It's been rather interesting observing this debate from the sidelines, but am I missing something? There was lots of mention of us losing a "huge asset" as a result of not keeping up with the payments, but surely we lost the asset years ago when we sold the trading ground? What we've lost is surely just the right to buy it back. I'm not sure that for the foreseeable future we would ever have a spare £350K to buy it back and I'm sure there are lots of more pressing ways we could spend that sort of money. Presumably we could also ask to buy it back if we did have the spare cash? Or if we are just in the business of property speculation why not buy up a scrap piece of land out Loudwater way and see what happens?
Having said that, it really could have been communicated a little earlier/better. I don't buy this 'we are being screwed over' though.
@marlowchair I don't know if those questions were aimed at me, but with regards to offering my assistance, I have bent the ear of the Trust and a former club director enough times to offer my services with any IT administration volunteering they may require, as well as practical assistance with groundskeeping and cataloguing club memorabilia.
Admittedly this is small fry compared to the many hours of dedication and hard work put in by many people, but I'd like to think it's the actions of someone who wants to play their part and not snipe from the sidelines.
As for 'skillsets' and business experience, this isn't a Rotary Club application - a mix of perspectives, background, ages and gender is important for any organisation. Having supporters committed to making WWFC as democratically and transparently run as possible for the benefit of its supporters might not be the same as running a company with a decent turnover, though it's no less important or complimentary to the other members of the WWT board.
On the face of it the Booker training ground sell off seems to be a way to get a nice annual income for Beeks and Kane at the clubs expense. At the time the sell off was announced the rental terms offered to the buyers seemed fairly good, which is why it seems a little corrupt that the land wasn't offered as a public sale. Subsequently the loss of a buy back right only increases the suspicion that this deal isn't entirely in the clubs best interests.
Have Beeks and Kane made personal profit from their association with the club through the years?
Hopefully someone can tell me I'm completely wrong about this.
Ive only read that if the land is sold, it has been agreed WWFC will receive an unknown percentage of any profit made. Can you clarify the terms where we can still trigger the buy back agreement ? and the figures need to complete the buy back ? Mr @marlowchair
The longer the Trust keep members in the dark of the full facts of why the payments ceased, and the full terms of any new agreement, then the suspicions of Beeks and Kane motives will continue.
I understand they had to provide £100,000 each but surely they consider that an investment not a donation.
It allows them to generate £30,000 per year (I assume?), that's not a bad return on investment. They also seem to own the added bonus that if they were ever allowed to build on the land they would generate a huge return on investment.
Of course they had to provide the funds which most people can't do but the terms they've got aren't really generous to the club.
An arms length property deal, the byer of an asset will look at the following factors
1) price to buy
2) rent earned
3) how certain is it thast the tenant will be able to pay the rent
4) if the tenant cant pay the rent, is there an obvious alternative tenant if this one fails
5) is there a realistic chance of land increasing in value down the road
Ignoring 5) for a moment, if 3) and 4) are positive, then you would look for between a 7% and 10% return on the property, increasing as 3) and 4) became more uncertain.
From a pure armslength property transaction, this deal would noit be attractive from an investor basis without 5). The rent offered is nothig special, the tenant was known to be in financial trouble and it would have been very hard to see an alternative use for the land. There was an obvious risk of tenant defaulting due to lack of funds (as of course seems to have happened) and the income return expected for the capital outlay not materialsing. It would have been much easier to simply use the capital outlay to buy a different piece of land with a more secure tenant.
So realistically no armslength investor would have bought that piece of land on thoise terms unless 5) was realistic.
And here is where you have a choice of what to believe.
You can believe that this piece of land is a veritable goldmine, sure thing for planning consent at any time and a huge capital gain with the active collusion or incompetence of the tenant helping you to fill your boots.
Or you can believe that it will be incredibly difficult to secure planning permission for that site given its location and the evidence that landowners all around the site have not been able to sell for housing either. Although Govt is starting to relax green belt planning, that is still very limited and is a development after the land was sold. So you could believe that this transaction was actually a fantastic one for the football club and as it happens probably lifesaving at a time when it was desperately short of cash.
If you conclude the latter, you have to conclude that it was a bit of a sweetheart deal
on very favourable terms to the club. Youyr choice what to believe.
