as you see it. How could it be anything else? We all shortly understand the american's offer with no doubt all its flaws and all its uncertainties. Most if not all no doubt would prefer a world where fan ownership could be sustained. I guess all I am asking for is for you or others explain clearly what alternative you believe there are and what its advantages and disadvantages are so that those with a vote can make a rational choice whatever that is.

    @StrongestTeam, I cant honestly say i much care about the thumbs up/down feature, in fact with my increasingly rheumy eyes I had largely forgotten it existed. In any group of people (including "dissenters") some no doubt will be dim but not the vast majority, some, as I think we have seen, will have ulterior motives but not the vast majority, many decent intelligent people will have chosen life paths that do not involve forming an understanding of business. A brain surgeon for example is unlikely to be "dim" but may not know what is contained in a non disclosure agreement and, especially in a climate of fear and uncertainty, can be exploited by someone who claims to and lies. this is a business decision.

    You may not agree with what i say and are absolutely entitled to say so. you may very well be proven right. So say clearly where you disagree and the evidence for that view and we may all develop our understanding further. perhaps you will convert some people to your viewpoint. That surely is how discussion works.

    In essence my post was a plea to all to focus on the real issue (the future of the football club that we all care about) and ignore all the bullshit and personal abuse that social media sadly does too much. If you believe there are good alternatives to outside investment per se, lets here what they are. if you believe there are better outside investors, lets see the detail.

  • @arnos_grove "the fun Americans have got their work cut out to get my vote.

    Quite right, its for them to convince you and the other voters that what they are proposing is best for the clubs long term future. Its not for the board to shout apocalypse and others to urge you to blindly fall in line.

    @DevC keep on , I'm not suggesting otherwise, just explaining for the likes of Mr Parry why some people might disagree with that post.

  • @StrongestTeam , you are absolutely right that the Americans/board have to convince you that their proposal is best for the clubs future. it is surely also the job of those who seek a different path to state clearly what their alternative is and why it would be better. Do you not agree? If not could I ask you to explain why.

    Re my initial post today, unless I have missed it, I haven't seen any posts explaining why they disagree with any of the substance points i made. Social media is good at deflecting (often with personal abuse). Again may I ask you directly. Are there any points I made there that you disagree with the substance of (not the exact word used etc) and if so why. thanks.

  • How I see things, maybe naively, I look at the words "Trust/Trust Board".
    Now I look at the apparent shady way the training ground was sold & to whom, after which, I look at, (astonishingly), a charge on Adams Park, secured against a loan that the members were not told about & it stinks of history repeating itself. In other words, loan money against an asset which the lender knows only to well that the borrower won't be able to repay. Heavens above, Adams Park was made sacrosanct by its' separation from WWFC. A great idea, which was supposed to preserve the very future of our club and now it's under, (albeit potentially), a very real threat. This is a members/supporters club, of whom, very little information is passed on to, unless done through "back door" methods. Major and I mean very major decisions have been made without prior approval and we are supposed to just accept it and "trust" those who made those vital decisions in what I perceive, (wrong or right), as a very underhand way?

    I am also very surprised that @glasshalffull, whom works/worked in mainstream media, doesn't correlate lack of communication with speculation. Let's be honest we had some communication from the trust regarding the confirmation of the next presentation on the 28th from the 14th. I know that 14th was only pencilled & not confirmed, but the trust knew a lot earlier than they announced. Was it just coincidence that it was hours after I made it public or was their hand forced? It's no wonder that there is speculation overload, when little or nothing comes out until it's too late. Mr Parry, many of us are still very raw after the Loan Shark

    Now I read the latest statement from the "Trust" and what it says to me is, "the Yanks have got so far up our backsides now, that we can't remove them, as such, this is the only realistic option on the table".

    I felt very sorry for @marlowchair & @NiceCarrots, as they knew what was happening and were trying to warn of the impending situation. I know more than I should, but have been very limited as to what I have been allowed to broadcast & out of respect, I will honour that request. As far as trusting the Trust, I can't anymore.

    I will attend the meeting & will try to be as open as I can to listening to the USA proposal with as much neutrality as I can muster but it's going to have to be one hell of a sales pitch to get my vote.

  • Obviously entirely up to you @EwanHoosaami how youchoose to vote.
    May i ask if you expect to vote against, what alternative way forward you have in mind?

  • There are more questions than answers I have heard.

  • I’m probably wrong @EwanHoosaami but I thought you said recently that you weren’t a Legacy Member.

  • @devc we have a vote on whether or not to accept this option. We don't have to provide you with any alternative options for you with no game to watch to dissect at tedious length...that's what we are paying the club for innit?

