blindly supporting the current board and their process around this ( which you have done , you cannot deny that" has been shown to date to be " not acting in the clubs best interests".
You're getting a bit chippy @marlowchair
I still don't trust your intentions and think you are on a grudge but even if you do know stuff it's a bit rich to criticise others communication when yours has been misunderstood for so long.
If I am simply following the process laid out is that blindly supporting the current board?
Fascinating to see how things proceed from here. The support building for Harman following last night means Bill and Jim will have to come up with something more than a venture capital plan to present on Monday.
I never thought they'd get to the 75% threshold they needed but it seems almost impossible now.
@marlowchair said:
blindly supporting the current board and their process around this ( which you have done , you cannot deny that" has been shown to date to be " not acting in the clubs best interests".
I resent that accusation and would like to know what ulterior motives you think I might have.
I think it's very disappointing that members can cast their vote within minutes of being presented with the crucial details of Bill Luby and Jim Collis's bid. We know almost next to nothing at the moment.
Glasshalffull, Trevor Stroud, Alan Cecil & Ivor Beeks. (and the board members past and present) I have never believed that any of these guys have ever made any decision that didnt have the best interests of the club at heart, they may have made mistakes that with the benefit of hindsight they would not have made, but we all need to calm down, listen to the detail on Monday, then we can try to sort this mess out. TOGETHER.
I think it's very disappointing that members can cast their vote within minutes of being presented with the crucial details of Bill Luby and Jim Collis's bid. We know almost next to nothing at the moment.
Legacy members will have a minimum of 3 weeks to cast their vote so have plenty of time to consider their decision.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
You're getting a bit chippy @marlowchair
I still don't trust your intentions and think you are on a grudge but even if you do know stuff it's a bit rich to criticise others communication when yours has been misunderstood for so long.
If I am simply following the process laid out is that blindly supporting the current board?
He blindly believed everything was being done on the up and without fault, critcising me for daring suggest otherwise. When faced with reality he then starting to change his tune to " regardless if they have " made a few errors" it shouldn't affect the way we judge the preferred bidder that they themselves have annointed"
He has refused to accept his faith has been misplaced. Certainly his right, but I do feel it lessens his credibility in supporting their argument substantially.
@marlowchair said:
blindly supporting the current board and their process around this ( which you have done , you cannot deny that" has been shown to date to be " not acting in the clubs best interests".
I resent that accusation and would like to know what ulterior motives you think I might have.
ulterior motives and not acting in the clubs best interests are very different things.
Your motives are changing the question again @marlowchair.
'Their argument' is not really an issue now Harmania has happened is it? The proposal on the table is from 'the guys' and not the Trust board. It can be judged against the refused option on its merits.
The Trust board issue is independent in my view. It could be serious but as I have said before you can't judge the proposal based on those backing it, just on those giving it
I think it is hard to argue, logically at least, that someone holding a position at Beechdean and chair of both the Trust and the Club doesn’t have an ulterior motive when making a decision affecting all 3.
It doesn’t necessarily mean he isn’t acting in the Club’s interest, but there are 4 competing motives for any decision made.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
You're getting a bit chippy @marlowchair
I still don't trust your intentions and think you are on a grudge but even if you do know stuff it's a bit rich to criticise others communication when yours has been misunderstood for so long.
If I am simply following the process laid out is that blindly supporting the current board?
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
You're getting a bit chippy @marlowchair
I still don't trust your intentions and think you are on a grudge but even if you do know stuff it's a bit rich to criticise others communication when yours has been misunderstood for so long.
If I am simply following the process laid out is that blindly supporting the current board?
He blindly believed everything was being done on the up and without fault, critcising me for daring suggest otherwise. When faced with reality he then starting to change his tune to " regardless if they have " made a few errors" it shouldn't affect the way we judge the preferred bidder that they themselves have annointed"
He has refused to accept his faith has been misplaced. Certainly his right, but I do feel it lessens his credibility in supporting their argument substantially.
I have stated my case so I’m not being provoked by any more mud slinging, assumptions or misquotes. I await Monday’s meeting with great interest.
