Update on land on south west side of Marlow Road, used by Wycombe Wanderers FC as a training ground facility.
The Trust Board acknowledges that the subject of the training ground is an important one and that the discussion at last week’s AGM has prompted further questions and some uncertainty from members and supporters leading to some misinformation on social media.
As a supporter-owned club we ask that members understand that commercially sensitive discussions must occasionally take place, sometimes over a long period, but wherever possible the Trust is committed to as much transparency on issues as possible. To that end we are clarifying some facts regarding the training ground that could only be circulated now.
When did the deal take place?
Trust members were updated in February 2013 about the need to quickly raise cash. Questions were asked and a Q&A note was compiled and is still on the Trust website.
A survey of Trust members was held and over 90% of respondents (402 at 28th Feb 2013) supported the sale and agreed to leave the matter in their hands.
The sale and lease-back agreement was signed on 28th March 2013 between Frank Adams Legacy Ltd. (“FALL”) and Ivor Beeks, Sandra Kane and Camberwick Properties Ltd (Ian Keizner). The land stopped being an asset belonging to the Group and became the subject of a lease and rental deal of 10 years with repayments fixed for the first 2 years, thereafter subject to increase in line with the Retail Price Index.
A special meeting of the Trust Members ratified the sale on 10th April 2013.
Have the members of the Training Ground Funders group changed since then?
No change, they are still the same, and known as The Training Ground Funders (TGF),
Why did the deal need to take place?
Simply put, the only trading income generated within the group was through the football club and not enough was coming in to meet liabilities. A major restructuring and cost saving exercise had taken place but, in spite of this, just 9 months after the Trust buy-out it was clear that the Group needed an urgent fresh external injection of cash to survive.
The only freely available asset the Group owned was the Training Ground facility, and it was agreed that the ownership (not training use) be changed to urgently bring cash in at great speed. This was not a loan but a sale then lease-back deal, with a rent to be paid, that also included a right to buy-back at a price based on a fixed formula calculation of value.
The deal meant survival, in the same way as later funds have been required to keep the Group going. The Group balance sheet was presented at The Trust AGM last Thursday clearly showing that the Club / Group has continued to need further injections of funds from:
• Chairboys Funders (secured on Adams Park);
• Private investors (unsecured); and
• Recently, the Community Share Offer (or “share scheme”).
Why did the Training Ground Funders do the deal?
Simply, to ensure the survival of WWFC at March 2013. The TGF have always been committed to supporting the financial stability of the Trust, FALL and WWFC group of companies. Funding was provided to purchase the training ground purely with the objective of aiding the Club at a time of financial constraints after the Trust acquired the football Club.
Who received the money from the buyers?
The legal agreements were between the Training Ground funders and Frank Adams Legacy Ltd. (“FALL”) with the money received by FALL, and then passed immediately to WWFC. The funds were utilised within 30 minutes of receipt into WWFC to pay debts due that day and avoid the club going into administration.
What is the payment history?
FALL’s income and ability to pay its debts is completely linked to WWFC, and payments from WWFC to FALL. The agreement was that the Club would pay a monthly amount to cover the Adams Park rent and an additional amount for the training ground rent.
FALL’s Board clarified the position between FALL and WWFC on Adams Park lease and rent that funded FALL’s training ground rent payments as follows:
• FALL agreed a 100% rent holiday for WWFC in the year ended 30th June 2014 due to WWFC’s financial difficulties in generating sufficient cash to pay the rent due;
• FALL were informed by WWFC that this was a situation that was not completely remedied in the year ended 30th June 2015 and FALL agreed a further rent holiday of 50% of the rent;
• FALL understands that the current financial forecasts of WWFC allow for the payment of the full rent for the year ended 30th June 2016 and look forward to receiving the agreed monthly payment of £17,500 during this period allowing FALL to meet its own financial commitments. These payments to be made on or before the 25th of each month.
This meant FALL was able to make regular payments until February 2014, and WWFC was able to fund three more in early 2015. All payments by WWFC to FALL to cover rents then stopped after that time and FALL was not able to pay the training ground rent.
Under the terms of the lease this would mean FALL was in default but the TGF worked actively with FALL and the Club to find ways for FALL to make the payments.