Yes its a shame to have lost option to buy it back - its always nice to have options. But given remoteness of liklihood of obtaining planning, doesnt strike me as the disaster some have made out, even if there is no buy back right which in itself seems unclear.
I agree with much of that Dev. However, there do seem to be lessons to be learnt here about communications.
It's all well and good saying that trust members elect representatives to the board (which is the appropriate way to run things) but without transparency and effective communications on significant issues like this then trust members cannot make informed decisions about who to elect, and whether we think existing elected members are doing a good job.
Greater transparency would also help to eliminate the potential for conspiracy theories.
Do you not think members need to know the complete facts from start to finish regarding the sale.lease,non payment and all the other details that are associated with the training ground Mr Devc ?
Or like you post from two weeks ago, are you going to accuse people of living in fantasy land ?
Here is your post from Nov 17th Mr @DevC "meanwhile back in the real world rather than conspiracy land, the owners of the land do not have control of the land a) because the football club has a lease to use it b) because the football club has an option to buy it. Lets deal with real world issues rather than fantasy ones."
Thank you for clarifying the rental terms and I now understand the terms are probably good for the club based on the external market. Is it really that easy to buy land of this size with a secure tenant?
The mystery surrounding the purchase is my main cause for concern. Why did the buyers not want their names mentioned? And how much influence have they had on putting Wycombe on the brink so a sale was the only way out? And why wasn't the sale offered publicly?
Agreed Chris, communication could be better. But as I have said before communication breakdowns tend to be fault on both side. If when they do communicate they are immediately accused of collusion, incompetence and by some lining their own pockets, then communication will I suspect get worse. We do also have to recognise that there are times when airing dirty washing publically can be damaging - you really dont want to announce to suppliers that things are so bad financially that we cant pay our rent for example - they may not supply goods we need.
I wasnt at the relevant meeting so dont know precisely what was said. If what seems to have emerged was the message - we were so short of cash we couldnt pay the rent, we are in process of negotiating new deal with landlord as way of going forward (including break clause, profit share and right to buy back) but that hasnt finished yet. Landlord has written off historic debt - no Chas I am niot sure we need any more detail now.
Wildwest If you are right backs to the wall and a cash buyer comes along with a good offer, you tend to grab it. Itas good business sense. Realistically what we had to offer wasnt a marketable proposition, so I am niot surprised it wasnt put on the open market. Are there property assets with a reliable income and prospect for growth available for about £350k - yes loads , any estate agent has many in their window. They are called houses. Its a bit small for commercial property, so limited availability but yes there are a few.
@DevC I'm afraid this sort of comment doesn't help anyone:
"If when they do communicate they are immediately accused of collusion, incompetence and by some lining their own pockets"
That just isn't true. If a few people accuse them of that on here or on Facebook (which is the reality) that is a tiny, tiny minority of Wycombe fans and absolutely no reason not to communicate.
You need to start to have a higher opinion of Wycombe supporters and Trust members - and so do the Trust.
@marlowchair think my question was buried - do you think the appeal for volunteers will be emailed to members or just kept for those who attended the AGM? Thanks
It might seem like I'm accusing them of lining their own pockets but really I'm just trying to understand it through the murky waters of communication and my lack of property market knowledge.
Surely the directors of any company would expect to have questions asked if they purchase an asset from the company and then start charging said company rent?
These kinds of questions should not stop them communicating if they have nothing to hide.
I think a £350k house would get less than £30,000 per annum in rent. Given the choice this asset would be a much better purchase due to the sheer size and future potential, even if redevelopment planning permission may be several years hence.
PPF.
I am not arguing that there shouldnt be better comunication - there should. We the communicated to need to undetsand there will be times when commercial realities make that hard. It is not an excuse not to communicate when when you do you just get insults flying, but it is a human reaction and the Trust Board are human. Not an excuse but maybe an explanation.
Wild, wasnt inferring this of you - other posters above have gone down the road above. The initial sale was accepted by a vote of all Trust members. I am not sure you have got your paragraph 2 analogy right.