I think it's very disappointing that members can cast their vote within minutes of being presented with the crucial details of Bill Luby and Jim Collis's bid. We know almost next to nothing at the moment.
Legacy members will have a minimum of 3 weeks to cast their vote so have plenty of time to consider their decision.
Members should have had the chance to consider the details of Bill Luby and Jim Collis's bid before Monday's meeting. It would have given them the opportunity to think about the pros and cons before asking any relevant questions. Members will have to listen and understand the full of implications of the deal on the evening. The implications have been complicated by the loan facility taken by the Trust (against its own rules) and an alternative proposal from Andrew Harman. Members now find themselves in an invidious position.
@glasshalffull you have relentlessly refuted any suggestion of wrongdoing or incorrect procedure by the Trust board and dismissed it all as mud-slinging and conjecture. I for one don't believe that you do have an ulterior motive, I just think you have been extremely naive. It's disappointing that now, in the face of growing evidence in support of the accusations, you are just defaulting to "let's not let any of this influence how we view the American bid".
Members should have had the chance to consider the details of Bill Luby and Jim Collis's bid before Monday's meeting. It would have given them the opportunity to think about the pros and cons before asking any relevant questions. Members will have to listen and understand the full of implications of the deal on the evening. The implications have been complicated by the loan facility taken by the Trust (against its own rules) and an alternative proposal from Andrew Harman. Members now find themselves in an invidious position.
Again, this is not the case. We’ve been told that details of the American bid will be emailed to Legacy members ahead of Monday and they will have the opportunity to ask questions on the night before having a minimum of 3 weeks to consider their decision.
@marlowchair said:
blindly supporting the current board and their process around this ( which you have done , you cannot deny that" has been shown to date to be " not acting in the clubs best interests".
I resent that accusation and would like to know what ulterior motives you think I might have.
Glasshalfful: Further to my post elsewhere which part of this 'process' I outlined to a friend last night do you agree /disagree with:
Why suggested Vote of No Confidence:
Because Board not telling Trust they had:
a/Borrowed £500,000 before Christmas from
b/ 'American Investors ' in whom the Board want us to vote a majority stake in club later this month whereby
c/ if Legacy Trust fans reject bid (we are currently fan owned) the investors can demand loan repayment (has money already been spent?!) in only 12 months or...
d/ the 'investors' can get get hands on the football ground ..worth estimated 6/7 million ....as it has been used as collateral against Trust rules.
e/ The Board think they found a way around that Rule, but have not said yet what legal advice sort or took and may have hoped no one spotted the transaction before the Americans won the vote.
Furthermore I think the CRITICAL question in any transaction with the Americans is what SAY the Legacy Trust and fans will have when they sell on their MAJORITY Stake.
AHarman is only asking for a MINORITY stake - the Trust still exercises some control- until he has proved his worth - until he has proved he can reduce the debts on running of club through better business management and contacts with the many many local Buckinghamshire very large and smaller business that barely know we exist (do the Americans have these contacts) , until he has demonstrated that he can support the manager and staff in their reasonable player fee requests, until he has shown that his group can get a viable Academy up and running properly...look at Exeter for this ....
So for legacy members at the meeting on Monday my question to the Americans would be:
A/ How long was it before you sold your stake in Derby County and how many of the fans had a say in WHO you sold the club onto and what was the debt situation at the club when you left, compared to when you arrived?
B/ How can Legacy members Trust you when your lawyers would have been fully aware that they were operating outside the rules of the Trust in securing Adams Park as collateral on the loan..if this is not the case please i/publish the advice you were given to show this or ii/ How can we Trust you if you use lawyers that had NOT seen this clause - are they competent enough to be involved with future of Wycombe Wanderers Football Club?
Glasshalfful - if you had attended the meeting last night you could have asked your own questions of AHarmen and heard the other questions asked- something those other Legacy Trust Members that could not attend have also been denied by the Board blocking their ability to finalise a bid by not allowing them to conduct due diligence and by blocking them an opportunity to formally place their bid in front of the meeting next Monday.
Members should have had the chance to consider the details of Bill Luby and Jim Collis's bid before Monday's meeting. It would have given them the opportunity to think about the pros and cons before asking any relevant questions. Members will have to listen and understand the full of implications of the deal on the evening. The implications have been complicated by the loan facility taken by the Trust (against its own rules) and an alternative proposal from Andrew Harman. Members now find themselves in an invidious position.
