Skip to content

Andrew Harman bid for WWFC

1235720

Comments

  • @glasshalffull said:

    @Malone said:
    @Wendoverman spot on. I think it was the late great Oily sailor who coined the "Wycombe fans are vermin" tag.

    Having heard a bunch of our fans at Rovers screaming "Get fatty on", and mocking Bloomfield, i'd struggle to disagree, although i'd add a "some" at the start.

    They’d be the same ones who started the ‘Ainsworth out’ movement and regularly abuse whichever player is the latest whipping boy on their long list of hate figures.
    I find it truly sad that they get their kicks in this way.

    Your very good at diverting the important discussion to irrelevant matters Mr Parry.

  • Sadly, nobody has any evidence of anything because this fan owned club is run with all the transparency of a brick wall and all the integrity of a banana republic.

  • TrueBlu. You are Lobby Ludd and I claim the £20.

  • @mooneyman said:
    Your very good at diverting the important discussion to irrelevant matters Mr Parry.

    And you’re very good at pointless and unjust criticism. I have made several contributions to the main subject of this thread in the last couple of hours alone and it wasn’t me who raised the subject of fans’ abuse. Furthermore, if you think that abusing our manager and players is irrelevant then I strongly disagree.

  • edited January 2019

    Can't keep writing everything off as conspiracy theories when so much of it is coming true. Marlow had been shouted down as much for his content as his style but when this started happening it was all what takeover, what interest from Harman, what loan...

    Being an ex player doesn't mean Harman is necessarily the best bet but then being a fan (amongst many)doesn't automatically make a member of the board a great qualified person acting purely in everyone's best interest.

    I was firmly in the its all rubbish camp but more and more trusted people i hear from seem to think the whole process stinks.

  • edited January 2019

    @glasshalffull said:

    @mooneyman said:
    Your very good at diverting the important discussion to irrelevant matters Mr Parry.

    And you’re very good at pointless and unjust criticism. I have made several contributions to the main subject of this thread in the last couple of hours alone and it wasn’t me who raised the subject of fans’ abuse. Furthermore, if you think that abusing our manager and players is irrelevant then I strongly disag

    Obviously I think abusing our great manager is totally unacceptable. However the title of this thread is ANDREW HARMAN BID FOR WWFC. As I said, you are trying to divert the real discussion of this thread in your normal pompous manner.

  • Have you actually read what I’ve just posted? I don’t think I could have made myself any clearer. And how sad that you’re default position when challenged is to be abusive.

  • Good grief Alan.

  • I think the Trust must take some of the blame for this rather excessive trip into conspiracy fantasyland through their less than professional handling of recent events, but, seriously?

    We are a lower league club losing money (along with pretty much every other lower league club) with a respectable but not exactly massive fan base and a main asset in an AONB at the end of an industrial estate that probably isn’t that appealing on the face of it.

    Like any relatively small and unprofessional organisation filled with volunteers it will be full of minor internal politics, feuds, rifts and egos but generally most people in these types of situations do believe that they are working in the best interests of that organisation.

    Like most things in life people do see things through different lenses and what the best way forwards may be for one (Americans) may not be the best way for another (Harman).

    I would be genuinely interested if anyone believes (on an evidential basis) that people within the Trust are not working in what that person perceives as being in the best interests of the club even if they fundamentally disagree with that approach or the other persons ability to do that job remotely competently.

    It will be very interesting to see how Andrew (or Andy) Harman plays this at the meeting. He has a difficult balance to keep as one of the problems the ‘Stroud and co must go’ camp have is that there is no easy mechanism that I can see for that to happen and it is likely that if he is intending to make a serious bid it is almost certain that he will have to negotiate with the current Board, so I would imagine he has to be relatively restrained.

    His supporters on here must also realise that whilst we generate lots of hot air on cold nights discussing this I doubt that even 10% of legacy members ever get to feel the benefit and all the remainder have to keep warm are the flames from the (very) occasional ‘we’re all doing very well’ missives from our Board burning in the grate and are totally oblivious of the Machiavellian antics they get up to when they are snoozing in front of the fire.

    I also find it interesting that, on here at least, the debate about whether we should remain a supporter owned club seems to have moved on to who best to sell to - if our 75% rule doesn’t prove to be an insurmountable hurdle.

  • God I waffle on. Sorry

  • Thoughtful, clear, non-controversial and without rancour or mud-slinging. Quite refreshing really. Certainly preferable to posts which quote from other people’s posts and confuse the issue by tacking on their own response without separating the two.