  • I love it when Dev starts demanding that people answer his questions, oblivious to the fact that half the board has him on ignore.

  • @Wendoverman said:
    There are more questions than answers I have heard.

    If only we could see clearly @Wendoverman.

  • @micra said:
    I’m probably wrong @EwanHoosaami but I thought you said recently that you weren’t a Legacy Member.

    I wasn't but am now.

  • @DevC said:
    Obviously entirely up to you @EwanHoosaami how youchoose to vote.
    May i ask if you expect to vote against, what alternative way forward you have in mind?

    Which part of, "I will attend the meeting & will try to be as open as I can to listening to the USA proposal with as much neutrality as I can muster but it's going to have to be one hell of a sales pitch to get my vote" are you struggling with?

    As an alternative, I would listen to other options that may or may not be on the table.

  • The only reason the meeting didn’t happen was very much like moving house. Slow legalities, nothing more nothing less. No agenda

  • It wasn't the fact the meeting didn't take place, please reread. It was the lack of communication to the members and like everything else, information has to dragged from the trust like a dog with a bone!

  • It’s a strange one really, as they never ofically said there was a meeting. So nothing to officially cancel!

  • You're a wind up merchant no doubt, or incredibly thick?

  • Why do you feel the need to insult someone with whom you disagree?

  • @glasshalffull said:
    Why do you feel the need to insult someone with whom you disagree?

    Was that comment aimed at me @glasshalffull? If it was, then please read my post and read the comments from @TrueBlu.
    I will make it simple for the both of you to help with clarity. My point was not about the meeting being rearranged/postponed. It was on the total lack of communication about it to the legacy members and it was only announced because the trust were forced/chagrined to let us know. We don't all live within a five mile radius of AP and don't all work from 9 till 5. As such, it is a common courtesy to let all members know as soon as possible. Some may have to take time away from work or have other events planned that they need to rearrange. Given the magnitude of the theme of the meeting which, to the future of WWFC is of Brexit proportions, I take the view that it should have been of paramount importance.
    Now @TrueBlu was either taking a deliberate opposite view, therefore a WUM or perhaps really couldn't understand simple basic reading skills?

  • Or it could, as I read it, have been a bit tongue-in-cheek?

  • We don't all live within a five mile radius of AP and don't all work from 9 till 5. @EwanHoosaami . Including our potential investors details to finalise and flights to book.

  • @woodlands said:
    We don't all live within a five mile radius of AP and don't all work from 9 till 5. @EwanHoosaami . Including our potential investors details to finalise and flights to book.

    Your point being? I have already stated now more than once, it wasn't the date that was the issue, but the time it took for the trust to communicate it. I'll give you a clue, it was more than a week.

  • Not sure which is worse, calling someone ‘thick’ or condescending sarcasm. Either way it detracts from your argument. You might well have made a fair point (I don’t know the circumstances behind the initial failure to publicise the postponement) but others may disagree.

  • Open letter from Trevor Stroud posted on our website this morning - to clarify the Trust's position!

  • @glasshalffull said:
    Not sure which is worse, calling someone ‘thick’ or condescending sarcasm. Either way it detracts from your argument. You might well have made a fair point (I don’t know the circumstances behind the initial failure to publicise the postponement) but others may disagree.

    Well, we will have to agree to disagree @glasshalffull. You are very good a deflecting away from the main theme though, I will give you that. Now, hand on heart, I think you would make a very good politician in a Q & A situation.
    Let's now both revel in the joy of not only yesterdays victory but the performance as well.
    Have a good Sunday.

  • @wformation said:

    WWFC needs money to continue at its current level.

    Not so - The Trust Board, collectively, believe that WWFC needs money to continue to operate at its current level. You might take the view that the Trust Board is over reacting to a loss making season following 3 profitable seasons.

  • Ok, I don’t really like bickering but I thought it was wrong to suggest that someone was stupid. It’s much more enjoyable to exchange pleasantries.
    Anyway, although I think it was meant as a compliment, given the antics of Parlimentarians these days, I’m not sure I like being compared to a politician!
    Agree that it’s better to be talking about a great win which I sadly missed as I was ‘working’ on the Brighton v Liverpool game. I’d stay away more often if I thought it could lead to results like that.

  • @glasshalffull it was a compliment, ok, lets compare you to a courtroom barrister, that better?

  • Always wanted to be a courtroom barrister and I certainly need the wig these days so,yes, I’ll accept that.

  • @EwanHoosaami said:
    @glasshalffull it was a compliment, ok, lets compare you to a courtroom barrister, that better?

    Mr Rumpole?

  • I’m a bit slimmer than him so more like Mr.Grump(y)ole.

Sign In or Register to comment.