Its for you to judge whether you think the initial deal was a good or bad one as a commercial transaction. From my experience including some in the property world, no commercial arms length investor would have touched that deal with a bargepole unless they believed there was a real chance of enhanced value down the road - the tenants covenant (ability to pay) and rentability to other tenants were far far too weak. Its for you to judge whether you think there was a realisitc prospect of significant enhancement of value down the road - for me looking at the site location and surrounding properties , that prospect was and is incredibly remote. But thats just my view. Frankly there is also the question that if your business is teetering on the brink of insolvency and an offer comes a long of some cash even if that offer is not that great - you simply have to grab it. But again that is only my judgment. Feel free to form a different view.
I honestly think both Mr Beeks and Mr Kane act in the best interests of the club. I dont think, like anyone else, they get everything right. And hingsight is a wonderful thing. But I do believe they try and do whats best for the club.
The bigger issue is a WW Trust one. We are being asked to invest our own money, and support them running the club. Yet decisions keep getting made that appear to be very questionable, like losing the righ to buy the training ground back.
Paragraph 1 is a judgement for each individual to take.
Paragraph 2 - if you think they are doing a bad job, vote them off and install others to do better. Thats your right.
Lets play a little game. Lets say you have become chairman of the trust. You now have to make the decisions
1) Do you choose to give up the right to buy the training ground back - Presumably the answer is no.
2) OK lets develop the scenario a bit. Your beancounter comes to you and says there is only money in the coffers to pay either wages or the rent this month. According to his calculations, it is likely to be the same next month too. Which do you choose?
Presumably you would prioritise payroll?
3) You are are now advised in month 2 that the landlord has been on saying that if you dont pay the rent this month, he will default the lease. You can keep using the facility but the right to buy back has gone. The financial position remains the same. Which do you prioritise in month 2 - payroll or rent. If you choose payroll you lose the buyback, if you choose rent you may be facing administration. Whats your decision.
4) Ah but I have a way out you say. I'll put out a cash call from the members. But your membership secretary points out that it will take months to create a legal framework to facilitate this and your beancounter points out that if you do tell the public that you are that strapped for cash, suppliers like the brewery and food companies will almost certainly demand cash up front before they next supply (and we dont have the cash) and some of the employees are questioning whether they should bother showing up if they are not going to get paid too. Do you go public?
That may or may not be precisely what happened (although I suspect its not far off). Just intended as an illustration that the real world of running a struggling financial business is a little more complicated than it would appear from outside and without a full understanding of the realities, it is very hard to form an accurate judgment of the Trusts decision making.
Ppf I don't think the invitation to volunteer was only to those at the AGM at, quite the opposite.most Wwfc supporters can't miss the volunteer program.
Darkdave and others , we have NOT lost the buy back right to the land!
Some excellent contributions to this thread from @DevC. The only bit I massively disagree with is this...
But given remoteness of liklihood of obtaining planning, doesnt strike me as the disaster some have made out, even if there is no buy back right which in itself seems unclear.
When WDC are actively planning housing developments on green belt land because they claim they've run out of other options, and (I think) historically have already allowed housing on green belt land, I can't see how obtaining planning permission is at all a remote likelihood.
Why did Mr Beeks, Sandra Kane and Ian Keizner ask for their identities to remain secret when they did the training ground deal in the Spring of 2013?
Why is the investment in the name of Sandra Kane, rather than Brian Kane?
Why would Ian Keizner, director of Camberwick Properties Limited, be interested in investing in the training ground?
There are further questions for the Trust.
Q: Having sold the training ground (a FALL asset), the proceedings of the sale (£350,000) were given to another company (WWFC).
Are there any plans for WWFC to pay this sum back to FALL?
Q: A virtue has been made of the training ground owners being prepared to write-off the unpaid rent on the training ground (c. £45,000).
There has however been no mention of the unpaid rent on Adams Park from WWFC. What are the plans for WWFC to pay this unpublished sum to FALL?
The unpaid rent for Adams Park meant FALL were unable to pay the rent on the training ground. As a consequence, WWFC now rent the training ground directly from the owners with FALL having lost all control of the asset.
Despite being unable to pay the rent on the training ground, FALL has ensured all payments have been made to Steve Hayes. Clearly a priority, how has this been funded?
The training ground owners are prepared to negotiate a new buy-back clause and / or sell-on. Are these negotiations with WWFC or FALL?
Will TRUST members been informed of the details or will these been confidential too?
What happens if the training ground owners choose to develop the land themselves? Are they prepared to negotiate any remuneration on that basis?
