surprised at what Im hearing from the forum tonight, basically we have no money at all for another player even though we have let two leave and that if we go up we might go bust.
I had thought that there was a risk of "going bust" if we'd gone down to the conference in 2014. Now we might face that prospect if we get promoted! By deduction, therefore, the only league which it is viable to be in is League 2. Not much incentive for the future is there? This surely cannot be right.
This is all bullshit, taking the piss now
So we got to playoff final, replay in Fa cup againsg prem side, sold our keeper for 400k but we are now bust?? Fans to ransom
To me that sounds like levelling of expectation, to say we can not afford to go up is the same as when GA keeps going on about year two of a five year plan. We know that clubs will receive a much higher windfall in league one next season so that comment really doesn't make sense. I don't believe for one second that that is the case, I genuinely think that the chairman and the manager have to dampen expectations after last season as the quality of squad last year was much higher than this years.
Waiting eagerly for the clarification promised on the Trust website tomorrow. Perhaps then there will be enough info available to have an informed opinion.
If the 5yr plan is to be sustainable and heading into league 1 then I for one am all for it. We seem to be in purgery for the loanshark years. I also hope there were lots of young fans at the forum who may have learnt a valuable lesson: don't let loans.co.uk be your financial advisor!
Lots of interesting stuff.Gps stats show some of our midfielders are covering 12km a game. With Bloomers and O'Nien getting special mention. Also talked about their analysis showing that very few L2 goals are scored with after a long passing move. > @fedup1980 said:
To me that sounds like levelling of expectation, to say we can not afford to go up is the same as when GA keeps going on about year two of a five year plan. We know that clubs will receive a much higher windfall in league one next season so that comment really doesn't make sense. I don't believe for one second that that is the case, I genuinely think that the chairman and the manager have to dampen expectations after last season as the quality of squad last year was much higher than this years.
He said if we went up last year it would have been a financial disaster (not quite sure why). This year with the extra money (£400k) it would actually be a good thing.
Sorry messed that up. Didn't finish the first bit about goals and passing. Was going to say it's reminded me of Taylor and Charles Hughes philosophy about football.
@StrongestTeam Is the standard of league 1 really that much higher than league 2? Judging by how the teams who went up last year have fared, I'm not sure it is.
We would also have missed out on the big local games, with no fixtures against Oxford Northampton Luton etc. But surely promotion has to be the aim, otherwise what's the point.
I think the big cost if we had gone up would have been due to the fact the league is quite northern based with long trips, requiring hotel and travel expenses plus the drop in away attendances when we are at home.
Couldn't make it last night and the general gasroom early news is nearly always to focus on the negative bits.
Did Howard really say that the club couldn't afford to get promoted last year? I must admit I'm really struggling with this pleading poverty line now. He needs to give supporters something to hold on to other than just treading water.
Hopefully someone will give a more positive account of the evening soon. It couldn't have been set up to be so negative surely.
It will be interesting to see how many of the people who moaned about the closure of the Academy will put their hands in their pockets and contribute to the PDP
Righty I agree with you regarding the pleading poverty line. Howard and Ainsworth have to get this message right, there are other clubs in this division coping on far less income than Wycombe but I haven't heard the poverty line being argued too much, though I recognise the debt we are in, due to Hayes and poor past management from the board. Ainsworth used the phrase 'little Wycombe' a few weeks ago whilst being ineterviewed. Of course this can then create a win win situation for them both as if we do ok that's unexpectedly brilliant for such a little club, if we do badly, then of course we lack the money and resources. A small club that punches above it's weight at times is a better PR approach to me.
The fans need hope and aspiration, and that's part of what gets bums on seats in the end. There have been many years past when this 'little Wycombe' tag was never used...to me,being a caustic old git, it becomes a little tiresome.
Ok we are in debt, but someone stop me if I am wrong....we own our stadium ( FALL ) and debts we have could be repaid if we sold the stadium. ( Our main asset ). Am i right or have I missed something. To me it's like I could sell my house if personal debt became too much, so I never worry too much as I own my own house.
I believe the problem would have come from promotion wage increases in player contracts if we'd gone up last year - I don't think it's too far from the truth that we are better off financially from not going up. Not sure if this will have been sorted for if we manage it this year.
Nobody else seems to have picked up MBS points, so I will have a go.
I am afraid there are a number of fallacies.
Firstly the debt that the club is in is not "due to Hayes" at least not primarily. All debts that were incurred during Hayes ownership were written off at time of sale, the only debts we have that could be blamed on him are a) debts incurred while he was one of the four joint owners which I believe were not written off and b) debts incurred on restructuring costs (eg redundancies) on his departure.
More importantly debts have a relatively limited effect on cash flow, and it is cash flow that is the issue. Historic debts only impact this to the extent that they have to be repaid now - I believe current repayments are around £100k per year (can somebody confirm) significant but not the prime driver of cash flow issues. Put simply cash flow issues today are caused by less cash coming through the door today than is going out in costs today. Only if cash in and cash out can be brought in line will a supporter owned club without cash being put in by its shareholders (either a sugar daddy or continued cash contributions from its supporters) be viable and sustainable. At the moment we are just about managing this helped by high transfer fees received. We do need to ask ourselves whether this could be maintained without those transfer fees or if results and possibly attendances got worse. If the answer is no, then we may have to look again at the model if we want the club to survive.