When did the TGF’s solicitors issue a default notice?
Reluctantly, the TGF instructed their solicitors to issue a notice to protect its own position, on 6th August 2015, because FALL was in arrears with rent due and not paid. This meant that the option for the Club to buy-back the facility had come to an end.
A 30 day period of grace was granted for the Group, to come up with realistic proposals to rectify the broken contract. This was extended by the TGF to give the Group more time to arrange its finances.
What has happened since?
Negotiations have been completed to structure a deal that would work for all companies in the Group and the TGF to sort the financial arrangements and allow the Club to continue to train at the facility for as long as it wanted, and have a buy-back option re-instated.
Whilst the negotiations took place it was vital that matters remained confidential for legal and commercially sensitive reasons and we had to follow good corporate governance. This means that the matter was not something that the members of any of the Boards of the Group companies could share with members.
What is the new deal?
The deal was agreed in late October 2015 with the TGF confirming their agreement to the points below in a letter to The Trust on 3rd November 2015.
Rent Payments
These were the responsibility of FALL, and now re-negotiated. The TGF have agreed to WWFC paying the monthly rent direct, as of October 2015, and subject to 6 months’ notice to cease rental.
The rent owed by FALL at the end of September 2015 (£41,000) are to be written off subject to 10 months of satisfactory repayments of the rent by WWFC.
Agreement in place for WWFC to train on the facility
Nothing has changed about the land as a training ground facility. WWFC now pay the rent and continue to train at the facility, and has to give 6 months’ notice of wishing to cease renting the facility for training.
The Club’s ability to buy the facility back
The TGF are committed to the goal of reselling the training ground back to the Club at the earliest opportunity subject to a mutually agreed financial consideration should the football club still require the facility. To be negotiated in future but the Group have a signed letter confirming the option.
The intentions of the TGF
The TGF objective isn’t, and never was, to derive unreasonable profits at the expense of the Club from this transaction but to support the above group of companies.
In the event that the Club decides it did not require a training ground facility, perhaps because of artificial surface considerations at Adams Park, and the training ground was ultimately sold to a third party then the TGF would allocate a share of any potential profits being generated back to the Club. To be negotiated in future but the Group have a signed letter confirming the option.
This is a full summary of the Training Ground situation, and we would like to remind members that there are three ways to discuss the training ground or any other group financial matter: about the Group’s finance matters.
An informal, “drop-in surgery” open meeting to discuss all financial matters and the accounts on Wednesday 9th December in Scores/ Monty’s between 6.30pm to 8.30pm, where Mark Burrell (Group Finance Committee Chairman) and Martyn Broughton (Group Treasurer) will be available,
There will also be a Trust table in the new reception area prior to the Notts County match on Tuesday 15th December where Mark Burrell will be present and happy to discuss any further questions, and
I note the conspiracy theorists have now gone very quiet. Perhaps time for them to stop trying to find the worst possible explanation for every instance and then promoting it as fact. Instead ask questions but from the reasonable assumption that people are trying to do their best for the club although from time to time no doubt they will get it wrong.
For the Trust, nothing stops the negativity and danger of mud sticking quicker than communication. Good statement, although nothing in there that comes as a major surprise. Moral of story is perhaps to do this level of detail quicker next time, ieally before the negative stories start to snowball.
Love the parody and irony in the first main paragraph.
Totally agree on the second one. An information void is fuel for those who want to attack the Trust.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to timing and I think it is fair comment that legal and commercial reasons will sometimes prevent the kind of transparency/freedom of information that a minority of members (not unreasonably) seem to crave.
The only aspect which still gives me pause for thought is the concept of signed letters in respect of items which are still subject to negotiation. Another timing issue, perhaps, with the devil being in the detail, depending on all the circumstances when decisions have to be made.
Ultimately, do you think it is a coincidence that this lengthy explanation has appeared just days after the Gasroom and social media have been rife with questions and speculation? The same people who have been speculating on here have also been emailing the correct people while speculating and this has gently encouraged the mini essay which appeared yesterday, which answers 85% of the questions in an official capacity for the first time.
This is all that was needed for now.