Andrew Howard has made it abundantly clear that he is in favour of an artificial pitch at Adams Park in future, which would mean there would no longer be any need for a training ground nor any buy-back clause.
Whilst WWFC and FALL are currently parent companies of the TRUST, this could change should WWFC be sold in future.
@drcongo said:
Some excellent contributions to this thread from DevC. The only bit I massively disagree with is this...
My only issue really is with the lack of communication initially, and the 'secrecy' surrounding the names involved. If anyone is going to be one step ahead re: planning, it is likely to be someone who runs a large development company in the same town.
I shouldn't be that hard to do things as a club in such a way as to not allow people to be suspicious. I would certainly rather not be but it is a little hard not to at least ask the questions.
in principal the training ground consortium could have done us a huge favour. But this could equally be a repeat of the transfer sell on buy out but on s much larger scale.
And I maintain, it would have taken 5 minutes to put a call out for £2500 the very second the cash was needed. I, for one, would have considered getting involved, and I wouldn't have been asking for anything back at the time. If it was going to be a long term thing, then I would suggest one less player in the squad budget would have done the trick.
I expect Mr Taylor (great historian btw) would prefer not to get sued for defamation by spelling out what he's saying though the inference is crystal clear and deeply worrying. That's probably the most eye-opening post that's ever appeared on this board. If what he alleges is true... well, if nothing else, you have to admire the key players' chutzpah.
The arrangement with FALL, WWFC and the trust is complex. I'd like to know what is being implied by the questions in terms of the transactions related to the various companies. I don't follow.
DJT - I was making the point that you probably stopped short of defamation by keeping your allegations oblique. Having said that, any one of Beeks, Kane B, Kane S or Howard could certainly have a go at you for the inferences you made!
Comments
It's been rather interesting observing this debate from the sidelines, but am I missing something? There was lots of mention of us losing a "huge asset" as a result of not keeping up with the payments, but surely we lost the asset years ago when we sold the trading ground? What we've lost is surely just the right to buy it back. I'm not sure that for the foreseeable future we would ever have a spare £350K to buy it back and I'm sure there are lots of more pressing ways we could spend that sort of money. Presumably we could also ask to buy it back if we did have the spare cash? Or if we are just in the business of property speculation why not buy up a scrap piece of land out Loudwater way and see what happens?
Having said that, it really could have been communicated a little earlier/better. I don't buy this 'we are being screwed over' though.
@marlowchair I don't know if those questions were aimed at me, but with regards to offering my assistance, I have bent the ear of the Trust and a former club director enough times to offer my services with any IT administration volunteering they may require, as well as practical assistance with groundskeeping and cataloguing club memorabilia.
Admittedly this is small fry compared to the many hours of dedication and hard work put in by many people, but I'd like to think it's the actions of someone who wants to play their part and not snipe from the sidelines.
As for 'skillsets' and business experience, this isn't a Rotary Club application - a mix of perspectives, background, ages and gender is important for any organisation. Having supporters committed to making WWFC as democratically and transparently run as possible for the benefit of its supporters might not be the same as running a company with a decent turnover, though it's no less important or complimentary to the other members of the WWT board.
On the face of it the Booker training ground sell off seems to be a way to get a nice annual income for Beeks and Kane at the clubs expense. At the time the sell off was announced the rental terms offered to the buyers seemed fairly good, which is why it seems a little corrupt that the land wasn't offered as a public sale. Subsequently the loss of a buy back right only increases the suspicion that this deal isn't entirely in the clubs best interests.
Have Beeks and Kane made personal profit from their association with the club through the years?
Hopefully someone can tell me I'm completely wrong about this.
Well the club hasn't lost the right to buy back the land and Kane and beeks wrote off £45,000 in back rent.
To get this wonderful monthly income you speak of they had to spend around £100,000 each to buy it in the first place.
Sounds like they're acting in the clubs best interests not their own!
Ive only read that if the land is sold, it has been agreed WWFC will receive an unknown percentage of any profit made. Can you clarify the terms where we can still trigger the buy back agreement ? and the figures need to complete the buy back ? Mr @marlowchair
The longer the Trust keep members in the dark of the full facts of why the payments ceased, and the full terms of any new agreement, then the suspicions of Beeks and Kane motives will continue.