Again, this is not the case. We’ve been told that details of the American bid will be emailed to Legacy members ahead of Monday and they will have the opportunity to ask questions on the night before having a minimum of 3 weeks to consider their decision.
But it is the case as it stands now. We are only three full days away from Monday. I think it is regrettable that Members have now been given more time to consider the details of the deal.
@YorkExile said: @glasshalffull you have relentlessly refuted any suggestion of wrongdoing or incorrect procedure by the Trust board and dismissed it all as mud-slinging and conjecture. I for one don't believe that you do have an ulterior motive, I just think you have been extremely naive. It's disappointing that now, in the face of growing evidence in support of the accusations, you are just defaulting to "let's not let any of this influence how we view the American bid".
I am a trained journalist and have been taught that there are two sides to every story. So far the Trust board have not admitted to any wrongdoing. If there has been a case of incorrect procedure then I will acknowledge that and would hope that the board will do the same. It’s ironic that you think I’m naive as I’ve frequently been accused of being cynical.
Finally, I very much stand by my assertion that the American bid should be treated on merit. Even the Trust board’s fiercest critics have never accused the Americans of doing anything wrong in this process so they deserve to be treated with respect.
As a trained journalist, surely you shouldn't consistently dismiss one side of the story, put forward by more than one individual, without evidence to the contrary?
I absolutely agree that the American bid should be judged on its merits.
Was anything said about the alleged history of AH (Andy Harman - let's call him 'AH1') having approached the club previously but having been rebuffed?
Was there any reference to the alleged clash of personalities with the other AH (Andrew Howard - let's call him 'AH2')?
Mention is made in Lloyd2084's post above to due diligence being undertaken by AH1. How is that likely to happen if the Trust board is not taking his existing approach seriously?
Mention is made in Trublue's post above to a "director" being present. Others mention "board members". Who were the directors and board members present and did they say anything?
Above all, what is the process for AH1 now?
I believe the falling out came after Howard caught Harman in the Vere Suite eating a Magnum when there was Beechdean ice cream on sale. Though I may be making that up.
In all seriousness, Harman’s bid sounds excellent - minority stake and ground not at risk.
The Americans have already stated they want a majority and they’ve already demanded Adams Park as security so their bid will have to be mighty impressive to win, especially as its supported by the dishonest and bungling trust.
I will go and listen on Monday BUT in simple terms this is how I see it, its majority v minority investors, local man v overseas investors who have no history of supporting the club. In many ways I feel sorry for the Americans, they have in my opinion been badly let down by the Trust Board in how they have handled this process and which now reflects so poorly on them that the endorsement they have given then means nothing at all to me and actually the reverse. Am I shocked by it no, well meaning trust directors does not mean you are capable and professional enough to handle the potential sale of a football club. I would not try to do it BUT above all else if i did I would be honest and open all the way with the fans because unless they are onboard you will not get anywhere.
I thought Andy Harman's proposal was good and I would rather he proceeded with his bid. Weighing up the options and leaving out the issue of the Trust Directors (and some get to stay in their roles within the Club etc)
To appoint a management team who are successful to run the Club is a brilliant start. We have not seen the ground used on non match days despite previous brags of I can get x down here..... Yes there is investment needed into the ground and facilities but this money can do this.
Money aside, I have much more confidence in the delivery of this proposal and believe Andy when he says that it is important and it is his reputation and cash at stake.
The academy is the icing on the cake and a 2nd key differentiation between the bids.
If 75% of the vote is not achieved, we have a Plan B and one which I believe in and support.
Comments
If it was easy to invest a few million, buy promotion and sell a club making a profit, everyone would be at it.
It’s a massive risk for any investor to try that path. What happens in five years when they haven’t achieved promotion?
They still sell it a profit to Uncle Ivor, meanwhile the club is left millions in debt.
No shit @Chris
Even if I was worth £100m I wouldn't invest in a football club. Knowing that makes it impossible for me to understand why some do.
blindly supporting the current board and their process around this ( which you have done , you cannot deny that" has been shown to date to be " not acting in the clubs best interests".