It appears, however, from this statement, that there indeed is no official buy back option at the present time (despite any verbal gentleman agreements which may exist) and that a plea for help (it didn't have to be specific in nature or overly detailed) could have been issued regarding the initial rent payments which needed to be met.
As I mentioned previously, I for one would have considered helping, and I wouldn't have been taking charge over the office computers until it was relayed. Something like a couple of 'lifetime season tickets' as a gesture might have been enough.
@AttitudeEra - on a simple aritmetical basis, £5 a month each from 50% of the Trust membership would have covered the monthly rent; if only it was that simple! But it sounds like you would have been prepared to chip in substantially more - unless you are of similar vintage to me, "a couple of lifetime season tickets" would be some "gesture" !! Call me thick but I didn't understand what you meant by ".....wouldn't have been taking charge over the office computers until it was relayed."
@micra said:
AttitudeEra - on a simple aritmetical basis, £5 a month each from 50% of the Trust membership would have covered the monthly rent; if only it was that simple! But it sounds like you would have been prepared to chip in substantially more - unless you are of similar vintage to me, "a couple of lifetime season tickets" would be some "gesture" !! Call me thick but I didn't understand what you meant by ".....wouldn't have been taking charge over the office computers until it was relayed."
Apologies if I was unclear. I'm on a mobile and didn't want to fiddle around too much looking for the exact figure that was needed.
If it was say £2500, then I'd say a 'lifetime season ticket' or something similar (10 year season ticket?) would have been an adequate gesture. No need to make it a loan, it could have been seen as a simple donation in exchange for something like that.
If a few months rent were needed, perhaps a few more people could have shared it.
The moral of this story is that excessive secrecy leads to rumours and conspiracy theories. I accept that certain commercial information has to be kept "confidential" but this doesn't surely cover the inability of the club to make the monthly loan repayments to the consortium. Hopefully the Trust has learnt a lesson here.
After the clarification email from the Trust I'm not entirely clear what the current problem is from some members? It looks like buy back option in writing and all debts from the past have been paid or written off. Is this enough for everyone or are there still concerns outside of the poor communication?
While it shouldn't take threads like this to get answers (I don't buy for one second that the confidentiality embargo ended last night at 8:13pm), we have at least got some answers now from an official source. I for one would encourage anyone seeking further clarification on matters to take the advice given and ask in person at one of the drop in sessions.
For those further afield there is email and I'm sure myself or others would be happy to ask your questions in person if necessary.
It is disappointing that what looks like some poor accounting by a previous regime has led to this situation. I still find it worrying that a group of developers are involved, and I'm entitled to that opinion. It is clear that their initial money was needed, there is no doubting that. Slightly less clear as to what led to defaults on what are significantly more minor monthly payments, and why something couldn't have been arranged to cover these, especially given the time extensions offered.
Was just a suggestion really to save the faffing around a loan involves, with the assumption that money was needed quickly and hassle free.
I wasn't expecting the offer to be advertised online and for the whole supporter base to go for it. More likely scenario being:
Club: 'we can't say why but we desperately need £5000 to help immediately with cash flow, contact X if you can help'
Person X: 'I'll give you the half the money, consider it a gift'
Club: 'oh no we could never accept that, how about we give you a season ticket for the next 10 years in exchange for the money?'
Person X: 'cool with me'.
You could exchange that idea with a range of 'gestures'. We'll give you a new home shirt every year. We'll give you a pie at every game for a year. Drinks on us for a month (that one would have been very cheap, £0 cost in my case).
It really doesn't matter - you can't possibly agree that a deal like that between the club and maybe 2 or 3 people would be worse than a formal loan agreement. The idea really would have been to help the club balance the books until it could carry on paying the rent.
Of course this could have been feasible for a handful of months. If the club had NOTHING and was going to default for over a year....maybe a different story.
I've missed a lot of the discussion since my last contribution, so sorry if I'll be going over old ground.
It's encouraging that WWT are making a concerted effort to explain the financial position of WWT, FALL and WWFC, but it's the start of a process rather than concerns about transparency magically disappearing at the stroke of a pen.