I understand they had to provide £100,000 each but surely they consider that an investment not a donation.
It allows them to generate £30,000 per year (I assume?), that's not a bad return on investment. They also seem to own the added bonus that if they were ever allowed to build on the land they would generate a huge return on investment.
Of course they had to provide the funds which most people can't do but the terms they've got aren't really generous to the club.
Wildwest.
An arms length property deal, the byer of an asset will look at the following factors
1) price to buy
2) rent earned
3) how certain is it thast the tenant will be able to pay the rent
4) if the tenant cant pay the rent, is there an obvious alternative tenant if this one fails
5) is there a realistic chance of land increasing in value down the road
Ignoring 5) for a moment, if 3) and 4) are positive, then you would look for between a 7% and 10% return on the property, increasing as 3) and 4) became more uncertain.
From a pure armslength property transaction, this deal would noit be attractive from an investor basis without 5). The rent offered is nothig special, the tenant was known to be in financial trouble and it would have been very hard to see an alternative use for the land. There was an obvious risk of tenant defaulting due to lack of funds (as of course seems to have happened) and the income return expected for the capital outlay not materialsing. It would have been much easier to simply use the capital outlay to buy a different piece of land with a more secure tenant.
So realistically no armslength investor would have bought that piece of land on thoise terms unless 5) was realistic.
And here is where you have a choice of what to believe.
You can believe that this piece of land is a veritable goldmine, sure thing for planning consent at any time and a huge capital gain with the active collusion or incompetence of the tenant helping you to fill your boots.
Or you can believe that it will be incredibly difficult to secure planning permission for that site given its location and the evidence that landowners all around the site have not been able to sell for housing either. Although Govt is starting to relax green belt planning, that is still very limited and is a development after the land was sold. So you could believe that this transaction was actually a fantastic one for the football club and as it happens probably lifesaving at a time when it was desperately short of cash.
If you conclude the latter, you have to conclude that it was a bit of a sweetheart deal
on very favourable terms to the club. Youyr choice what to believe.
Yes its a shame to have lost option to buy it back - its always nice to have options. But given remoteness of liklihood of obtaining planning, doesnt strike me as the disaster some have made out, even if there is no buy back right which in itself seems unclear.
I agree with much of that Dev. However, there do seem to be lessons to be learnt here about communications.
It's all well and good saying that trust members elect representatives to the board (which is the appropriate way to run things) but without transparency and effective communications on significant issues like this then trust members cannot make informed decisions about who to elect, and whether we think existing elected members are doing a good job.
Greater transparency would also help to eliminate the potential for conspiracy theories.
Do you not think members need to know the complete facts from start to finish regarding the sale.lease,non payment and all the other details that are associated with the training ground Mr Devc ?
Or like you post from two weeks ago, are you going to accuse people of living in fantasy land ?
Here is your post from Nov 17th Mr @DevC "meanwhile back in the real world rather than conspiracy land, the owners of the land do not have control of the land a) because the football club has a lease to use it b) because the football club has an option to buy it. Lets deal with real world issues rather than fantasy ones."
DevC
Thank you for clarifying the rental terms and I now understand the terms are probably good for the club based on the external market. Is it really that easy to buy land of this size with a secure tenant?
The mystery surrounding the purchase is my main cause for concern. Why did the buyers not want their names mentioned? And how much influence have they had on putting Wycombe on the brink so a sale was the only way out? And why wasn't the sale offered publicly?
Agreed Chris, communication could be better. But as I have said before communication breakdowns tend to be fault on both side. If when they do communicate they are immediately accused of collusion, incompetence and by some lining their own pockets, then communication will I suspect get worse. We do also have to recognise that there are times when airing dirty washing publically can be damaging - you really dont want to announce to suppliers that things are so bad financially that we cant pay our rent for example - they may not supply goods we need.
I wasnt at the relevant meeting so dont know precisely what was said. If what seems to have emerged was the message - we were so short of cash we couldnt pay the rent, we are in process of negotiating new deal with landlord as way of going forward (including break clause, profit share and right to buy back) but that hasnt finished yet. Landlord has written off historic debt - no Chas I am niot sure we need any more detail now.