@marlowchair, do you know A Harman personally, or are a "Mate", of his just out of interest?
No not at all.
You're getting a bit chippy @marlowchair
I still don't trust your intentions and think you are on a grudge but even if you do know stuff it's a bit rich to criticise others communication when yours has been misunderstood for so long.
If I am simply following the process laid out is that blindly supporting the current board?
Fascinating to see how things proceed from here. The support building for Harman following last night means Bill and Jim will have to come up with something more than a venture capital plan to present on Monday.
I never thought they'd get to the 75% threshold they needed but it seems almost impossible now.
Harmania is taking over
I resent that accusation and would like to know what ulterior motives you think I might have.
I think it's very disappointing that members can cast their vote within minutes of being presented with the crucial details of Bill Luby and Jim Collis's bid. We know almost next to nothing at the moment.
Glasshalffull, Trevor Stroud, Alan Cecil & Ivor Beeks. (and the board members past and present) I have never believed that any of these guys have ever made any decision that didnt have the best interests of the club at heart, they may have made mistakes that with the benefit of hindsight they would not have made, but we all need to calm down, listen to the detail on Monday, then we can try to sort this mess out. TOGETHER.
I believe that the voting pro> @glasshalfempty said:
Legacy members will have a minimum of 3 weeks to cast their vote so have plenty of time to consider their decision.
I was responding to @glasshalffull sorry RITM
He blindly believed everything was being done on the up and without fault, critcising me for daring suggest otherwise. When faced with reality he then starting to change his tune to " regardless if they have " made a few errors" it shouldn't affect the way we judge the preferred bidder that they themselves have annointed"
He has refused to accept his faith has been misplaced. Certainly his right, but I do feel it lessens his credibility in supporting their argument substantially.
ulterior motives and not acting in the clubs best interests are very different things.
Your motives are changing the question again @marlowchair.
'Their argument' is not really an issue now Harmania has happened is it? The proposal on the table is from 'the guys' and not the Trust board. It can be judged against the refused option on its merits.
The Trust board issue is independent in my view. It could be serious but as I have said before you can't judge the proposal based on those backing it, just on those giving it
I think it is hard to argue, logically at least, that someone holding a position at Beechdean and chair of both the Trust and the Club doesn’t have an ulterior motive when making a decision affecting all 3.
It doesn’t necessarily mean he isn’t acting in the Club’s interest, but there are 4 competing motives for any decision made.
Sorry typo, 3 ...
I have stated my case so I’m not being provoked by any more mud slinging, assumptions or misquotes. I await Monday’s meeting with great interest.
Members should have had the chance to consider the details of Bill Luby and Jim Collis's bid before Monday's meeting. It would have given them the opportunity to think about the pros and cons before asking any relevant questions. Members will have to listen and understand the full of implications of the deal on the evening. The implications have been complicated by the loan facility taken by the Trust (against its own rules) and an alternative proposal from Andrew Harman. Members now find themselves in an invidious position.
@glasshalffull you have relentlessly refuted any suggestion of wrongdoing or incorrect procedure by the Trust board and dismissed it all as mud-slinging and conjecture. I for one don't believe that you do have an ulterior motive, I just think you have been extremely naive. It's disappointing that now, in the face of growing evidence in support of the accusations, you are just defaulting to "let's not let any of this influence how we view the American bid".
Again, this is not the case. We’ve been told that details of the American bid will be emailed to Legacy members ahead of Monday and they will have the opportunity to ask questions on the night before having a minimum of 3 weeks to consider their decision.
Glasshalfful: Further to my post elsewhere which part of this 'process' I outlined to a friend last night do you agree /disagree with:
Why suggested Vote of No Confidence:
Because Board not telling Trust they had:
a/Borrowed £500,000 before Christmas from
b/ 'American Investors ' in whom the Board want us to vote a majority stake in club later this month whereby
c/ if Legacy Trust fans reject bid (we are currently fan owned) the investors can demand loan repayment (has money already been spent?!) in only 12 months or...
d/ the 'investors' can get get hands on the football ground ..worth estimated 6/7 million ....as it has been used as collateral against Trust rules.
e/ The Board think they found a way around that Rule, but have not said yet what legal advice sort or took and may have hoped no one spotted the transaction before the Americans won the vote.
