Skip to content

Andrew Harman bid for WWFC

17810121320

Comments

  • @marlowchair said:

    @glasshalffull said:
    I was unable to attend the meeting on Wednesday evening so the only information I have is what I’ve read on here. I have not changed my belief that the American bid deserves a fair hearing as nothing I’ve read or heard suggests that they have done anything wrong in this process.
    I am equally sure that Andy Harman has done nothing wrong and he’s obviously sincere in his affection for the club and his desire to help.
    The allegations (and that’s all they are at the moment) about how the process has been handled by certain individuals is a separate issue and obviously a very important one, but I’ll wait until I hear what the Americans have to say before making my mind up.

    You’ve continuously accused me and my posts around everything that was aired last night by “real” people as being faceless personal vendetta.ive continuously said it’s not personal I’m just angry and passionate about some very real failings of the club leadership.

    At some stage you might find it within yourself to accept that and I’ll be only too magnanimous in accepting your apology and move on .

    Alan stakes the allegations are a separate issue, what could be further from the truth! The allegation is quite simply this process has not been handled properly or fairly leading to the endorsement of the American bid by the Trust to the detriment of the Andrew Harman proposal which has been dismissed and fans have not been given any opportunity to hear from him (until last night which he had to stage himself). Surely we deserve better, its the clubs future. You cannot just say oh the Trust might have not have done things correctly but lets listen to the American and vote on it and worry about what they might have done wrong afterwards. This is a huge decision for the clubs future, why has the Trust decided the AH proposal was not worth pursuing considering as at this stage its a minority stake. @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots have been warning us for months that all was not well and I have also heard there are other things to come out as well, which will again show certain trust members in a very poor light. In my opinion the VOTE should be postponed until everything is clear and proper explanations have been given by the board. Surely the Trust know at this point the chances of the Americans getting the 75% votes are NIL as many, many people have no faith in the trust or process which has lead to the endorsement.

  • I will wait until I know all the facts before deciding if your allegations were true, but it won’t alter my opinion that the way you presented them came across as a personal vendetta against certain individuals.
    It’s clear that mistakes have been made but whether they were genuine errors or, as you have suggested, motivated by selfish reasons that did not put the club’s interests first, remains unproven at this stage.

  • edited January 2019

    Ok here is my view on where we are. Get your thumbs ready on however that thumbs down button works.

    I wasn't at the meeting so can only rely on what is reported here. In over a 100 posts, it is a little hard to assimilate precisely what this proposal is, so more than possible that I may not have fully understood it.

    WWFC has performed remarkably well over the last few years - far better in truth than I thought would be possible given the financial constraints. I do find it deeply depressing that the men largely responsible for delivering this performance are now having their reputations attacked in this way with no opportunity to defend themselves. Perhaps that sadly is a consequence of being involved in a football club in the internet age.

    As far as I understand it, the eleven guys we voted to represent us unanimously tell us that in their best judgements the Luby bid represents the best way forward for the club we all support. The bidders have a strong track record in running successfully and improving sports clubs in the US and a positive record with football clubs in the UK. While we don't yet know the detail and none of us can tell the future, it feels like a strong credible evolution path for the club towards at least retaining its position in the league.

    The Harman proposal, as reported here at least feels far more fluffy. There is no certainty a bid will emerge at all. It seems not to be clear whether cash he intends to provide will be debt or equity. it feels unclear how this is supposed to work with the trust for now retaining a majority stake yet we intend to clear out all those people that run the trust. I struggle to understand the logic of prioritising tight finances on an academy that will surely need huge resources and take many many years before having a chance of paying for itself. it feels like this will be a revolution. revolutions always have unexpected consequences (some good some bad). it feels an odd thing to want when the club is currently doing well.

    If the mood currently expressed on the gasroom is representative of the wider fan base (not always guaranteed) it feels like the majority favour the Harman proposal. I don't pretend to understand that but while I believe I have a right to express an opinion, I recognise that it is absolutely right that legacy voters, with a far bigger stake than I, get to choose what they want.

    I am grateful to @bookertease for possibly the most insightful comment I have seen on this subject (and perhaps wider on the whole brexit thing).