Chas mentioning Cobblers fans who were told to pipe down when asking questions about what the owners were up to is very pertinent - these are questions that have to be asked at all clubs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that supporters are certain that foul play is going on, but rather that the potential that it could happen is ruled out.
Questions being asked is encouraged it seems,but let's not pretend the manner,inference,and downright rude and disrespectful speculation the "questions" were raised by some,including the snide candidacy so each ( and video) from one wannabe director.
If a mature approach was taken with due respect and benefit of the doubt to hard working directors,I'm sure answers would have been offered
Transparency irradicates speculation. Lots of lessons appear to have been learnt regarding this scenario. Let us hope we can take the lessons forward and ensure good communication from here onward.
@marlowchair you really are a strange kettle of fish. Let's trust in authority, protect our friends, stamp down on difficult questions, attack any dissent... and then when that doesn't work, pretend the dissenters would have got what they wanted all along if only they'd piped down in the first place. Are you, by any chance, a freemason?
I've butted out of this thread because I'm not a Trust member and so I've relinquished the right to ask follow-up questions but to my mind, the statement the Trust put out leaves a lot of wriggle room and unanswered questions. For example:
1) Is there an agreement for the right to buy back, or just a "gentleman's agreement" (which matters not a jot)?
2) Why bring up the matter of an artificial pitch in the statement? Is this something WWFC / The Trust are now actively pursuing? If permission for an artificial pitch is granted, what will then happen to the training ground?
3) Why did Ian Keizner purchase the training ground through his property development company rather than as an individual? Was that just for tax minimisation purposes (I'm assuming FALL is a charity)? Is Mr Keizner a long-term supporter of the club? I'm afraid I've not heard his name before this deal.
4) When FALL fell into arrears why did this have to be kept confidential for legal and commercial sensitivity reasons? Given that at the same time FALL was appealing for people to buy shares because it had no money, the commercial sensitivity can't be for FALL's side. But if the TGF consortium were only set up to aid the club, where was the commercial sensitivity there?
5) Now that the deal has swapped over so that WWFC pays TGF direct, what happens if the club falls into arrears? This has shades of Steve Hayes gradually forcing the club to take more loans until he was in a powerful enough position to take ownership. I'd like more clarification on this aspect of the deal to ensure something similar can't happen again.
6) And finally, why was this information kept from people until it was too late to influence the Trust elections taking place? This stinks of nepotism. I expect that from Kim Jong Un and his ilk, not fans of Wycombe Wanderers.
Mr Marlowchair has a history of shouting down dissenters, if people cast there minds back, he attacked those who were deeply concerned about the implications for WWFC in Mr Hayes doomed Stade de Shark, he posted in no uncertain terms that those worried supporters were wasting their time in protesting as 'It was a done deal' and the Booker Stadium was happening. It was a good job there were enough supporters who didnt follow his roll over and get your belly tickled attitude, and played their part in halting the procession to Booker,and quite possibly grave implications for the Wanderers of Wycombe.
I wonder if Marlowchair can actually tell us which items in the speeches of the 'wannabe directors' (hint - they're called 'candidates') were 'disrespectful speculation' and why anyone's candidacy was 'snide' and not anything other than a sincere attempt to put themselves forward and make a positive impact on the working of WWT and their stewardship of WWFC and FALL?
There is a YouTube clip which you have seen which is packed full of insinuations,inferences and disrespect.
Then even after the AGM when agreeing to work positively with the board and club for greater purpose,the same candidate was downright rude ( and wrong) in potting the club,staff and efforts on facebook.
You can't play the people's warrior one minute and then deny it.
Your answered that with the political nous that Mr Cameron would have been proud.
But you derided those publicly opposed the plan, as wasting their time, as it was a done deal.
You even smugly commented how convenient it would be to get from Merrick Towers
in Marlow to the planned Stade de Shark .
@sandsexile said:
AttitudeEra so, in effect, a further loan to pay back another loan / rental we haven't got the money for?
Then with a corresponding loss of income from whatever is given in return..
What you are suggesting is no different to the original training ground deal
Oh come off it, the two things are very different! Like I said, just a suggestion.