Furthermore I think the CRITICAL question in any transaction with the Americans is what SAY the Legacy Trust and fans will have when they sell on their MAJORITY Stake.
AHarman is only asking for a MINORITY stake - the Trust still exercises some control- until he has proved his worth - until he has proved he can reduce the debts on running of club through better business management and contacts with the many many local Buckinghamshire very large and smaller business that barely know we exist (do the Americans have these contacts) , until he has demonstrated that he can support the manager and staff in their reasonable player fee requests, until he has shown that his group can get a viable Academy up and running properly...look at Exeter for this ....
So for legacy members at the meeting on Monday my question to the Americans would be:
A/ How long was it before you sold your stake in Derby County and how many of the fans had a say in WHO you sold the club onto and what was the debt situation at the club when you left, compared to when you arrived?
B/ How can Legacy members Trust you when your lawyers would have been fully aware that they were operating outside the rules of the Trust in securing Adams Park as collateral on the loan..if this is not the case please i/publish the advice you were given to show this or ii/ How can we Trust you if you use lawyers that had NOT seen this clause - are they competent enough to be involved with future of Wycombe Wanderers Football Club?
Glasshalfful - if you had attended the meeting last night you could have asked your own questions of AHarmen and heard the other questions asked- something those other Legacy Trust Members that could not attend have also been denied by the Board blocking their ability to finalise a bid by not allowing them to conduct due diligence and by blocking them an opportunity to formally place their bid in front of the meeting next Monday.
But it is the case as it stands now. We are only three full days away from Monday. I think it is regrettable that Members have now been given more time to consider the details of the deal.
I am a trained journalist and have been taught that there are two sides to every story. So far the Trust board have not admitted to any wrongdoing. If there has been a case of incorrect procedure then I will acknowledge that and would hope that the board will do the same. It’s ironic that you think I’m naive as I’ve frequently been accused of being cynical.
Finally, I very much stand by my assertion that the American bid should be treated on merit. Even the Trust board’s fiercest critics have never accused the Americans of doing anything wrong in this process so they deserve to be treated with respect.
As a trained journalist, surely you shouldn't consistently dismiss one side of the story, put forward by more than one individual, without evidence to the contrary?
I absolutely agree that the American bid should be judged on its merits.
I believe the falling out came after Howard caught Harman in the Vere Suite eating a Magnum when there was Beechdean ice cream on sale. Though I may be making that up.
In all seriousness, Harman’s bid sounds excellent - minority stake and ground not at risk.
The Americans have already stated they want a majority and they’ve already demanded Adams Park as security so their bid will have to be mighty impressive to win, especially as its supported by the dishonest and bungling trust.
I will go and listen on Monday BUT in simple terms this is how I see it, its majority v minority investors, local man v overseas investors who have no history of supporting the club. In many ways I feel sorry for the Americans, they have in my opinion been badly let down by the Trust Board in how they have handled this process and which now reflects so poorly on them that the endorsement they have given then means nothing at all to me and actually the reverse. Am I shocked by it no, well meaning trust directors does not mean you are capable and professional enough to handle the potential sale of a football club. I would not try to do it BUT above all else if i did I would be honest and open all the way with the fans because unless they are onboard you will not get anywhere.
Bet it was a bit of a chilly atmosphere in the Beechdean offices this morning? Boom boom!!
I thought Andy Harman's proposal was good and I would rather he proceeded with his bid. Weighing up the options and leaving out the issue of the Trust Directors (and some get to stay in their roles within the Club etc)
To appoint a management team who are successful to run the Club is a brilliant start. We have not seen the ground used on non match days despite previous brags of I can get x down here..... Yes there is investment needed into the ground and facilities but this money can do this.
Money aside, I have much more confidence in the delivery of this proposal and believe Andy when he says that it is important and it is his reputation and cash at stake.
The academy is the icing on the cake and a 2nd key differentiation between the bids.
If 75% of the vote is not achieved, we have a Plan B and one which I believe in and support.