  • @trublue I don't think I am but you could be right. Is it relevant ? To be fair to @glasshalffull I think he was responding to a response to my post saying I would not want to run a football club.

  • edited January 2019

    On the stadium used as collateral point, I've seen it said that the 500k is "only 5% of the stadium" so it's less of a worry. I don't understand how anyone is valueing a stadium at the end of an industrial estate at 10 million pounds. Surely it's essentially just worth the value of the land as an industrial plot as it essentially loses money, and can't be easily changed to anything that can make money? And if the football team goes under then the mein income source is gone as well.

    I might be way off the mark, but it just didn't seem right at first view to me.

  • By my maths that means £5,010,000 investment for majority ownership of 50.1%.

  • Good post @bookertease but I think you are missing the fundamental issue around the “ they are all supporters , volunteers, who may be amateurish but they do at least have tHe clubs best interests at heart so we can at least rely on their impartiality and objectivity to steer the club to the right decision” line of thought ......

    THe main leader in the process does, clearly have a bias and conflict issue . Real or perceived, it is unacceptable and has served to severely damage the club during this very important period.

    He failed to declare he began working for the volunteer chairman ( and major sponsor )who is also the clubs largest creditor. He began working for the creditor before the creditor stood down from the club chairmanship and handed Trevor the chairmanship.

    He then failed to tell anyone of the fact he began working for the clubs main sponsor, including his own trust board he is tasked with leading and setting the example on how the club is governed.

    To add to the suspicion and conspiracy theories that have continued to hold water and be proven true, Trevor’s boss has a well know hatred of Andrew Harmin , they have had heated arguments whilst watching games at Adams Park , Mr Howard (who did a great job for our club btw) refused to meet Harmin regarding investing in the club, and when he finally did , stormed out early.their reasons for not getting on, who is in the right or wrong in that feud are irrelevant- it exists and as such influences our chairman’s decision making in his stewardship of our club.

    mr Stroud still earns his majority living from Beechdean and Mr Howard and has done throughout this two year courting period of one and only one bid. Other bids we’re not afforded the same effort or time to negotiate and develop. One of those bids obviously feels he has been so blocked from pursuing his interest with equal due diligence and effort to the American bid that he is holding a meeting tonight after a final, frustrating meeting last week with our conflicted chairman. The same bidder who is feuding with our chairman’s paymaster

    Nothing abusive there , nothing personal , just facts.

    So I think the argument that our board are volunteers and loyally doing everything they can in the best interests of our club needs to stop when so obviously and demonstrated biases exist and less than transparent behaviour has already been offered up by the chairman.

    There exists other reasons of concern around the charge on Adams Park . If , for example ,a creditor had put money into our club ( very much appreciated mind you ) but had moved on and wanted it back , but the club was trading in a fashion that allowed it to get by and be successful on the pitch but not neccasarily pay back the loans made in good time , how would the creditor facilitate the return of the money? Especially if there is as an obvious decline in club performance and management expertise showing rapid declining financial performance and decision making.

    Obviously it would be a bad look if the creditors employee as club chairman agreed to put a charge over a sacred , constitutionally protected asset in order repay it.

    A more arms length and business minded approach might have been to pursue an exit strategy over time , promoting a new investors cause who will prioritise the paying back of loans to influential individuals first and foremost,and if they need charge over the asset in order to achieve that the. That will be less politically or morally Sensitive.

    If , for example other bidders were less inclined to prioritise repayment of the loans made to the club whilst also governed by said creditors , I could certainly see why one bidder might get preferential treatment and a walk up start.

  • Without wanting to get into semantics, Trevor Stroud doesn’t work for Beechdean, does he? I think there is an important distinction to be made about supplying services through a contract and being an employee. Andrew Howard is not Stroud’s ‘boss’, and I disagree with you when you call what you have written ‘just facts’.

  • Surely there is a difference between a real and a perceived bias and conflict issue? You could perceive anything about anyone

  • As Marlow Chairs reporting from behind the scenes as pretty much been now widely accepted as an accurate acount of events.
    I'm shocked to read that it appears that individuals (one whom no longer holds a position at the club) are using feuds or self interest to plan for the clubs future.
    I'm sure this will be raised at tonight's meeting, it will be interesting to hear Mr Harmans account of events.
    If they are confirmed as accurate, surely that will lead to huge question marks over the future of Mr Strouds future in his current role.