The whole thing is irrelevant at this stage but if my lump sum of £2500 could have helped us keep up with the payments in exchange for something trivial like a parking space for a few years then I fail to see how the club would be in a worse off position.
If anything I'd feel like I was doing the club a massive favour and essentially gifting the money for something I may or may otherwise not purchase.
Comments
Dear Trust Member,
Update on land on south west side of Marlow Road, used by Wycombe Wanderers FC as a training ground facility.
The Trust Board acknowledges that the subject of the training ground is an important one and that the discussion at last week’s AGM has prompted further questions and some uncertainty from members and supporters leading to some misinformation on social media.
As a supporter-owned club we ask that members understand that commercially sensitive discussions must occasionally take place, sometimes over a long period, but wherever possible the Trust is committed to as much transparency on issues as possible. To that end we are clarifying some facts regarding the training ground that could only be circulated now.
When did the deal take place?
Trust members were updated in February 2013 about the need to quickly raise cash. Questions were asked and a Q&A note was compiled and is still on the Trust website.
A survey of Trust members was held and over 90% of respondents (402 at 28th Feb 2013) supported the sale and agreed to leave the matter in their hands.
The sale and lease-back agreement was signed on 28th March 2013 between Frank Adams Legacy Ltd. (“FALL”) and Ivor Beeks, Sandra Kane and Camberwick Properties Ltd (Ian Keizner). The land stopped being an asset belonging to the Group and became the subject of a lease and rental deal of 10 years with repayments fixed for the first 2 years, thereafter subject to increase in line with the Retail Price Index.
A special meeting of the Trust Members ratified the sale on 10th April 2013.
Have the members of the Training Ground Funders group changed since then?
No change, they are still the same, and known as The Training Ground Funders (TGF),
Why did the deal need to take place?
Simply put, the only trading income generated within the group was through the football club and not enough was coming in to meet liabilities. A major restructuring and cost saving exercise had taken place but, in spite of this, just 9 months after the Trust buy-out it was clear that the Group needed an urgent fresh external injection of cash to survive.
The only freely available asset the Group owned was the Training Ground facility, and it was agreed that the ownership (not training use) be changed to urgently bring cash in at great speed. This was not a loan but a sale then lease-back deal, with a rent to be paid, that also included a right to buy-back at a price based on a fixed formula calculation of value.
The deal meant survival, in the same way as later funds have been required to keep the Group going. The Group balance sheet was presented at The Trust AGM last Thursday clearly showing that the Club / Group has continued to need further injections of funds from:
• Chairboys Funders (secured on Adams Park);
• Private investors (unsecured); and
• Recently, the Community Share Offer (or “share scheme”).
Why did the Training Ground Funders do the deal?
Simply, to ensure the survival of WWFC at March 2013. The TGF have always been committed to supporting the financial stability of the Trust, FALL and WWFC group of companies. Funding was provided to purchase the training ground purely with the objective of aiding the Club at a time of financial constraints after the Trust acquired the football Club.
Who received the money from the buyers?
The legal agreements were between the Training Ground funders and Frank Adams Legacy Ltd. (“FALL”) with the money received by FALL, and then passed immediately to WWFC. The funds were utilised within 30 minutes of receipt into WWFC to pay debts due that day and avoid the club going into administration.
What is the payment history?
FALL’s income and ability to pay its debts is completely linked to WWFC, and payments from WWFC to FALL. The agreement was that the Club would pay a monthly amount to cover the Adams Park rent and an additional amount for the training ground rent.
FALL’s Board clarified the position between FALL and WWFC on Adams Park lease and rent that funded FALL’s training ground rent payments as follows:
• FALL agreed a 100% rent holiday for WWFC in the year ended 30th June 2014 due to WWFC’s financial difficulties in generating sufficient cash to pay the rent due;
• FALL were informed by WWFC that this was a situation that was not completely remedied in the year ended 30th June 2015 and FALL agreed a further rent holiday of 50% of the rent;
• FALL understands that the current financial forecasts of WWFC allow for the payment of the full rent for the year ended 30th June 2016 and look forward to receiving the agreed monthly payment of £17,500 during this period allowing FALL to meet its own financial commitments. These payments to be made on or before the 25th of each month.