Wildwest If you are right backs to the wall and a cash buyer comes along with a good offer, you tend to grab it. Itas good business sense. Realistically what we had to offer wasnt a marketable proposition, so I am niot surprised it wasnt put on the open market. Are there property assets with a reliable income and prospect for growth available for about £350k - yes loads , any estate agent has many in their window. They are called houses. Its a bit small for commercial property, so limited availability but yes there are a few.
@DevC I'm afraid this sort of comment doesn't help anyone:
"If when they do communicate they are immediately accused of collusion, incompetence and by some lining their own pockets"
That just isn't true. If a few people accuse them of that on here or on Facebook (which is the reality) that is a tiny, tiny minority of Wycombe fans and absolutely no reason not to communicate.
You need to start to have a higher opinion of Wycombe supporters and Trust members - and so do the Trust.
@marlowchair think my question was buried - do you think the appeal for volunteers will be emailed to members or just kept for those who attended the AGM? Thanks
It might seem like I'm accusing them of lining their own pockets but really I'm just trying to understand it through the murky waters of communication and my lack of property market knowledge.
Surely the directors of any company would expect to have questions asked if they purchase an asset from the company and then start charging said company rent?
These kinds of questions should not stop them communicating if they have nothing to hide.
I think a £350k house would get less than £30,000 per annum in rent. Given the choice this asset would be a much better purchase due to the sheer size and future potential, even if redevelopment planning permission may be several years hence.
PPF.
I am not arguing that there shouldnt be better comunication - there should. We the communicated to need to undetsand there will be times when commercial realities make that hard. It is not an excuse not to communicate when when you do you just get insults flying, but it is a human reaction and the Trust Board are human. Not an excuse but maybe an explanation.
Wild, wasnt inferring this of you - other posters above have gone down the road above. The initial sale was accepted by a vote of all Trust members. I am not sure you have got your paragraph 2 analogy right.
Its for you to judge whether you think the initial deal was a good or bad one as a commercial transaction. From my experience including some in the property world, no commercial arms length investor would have touched that deal with a bargepole unless they believed there was a real chance of enhanced value down the road - the tenants covenant (ability to pay) and rentability to other tenants were far far too weak. Its for you to judge whether you think there was a realisitc prospect of significant enhancement of value down the road - for me looking at the site location and surrounding properties , that prospect was and is incredibly remote. But thats just my view. Frankly there is also the question that if your business is teetering on the brink of insolvency and an offer comes a long of some cash even if that offer is not that great - you simply have to grab it. But again that is only my judgment. Feel free to form a different view.
I honestly think both Mr Beeks and Mr Kane act in the best interests of the club. I dont think, like anyone else, they get everything right. And hingsight is a wonderful thing. But I do believe they try and do whats best for the club.
The bigger issue is a WW Trust one. We are being asked to invest our own money, and support them running the club. Yet decisions keep getting made that appear to be very questionable, like losing the righ to buy the training ground back.
Paragraph 1 is a judgement for each individual to take.
Paragraph 2 - if you think they are doing a bad job, vote them off and install others to do better. Thats your right.
Lets play a little game. Lets say you have become chairman of the trust. You now have to make the decisions
1) Do you choose to give up the right to buy the training ground back - Presumably the answer is no.
2) OK lets develop the scenario a bit. Your beancounter comes to you and says there is only money in the coffers to pay either wages or the rent this month. According to his calculations, it is likely to be the same next month too. Which do you choose?
Presumably you would prioritise payroll?
3) You are are now advised in month 2 that the landlord has been on saying that if you dont pay the rent this month, he will default the lease. You can keep using the facility but the right to buy back has gone. The financial position remains the same. Which do you prioritise in month 2 - payroll or rent. If you choose payroll you lose the buyback, if you choose rent you may be facing administration. Whats your decision.
4) Ah but I have a way out you say. I'll put out a cash call from the members. But your membership secretary points out that it will take months to create a legal framework to facilitate this and your beancounter points out that if you do tell the public that you are that strapped for cash, suppliers like the brewery and food companies will almost certainly demand cash up front before they next supply (and we dont have the cash) and some of the employees are questioning whether they should bother showing up if they are not going to get paid too. Do you go public?
That may or may not be precisely what happened (although I suspect its not far off). Just intended as an illustration that the real world of running a struggling financial business is a little more complicated than it would appear from outside and without a full understanding of the realities, it is very hard to form an accurate judgment of the Trusts decision making.