  • @Chris said:
    Without wanting to get into semantics, Trevor Stroud doesn’t work for Beechdean, does he? I think there is an important distinction to be made about supplying services through a contract and being an employee. Andrew Howard is not Stroud’s ‘boss’, and I disagree with you when you call what you have written ‘just facts’.

    Trevor left his long term role at cranberry enterprises in order to work for Beechdean . Whether he is a PAYE employee or invoices them monthly as a “consultant” is a matter of semantics and anyone who tries to argue differently might also argue that by taking a charge out over Adams Park without members approval is ok because it might of might not be allowed if Wwfc or Wwt are on the paperwork ..

    Even if Trevor only had Beechdean as a minor client ( which he doesn’t , it’s his main job) , there would still exist a conflict, still be bias, and he still kept it from the world and his trust board for as long as he could before it was accidentally unearthed.

    Semantics are not the point , the spirit of morality and our club being run on a transparent and fair fashion is the point. The integrity of the current huge transactions and our future structure is the point ... but go on, try and limit the damage by saying “ he’s a contractor”... all you want ....

  • Does anyone want to carry a motion of no confidence then or an EGM?!

  • @peterparrotface said:
    Surely there is a difference between a real and a perceived bias and conflict issue? You could perceive anything about anyone

    Perceived bias is something that all elected officials must acknowledge and avoid. It’s extremrly important when in the context of our chairman selling a critical investor proposition to our members , needing 75% in the process....

    I’ve not supported or criticised any bid, the Americans , harmins, Saudi etc. Try and search on here for somewhere I have shown a preference ? You won’t because I haven’t and don’t have one.

    I’ve strongly argued we don’t know the extent of the market and options available because we never asked or gave due time to listen to what else is out there , the process has been closed and barren of thoroughness.

    I said months ago it would be Stroud’s involvement that would make it challenging to get a mandate due to his lack of communication and transparency. I said months ago that for the good of our club a professional and experienced consultant should be taking control of the “ sell” process , receiving and compiling all interest , doing due diligence and financial modelling , and tabling clearly the results and recommendation for the board and members .

    The process has been embarassing and the way it has been managed by Trevor and the board extrently damaging to any proposed bid they table.

    The Americans must be furious- or absolutely laughing that they still control us due to the charge on Adams Park regardless of how the vote goes ....

  • The fact that Trevor Strouds car is in beecdean car park every day would pretty much suggest he does work for them

  • edited January 2019

    Must say, it is difficult to see impartiality & lack of bias, as each day unearths more from the crap pit that this has become.

  • @HolmerBlue said:
    The fact that Trevor Strouds car is in beecdean car park every day would pretty much suggest he does work for them

    Coupled with various pictures of him on social media in a Beechdean polo shirt with the owner and staff at sales conferences and events , and the Fact when you cd Beechdean and ask for him
    You get put through .... kind of puts to rest and semantic queries around whether he works there or not ...

  • @HolmerBlue said:
    The fact that Trevor Strouds car is in beecdean car park every day would pretty much suggest he does work for them

    Do you either work at Beachdean then
    Or have a web canon their car Park
    Or your Mrs Stroud, so would know this

  • What you have done in my eyes @marlowchair is muddy the US bid by linking Stroud and your feud with him to the bid.

    I am really struggling to work out if any bid should be damaged purely by who has put it forward at the club. It shouldn't but clearly has in some eyes.

    It's interesting that you are also back in restating the same things having said recently that you would wait for more information. Why are you back? What us happening to bring you back? What are you hoping will happen?

    Personally I see the attacks on Stroud as bitter revenge but they have worked to discredit him. It's sad but it has happened. This whole process is a mess and will only lead to problems going forward. I don't know what will happen.

  • @TrueBlu said:

    @HolmerBlue said:
    The fact that Trevor Strouds car is in beecdean car park every day would pretty much suggest he does work for them

    Do you either work at Beachdean then
    Or have a web canon their car Park
    Or your Mrs Stroud, so would know this

    90% of my work is in that area, so drive back and forwards many times during the week.... are you suggesting I take photos to prove every day ?

    So you know, I'm not anti bid or the Americans... I just want what's best for the club, and not giving everyone a fair hearing just because somebody doesn't like them is not acceptable.

  • The issue for me now is seeing the detail of the bid and then whether or not anything arising from the Andy Harman meeting influences the decision. It has been a ****show that like the hayes period will keep on giving for years to come I think.

Sign In or Register to comment.