This meant FALL was able to make regular payments until February 2014, and WWFC was able to fund three more in early 2015. All payments by WWFC to FALL to cover rents then stopped after that time and FALL was not able to pay the training ground rent.
Under the terms of the lease this would mean FALL was in default but the TGF worked actively with FALL and the Club to find ways for FALL to make the payments.
When did the TGF’s solicitors issue a default notice?
Reluctantly, the TGF instructed their solicitors to issue a notice to protect its own position, on 6th August 2015, because FALL was in arrears with rent due and not paid. This meant that the option for the Club to buy-back the facility had come to an end.
A 30 day period of grace was granted for the Group, to come up with realistic proposals to rectify the broken contract. This was extended by the TGF to give the Group more time to arrange its finances.
What has happened since?
Negotiations have been completed to structure a deal that would work for all companies in the Group and the TGF to sort the financial arrangements and allow the Club to continue to train at the facility for as long as it wanted, and have a buy-back option re-instated.
Whilst the negotiations took place it was vital that matters remained confidential for legal and commercially sensitive reasons and we had to follow good corporate governance. This means that the matter was not something that the members of any of the Boards of the Group companies could share with members.
What is the new deal?
The deal was agreed in late October 2015 with the TGF confirming their agreement to the points below in a letter to The Trust on 3rd November 2015.
These were the responsibility of FALL, and now re-negotiated. The TGF have agreed to WWFC paying the monthly rent direct, as of October 2015, and subject to 6 months’ notice to cease rental.
The rent owed by FALL at the end of September 2015 (£41,000) are to be written off subject to 10 months of satisfactory repayments of the rent by WWFC.
Agreement in place for WWFC to train on the facility
Nothing has changed about the land as a training ground facility. WWFC now pay the rent and continue to train at the facility, and has to give 6 months’ notice of wishing to cease renting the facility for training.
The Club’s ability to buy the facility back
The TGF are committed to the goal of reselling the training ground back to the Club at the earliest opportunity subject to a mutually agreed financial consideration should the football club still require the facility. To be negotiated in future but the Group have a signed letter confirming the option.
The intentions of the TGF
The TGF objective isn’t, and never was, to derive unreasonable profits at the expense of the Club from this transaction but to support the above group of companies.
In the event that the Club decides it did not require a training ground facility, perhaps because of artificial surface considerations at Adams Park, and the training ground was ultimately sold to a third party then the TGF would allocate a share of any potential profits being generated back to the Club. To be negotiated in future but the Group have a signed letter confirming the option.
This is a full summary of the Training Ground situation, and we would like to remind members that there are three ways to discuss the training ground or any other group financial matter: about the Group’s finance matters.
[email protected]
The Board of Wycombe Wanderers Trust
Some lessons here.
I note the conspiracy theorists have now gone very quiet. Perhaps time for them to stop trying to find the worst possible explanation for every instance and then promoting it as fact. Instead ask questions but from the reasonable assumption that people are trying to do their best for the club although from time to time no doubt they will get it wrong.
For the Trust, nothing stops the negativity and danger of mud sticking quicker than communication. Good statement, although nothing in there that comes as a major surprise. Moral of story is perhaps to do this level of detail quicker next time, ieally before the negative stories start to snowball.
Love the parody and irony in the first main paragraph.
Totally agree on the second one. An information void is fuel for those who want to attack the Trust.
@DevC Doubt it! Just nice to be able get the facts. That's all people want then they can decide how to digest it all.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to timing and I think it is fair comment that legal and commercial reasons will sometimes prevent the kind of transparency/freedom of information that a minority of members (not unreasonably) seem to crave.
The only aspect which still gives me pause for thought is the concept of signed letters in respect of items which are still subject to negotiation. Another timing issue, perhaps, with the devil being in the detail, depending on all the circumstances when decisions have to be made.
Ultimately, do you think it is a coincidence that this lengthy explanation has appeared just days after the Gasroom and social media have been rife with questions and speculation? The same people who have been speculating on here have also been emailing the correct people while speculating and this has gently encouraged the mini essay which appeared yesterday, which answers 85% of the questions in an official capacity for the first time.
This is all that was needed for now.