    ** _Regardless of the actual details of any respective deals there does seem to be an innate wish amongst a significant proportion of supporters to retain an emotional link with any future owner _.**

    You know what, he might just have hit the nail precisely on the head.

    Whatever happens, whatever you choose, even if I believe you have made the wrong choice, I hope to god (even one I don't believe in) that you are proven right. If we are still knocking about in the league in say 5-8 years time (even if that is in lg2) for me you will have been.

    I would like to understand the proposal for an academy more, so I'll post a separate question on that. For those whose hobby seems to do so, you can hit your thumbs down buttons now....

  • You’ll be waiting a very long time @glasshalffull, and if it hadn’t been for @marlowchair we wouldn’t have any of the facts at this point. Thank god not everyone around this club is as happy to just sit on their hands as you are.

  • Amazing apology there @devc

  • On the more detailed point of the proposed academy, were any details given of how this can work. What age kids would initially be targeted. If kids currently too young to be at another clubs academy, say 9 year olds??, surely by definition it would be years and years of significant cost before any chance of any return. If targeting older kids, surely the best of those will long ago have been snapped up by others. Were any details given?

  • @DevC said:
    The Harman proposal, as reported here at least feels far more fluffy

    The proposal for which we have actual details, is more fluffy than the one which we know nothing about? My mind is well and truly boggled. A sentence that only you could possibly have posted.

  • FFS DevC.

    Please either take the time to properly research and understand the meeting yesterday or please stop banding around phrases such as ‘fluffy’.

    The man stood up in public and committed 3 million pounds to Wycombe.

    To my mind, that is much less ‘fluffy’ than secret charges on the ground and all the seemingly incorrect innuendo about Harman not actually placing a bid.

    Like it or not, you are muddying the waters for those charged with making this decision.

  • "Like it or not, you are muddying the waters for those charged with making this decision."

    he really isn't

  • @eric_plant There is a chance that there are some people on here who can't see that he's just an hubristic arse with no self-awareness?

  • @DevC You really are the most devisive person I've ever seen on a forum.

  • Andy Worboys was due to compere the meeting last night. He says that he is OK, didn't get out of hospital until 8:30 last night, so had to miss the meeting, but hopes to be there Saturday.

  • Phil's interview with Harman can be found about 1h40m into this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06w83mt

  • Sounds like an interesting meeting last night. Good to hear about the need for youth development and some actual figures in terms of cash.
    It gives 'the guys' something to benchmark on Monday and it will be then that we know for sure if this is a bid beyond comparison.

  • Thanks for the update @Steve_Peart.

  • @glasshalffull said:
    I will wait until I know all the facts before deciding if your allegations were true, but it won’t alter my opinion that the way you presented them came across as a personal vendetta against certain individuals.
    It’s clear that mistakes have been made but whether they were genuine errors or, as you have suggested, motivated by selfish reasons that did not put the club’s interests first, remains unproven at this stage.

    The club is fortunate that Marlow and NiceCarrots had the guts to reveal the shady goings on at Board level.

    Instead of burying your head in the sand and steadfastly maintaining your mates on the Board are paragons of virtue, you should at least be considering the points raised last night by Andrew Harman and others with the club at heart. They can't all be wrong.

  • For those that have been posting on here a lot longer than me.... is Dev serious ? ..... or is this just one massive wind up he keeps up with ?

  • He's just a troll.

  • @HolmerBlue Sadly it's gone on for years on the original Gasroom before here. Sadly old @DevC is actually short for devisive chairboy. He can't even decide if he is a Watford or Wycombe fan.

  • @Manboobs said:

    An academy sounds a nice idea. How does it fund itself year on year after being set up?

    This is key... It doesnt really! Parents dont pay to send their child there. Some clubs welcome a 'contribution' but parents dont pay to send their kids to an academy. You make money when a player makes it in the first team and moves on for a fee/sell on, ala Jordan Ibe etc

    Its all well and good saying i'll fund one, but 1m wont cut it for very long. Academies tend to cost anything from 250k+ per year (or at least the level we would be looking at) and thats before thinking about finding and building/renting a venue which he has suggested; And unless you start to see players come through it reasonably quickly, which by the way will take a good 4-5 years (maybe more unless you find a decent u16/u17 player that has been released by a bigger club) & providing that you have players good enough that dont get snapped up by bigger academies themselves, then you're left thinking if that 1m quid could, perhaps, be better used on securing our status as a league 1 club or getting our financial ducks in a row as a club...