Ppf I don't think the invitation to volunteer was only to those at the AGM at, quite the opposite.most Wwfc supporters can't miss the volunteer program.
Darkdave and others , we have NOT lost the buy back right to the land!
Some excellent contributions to this thread from @DevC. The only bit I massively disagree with is this...
When WDC are actively planning housing developments on green belt land because they claim they've run out of other options, and (I think) historically have already allowed housing on green belt land, I can't see how obtaining planning permission is at all a remote likelihood.
Why did Mr Beeks, Sandra Kane and Ian Keizner ask for their identities to remain secret when they did the training ground deal in the Spring of 2013?
Why is the investment in the name of Sandra Kane, rather than Brian Kane?
Why would Ian Keizner, director of Camberwick Properties Limited, be interested in investing in the training ground?
There are further questions for the Trust.
Q: Having sold the training ground (a FALL asset), the proceedings of the sale (£350,000) were given to another company (WWFC).
Are there any plans for WWFC to pay this sum back to FALL?
Q: A virtue has been made of the training ground owners being prepared to write-off the unpaid rent on the training ground (c. £45,000).
There has however been no mention of the unpaid rent on Adams Park from WWFC. What are the plans for WWFC to pay this unpublished sum to FALL?
The unpaid rent for Adams Park meant FALL were unable to pay the rent on the training ground. As a consequence, WWFC now rent the training ground directly from the owners with FALL having lost all control of the asset.
Despite being unable to pay the rent on the training ground, FALL has ensured all payments have been made to Steve Hayes. Clearly a priority, how has this been funded?
The training ground owners are prepared to negotiate a new buy-back clause and / or sell-on. Are these negotiations with WWFC or FALL?
Will TRUST members been informed of the details or will these been confidential too?
What happens if the training ground owners choose to develop the land themselves? Are they prepared to negotiate any remuneration on that basis?
Andrew Howard has made it abundantly clear that he is in favour of an artificial pitch at Adams Park in future, which would mean there would no longer be any need for a training ground nor any buy-back clause.
Whilst WWFC and FALL are currently parent companies of the TRUST, this could change should WWFC be sold in future.
My only issue really is with the lack of communication initially, and the 'secrecy' surrounding the names involved. If anyone is going to be one step ahead re: planning, it is likely to be someone who runs a large development company in the same town.
I shouldn't be that hard to do things as a club in such a way as to not allow people to be suspicious. I would certainly rather not be but it is a little hard not to at least ask the questions.
in principal the training ground consortium could have done us a huge favour. But this could equally be a repeat of the transfer sell on buy out but on s much larger scale.
And I maintain, it would have taken 5 minutes to put a call out for £2500 the very second the cash was needed. I, for one, would have considered getting involved, and I wouldn't have been asking for anything back at the time. If it was going to be a long term thing, then I would suggest one less player in the squad budget would have done the trick.
DJTaylor what point are you trying to make? Just say what you mean instead of raising a list of questions hinting at it.
@Chris I'm not hinting at anything as the questions make the points in themselves.
No they don't. What's your point?
I expect Mr Taylor (great historian btw) would prefer not to get sued for defamation by spelling out what he's saying though the inference is crystal clear and deeply worrying. That's probably the most eye-opening post that's ever appeared on this board. If what he alleges is true... well, if nothing else, you have to admire the key players' chutzpah.
@Chris Yes they do. If you're not prepared to take them on face value, that's your problem.
@aloysius Where have I defamed anyone?
The arrangement with FALL, WWFC and the trust is complex. I'd like to know what is being implied by the questions in terms of the transactions related to the various companies. I don't follow.
@Chris Yes, the arrangements are complex. The questions are seeking answers and clarity but you are inferring more into them.
What is the reason why we should be interested in the answers to the questions?
If you explain why each is relevant that would be helpful to those without your knowledge of the company arrangements.
@Chris Are you not interested in the answers? I would have thought all TRUST members, if not all supporters, should be interested in the answers.
DJT - I was making the point that you probably stopped short of defamation by keeping your allegations oblique. Having said that, any one of Beeks, Kane B, Kane S or Howard could certainly have a go at you for the inferences you made!