It appears, however, from this statement, that there indeed is no official buy back option at the present time (despite any verbal gentleman agreements which may exist) and that a plea for help (it didn't have to be specific in nature or overly detailed) could have been issued regarding the initial rent payments which needed to be met.
As I mentioned previously, I for one would have considered helping, and I wouldn't have been taking charge over the office computers until it was relayed. Something like a couple of 'lifetime season tickets' as a gesture might have been enough.
*repaid
@AttitudeEra - on a simple aritmetical basis, £5 a month each from 50% of the Trust membership would have covered the monthly rent; if only it was that simple! But it sounds like you would have been prepared to chip in substantially more - unless you are of similar vintage to me, "a couple of lifetime season tickets" would be some "gesture" !! Call me thick but I didn't understand what you meant by ".....wouldn't have been taking charge over the office computers until it was relayed."
Apologies if I was unclear. I'm on a mobile and didn't want to fiddle around too much looking for the exact figure that was needed.
If it was say £2500, then I'd say a 'lifetime season ticket' or something similar (10 year season ticket?) would have been an adequate gesture. No need to make it a loan, it could have been seen as a simple donation in exchange for something like that.
If a few months rent were needed, perhaps a few more people could have shared it.
The moral of this story is that excessive secrecy leads to rumours and conspiracy theories. I accept that certain commercial information has to be kept "confidential" but this doesn't surely cover the inability of the club to make the monthly loan repayments to the consortium. Hopefully the Trust has learnt a lesson here.
After the clarification email from the Trust I'm not entirely clear what the current problem is from some members? It looks like buy back option in writing and all debts from the past have been paid or written off. Is this enough for everyone or are there still concerns outside of the poor communication?
Only problem for me is that's taken this thread, Facebook and emails to get an explanation to members who were unable to attend the AGM.
While it shouldn't take threads like this to get answers (I don't buy for one second that the confidentiality embargo ended last night at 8:13pm), we have at least got some answers now from an official source. I for one would encourage anyone seeking further clarification on matters to take the advice given and ask in person at one of the drop in sessions.
For those further afield there is email and I'm sure myself or others would be happy to ask your questions in person if necessary.
It is disappointing that what looks like some poor accounting by a previous regime has led to this situation. I still find it worrying that a group of developers are involved, and I'm entitled to that opinion. It is clear that their initial money was needed, there is no doubting that. Slightly less clear as to what led to defaults on what are significantly more minor monthly payments, and why something couldn't have been arranged to cover these, especially given the time extensions offered.
@sandsexile - wish I could get a season ticket for £200!
Was just a suggestion really to save the faffing around a loan involves, with the assumption that money was needed quickly and hassle free.
I wasn't expecting the offer to be advertised online and for the whole supporter base to go for it. More likely scenario being:
Club: 'we can't say why but we desperately need £5000 to help immediately with cash flow, contact X if you can help'
Person X: 'I'll give you the half the money, consider it a gift'
Club: 'oh no we could never accept that, how about we give you a season ticket for the next 10 years in exchange for the money?'
Person X: 'cool with me'.
You could exchange that idea with a range of 'gestures'. We'll give you a new home shirt every year. We'll give you a pie at every game for a year. Drinks on us for a month (that one would have been very cheap, £0 cost in my case).
It really doesn't matter - you can't possibly agree that a deal like that between the club and maybe 2 or 3 people would be worse than a formal loan agreement. The idea really would have been to help the club balance the books until it could carry on paying the rent.
Of course this could have been feasible for a handful of months. If the club had NOTHING and was going to default for over a year....maybe a different story.
I've missed a lot of the discussion since my last contribution, so sorry if I'll be going over old ground.
It's encouraging that WWT are making a concerted effort to explain the financial position of WWT, FALL and WWFC, but it's the start of a process rather than concerns about transparency magically disappearing at the stroke of a pen.
Chas mentioning Cobblers fans who were told to pipe down when asking questions about what the owners were up to is very pertinent - these are questions that have to be asked at all clubs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that supporters are certain that foul play is going on, but rather that the potential that it could happen is ruled out.