    For the record, i'm heavily FOR an academy. However, it would seem to me that the financial plight of the club losing £600k per year is more of a priority to rectify in the first instance. It would make the creation of an academy down the line much easier and more of an asset than a liability, which is why it was closed down in the first place!!

  • To be fair dev was dismissing the Harman plan before he heard it. He is consistent.

  • As I understood it yesterday, and feel free to correct me, any academy would be set up a free standing entity. Although being associated with WWFC it wouldn't be part of the club.
    As such any profit/loss it made wouldn't directly affect the club at all. It's a worthy venture and potentially we'd benefit from being associated if we picked up some talented youngsters but that's all.

  • @Wendoverman - Dev has an aversion to "fluffy" things.

  • Morning all

    Brief report on last night's open forum including an interview with Andrew Harman:

    https://philcatchpole.com/2019/01/24/andrew-harman-presents-investment-plans-to-chairboys-fans/

  • edited January 2019

    They were suggesting a hybrid multifaceted academy that would include foreign youngsters who are apparently prepared to pay £25k per annum to attend. Ken Wilson - Elite Performance Scout for the Scottish FA for junior players - seemed to know what he was talking about.

    As a fan-owned club faced with the prospect of selling a majority stake to foreigners we don't know from Adam, I'm disappointed we were denied the opportunity to study a bid for a minority stake from a local boy and highly respected former player.

    How one man could be chairman of the Club AND the Trust and then begin to work for Andrew Howard without someone on the board pointing out the conflicts of interest is astounding.

  • @Twizz said:
    As I understood it yesterday, and feel free to correct me, any academy would be set up a free standing entity. Although being associated with WWFC it wouldn't be part of the club.
    As such any profit/loss it made wouldn't directly affect the club at all. It's a worthy venture and potentially we'd benefit from being associated if we picked up some talented youngsters but that's all.

    What contract would there be therefore between the Academy and WWFC then? Would WWFC end up paying 'transfer' fees to the Academy to pay for its running costs?

  • @StrongestTeam: we are at cross-purposes. I thought you were referring to the first half of @MBS’s comment. I don’t think the Trust are going to communicate anything about Andy Harman’s proposals!
    If you or anyone else are able to receive BBC Three Counties (I’m not) and were able to Catch @bluntphil this morning I’d be interested to know what you thought.

  • I have stayed out of any debate about finances, a subject I know very little about, but running an academy is something I know more about than most so I'll stick my oar in.
    I wasn't at the meeting last night (working) but have seen references to Level 3/Level 4/Hybrid being used by posters who won't know what those terms mean or their significance. There is a huge difference between a Category 3 academy, which would require massive investment, and a Category 4 academy such as that run by Brentford who pick up players aged 17+ released from clubs higher up the pyramid - essentially an extension of what we already do but requiring the facilities, coaching and games programme to go with it.
    Every academy runs on it's own business model, whether that's producing players for your own first team (Arsenal) producing players to make a financial profit (Chelsea) or a mix of the two (Southampton) but the aim of every academy must be to at least break even and I fear that would be very difficult to achieve in our scenario.
    We closed our academy for a reason. Brentford, Watford, Huddersfield all came to the same conclusion and scaled back their own operations. I believe that the Elite Player Performance Plan is currently under review but unless it changed significantly I can't see that we would be in a position to invest the amount of money required to set up and run an academy again.

  • As I understand it the academy would be a separate entity to any of the football club related companies.

    I’m sure a question to Mr Harman would answer the extent of the ambitions, for what it’s worth in the Q&A I recall talk of a ‘level two hybrid’ or suchlike. I’m sure one of our note taking Gasroomians will provide clarity.

    It’s good we have some with academy experience on the forum.

  • Personally, though the Academy is a great long-term aim...I would be more interested in funding our present system under GA until the club is stable in League One and running more efficiently.

Sign In or Register to comment.