Questions being asked is encouraged it seems,but let's not pretend the manner,inference,and downright rude and disrespectful speculation the "questions" were raised by some,including the snide candidacy so each ( and video) from one wannabe director.
If a mature approach was taken with due respect and benefit of the doubt to hard working directors,I'm sure answers would have been offered
Transparency irradicates speculation. Lots of lessons appear to have been learnt regarding this scenario. Let us hope we can take the lessons forward and ensure good communication from here onward.
@marlowchair you really are a strange kettle of fish. Let's trust in authority, protect our friends, stamp down on difficult questions, attack any dissent... and then when that doesn't work, pretend the dissenters would have got what they wanted all along if only they'd piped down in the first place. Are you, by any chance, a freemason?
I've butted out of this thread because I'm not a Trust member and so I've relinquished the right to ask follow-up questions but to my mind, the statement the Trust put out leaves a lot of wriggle room and unanswered questions. For example:
1) Is there an agreement for the right to buy back, or just a "gentleman's agreement" (which matters not a jot)?
2) Why bring up the matter of an artificial pitch in the statement? Is this something WWFC / The Trust are now actively pursuing? If permission for an artificial pitch is granted, what will then happen to the training ground?
3) Why did Ian Keizner purchase the training ground through his property development company rather than as an individual? Was that just for tax minimisation purposes (I'm assuming FALL is a charity)? Is Mr Keizner a long-term supporter of the club? I'm afraid I've not heard his name before this deal.
4) When FALL fell into arrears why did this have to be kept confidential for legal and commercial sensitivity reasons? Given that at the same time FALL was appealing for people to buy shares because it had no money, the commercial sensitivity can't be for FALL's side. But if the TGF consortium were only set up to aid the club, where was the commercial sensitivity there?
5) Now that the deal has swapped over so that WWFC pays TGF direct, what happens if the club falls into arrears? This has shades of Steve Hayes gradually forcing the club to take more loans until he was in a powerful enough position to take ownership. I'd like more clarification on this aspect of the deal to ensure something similar can't happen again.
6) And finally, why was this information kept from people until it was too late to influence the Trust elections taking place? This stinks of nepotism. I expect that from Kim Jong Un and his ilk, not fans of Wycombe Wanderers.
Mr Marlowchair has a history of shouting down dissenters, if people cast there minds back, he attacked those who were deeply concerned about the implications for WWFC in Mr Hayes doomed Stade de Shark, he posted in no uncertain terms that those worried supporters were wasting their time in protesting as 'It was a done deal' and the Booker Stadium was happening. It was a good job there were enough supporters who didnt follow his roll over and get your belly tickled attitude, and played their part in halting the procession to Booker,and quite possibly grave implications for the Wanderers of Wycombe.
I wonder if Marlowchair can actually tell us which items in the speeches of the 'wannabe directors' (hint - they're called 'candidates') were 'disrespectful speculation' and why anyone's candidacy was 'snide' and not anything other than a sincere attempt to put themselves forward and make a positive impact on the working of WWT and their stewardship of WWFC and FALL?
There is a YouTube clip which you have seen which is packed full of insinuations,inferences and disrespect.
Then even after the AGM when agreeing to work positively with the board and club for greater purpose,the same candidate was downright rude ( and wrong) in potting the club,staff and efforts on facebook.
You can't play the people's warrior one minute and then deny it.
I was not in favour of Hayes plans for booker stadium at any stage.
Your answered that with the political nous that Mr Cameron would have been proud.
But you derided those publicly opposed the plan, as wasting their time, as it was a done deal.
You even smugly commented how convenient it would be to get from Merrick Towers
in Marlow to the planned Stade de Shark .
You obviously don't know me or who I am as I don't know what you're talking about
@marlowchair - what youtube clip? is there a link.
Oh come off it, the two things are very different! Like I said, just a suggestion.
The whole thing is irrelevant at this stage but if my lump sum of £2500 could have helped us keep up with the payments in exchange for something trivial like a parking space for a few years then I fail to see how the club would be in a worse off position.
If anything I'd feel like I was doing the club a massive favour and essentially gifting the money for something I may or may otherwise not purchase.
But I suggest we move on as the boat has well and truly sailed with that one