Finally I am afraid ownership of the stadium is not the answer to debts and/or future cash flow issues. A building is only worth what it is worth to an outside investor. Your house would have a ready market value for someone else who wanted to live in your house. its hard to see who would wish to pay any serious money for a football stadium. What would they do with it? Then you have to ask that assuming you want the club to continue, where would it play. If you sold your house, you could buy a smaller one or rent somewhere in the area, what stadium would WWFC buy instead or where would we rent? So what about a sale and then renting it back and continue to play there. That doesn't really work either. In an investor eyes that is simply equivalent to a partially secured loan to the club. Given lack of saleability of the asset if the club folded, that would make a lousy investment.
The answer I am afraid is clear. Either the club has to find a way to make income from gate receipts plus any money the supporters are prepared to pay on top as "investment" from them equal or higher to costs or the club has to find a sugar daddy prepared to make up the difference.
If the club can't afford promotion then it would not make financial sense to bring in any new players. Logically, now we are safe from relegation, it would make sense to send a couple more out on loan to save their wages. It is not essential to have a full bench as we experienced earlier in the season.
Once we're definitely safe from relegation, we should ship out the majority of the squad and play with the bare minimum number of players (7 on the pitch is it?). This will do our cash flow a world of good and will get around appearance bonuses and other such nonsense.
Thanks DevC, interesting perspective and analysis. I'm not really with you on Hayes culpability, I think he has more to answer than you have alluded to. The stadium itself is problematic, I realise that, but it's not the stadium that has the value, it's the land of course, and it has an industrial value, because no houses would be built there. Therefore there is a reasoable value in the stadium, but it's value could only be realised for us as a club if we borrowed against that asset. Why would we borrow any more when we are in such a lot of debt!!
I think I am going to take up 'Football Manager' ..playing that game not in the real world would be a lot easier than having to resolve the future of WWFC.
Howard has to give the supporters something other than the prospect of treading water.
Sounds like we've basically given up on this season but if the supporters do the same the club loses gate receipts and cash flow.
I really hope the youth scheme works. It is maybe the one thing to cling on to at the moment. I'm just not sure what it offers an investor but fingers crossed someone see some benefit. We've sold most of the family silver. We need some more.
I believe the thinking is that when we go up we want to stay up. This is perceived to be better achievable if we get promoted next season rather than this season. I can see the logic in that. Whether or not that has a bearing on what the club strives for this season is anybody's guess. Mine is that we won't be busting a gut once the target of 61 points is reached. DevC asked for confirmation of debt repayment - I believe that we pay Steve Hayes £100K per year as debt repayment but there is also the interest payment to Chairboys Funders amounting to about £35k per annum and there may well be other reduction of debt/interest payments that I am unaware of.
I was at the meeting last night and having read these comments suggest that people should attend and listen first hand.There was a discussion regarding the gulf in wages between Div 1 & 2 ..ave Div 1 £4k-£7k pw this alone would have not made WWFC financially stable if we got promoted although AH mentioned from a footballing perspective we would survive.A number of teams in Div 2 are currently running on Div 1 playing budgets this is not an option for us. The club are looking to have 18 first teamers next season with 7 development players aged 18-22 average who have the capability to step into the first team some could be loan others locally sourced. By having the extra players this will allow for reserve matches to stop players leaving on loan to get match fit.The new loan rules next season will impact on teams like us as the loan will be transfer window to transfer window hence the new structure.As for comments like we have given up for the season this could not be further from the truth the management are keen for WWFC to progress.The club will look for sponsorship of the Development squad plus coach which is envisaged will be circa £100k.18 months ago the club was in a mess AH took the chair and we now see it being structured in a business manner to be self supporting.Things in the past like loads of complimentary tickets have stopped as this was not bringing in extra revenue.Those at the meeting appreciated the opportunity to listen and have their say.AH confirmed there will be future meetings on a similar basis so take the opportunity to go.
As a supporter I want to see us set up and intent on winning if financially we can't afford to bring anyone in so be it, if being safe means we can play a more open entertaining style all the better but what I don't want is a half arsed run in.
Comments
.
surprised at what Im hearing from the forum tonight, basically we have no money at all for another player even though we have let two leave and that if we go up we might go bust.
I had thought that there was a risk of "going bust" if we'd gone down to the conference in 2014. Now we might face that prospect if we get promoted! By deduction, therefore, the only league which it is viable to be in is League 2. Not much incentive for the future is there? This surely cannot be right.
This is all bullshit, taking the piss now
So we got to playoff final, replay in Fa cup againsg prem side, sold our keeper for 400k but we are now bust?? Fans to ransom
@Wwfc2015_ You seem like you enjoy getting very angry, even if you're not quite sure why.
To me that sounds like levelling of expectation, to say we can not afford to go up is the same as when GA keeps going on about year two of a five year plan. We know that clubs will receive a much higher windfall in league one next season so that comment really doesn't make sense. I don't believe for one second that that is the case, I genuinely think that the chairman and the manager have to dampen expectations after last season as the quality of squad last year was much higher than this years.
Waiting eagerly for the clarification promised on the Trust website tomorrow. Perhaps then there will be enough info available to have an informed opinion.
If the 5yr plan is to be sustainable and heading into league 1 then I for one am all for it. We seem to be in purgery for the loanshark years. I also hope there were lots of young fans at the forum who may have learnt a valuable lesson: don't let loans.co.uk be your financial advisor!
@rmjlondon Were you at the forum last night?
Lots of interesting stuff.Gps stats show some of our midfielders are covering 12km a game. With Bloomers and O'Nien getting special mention. Also talked about their analysis showing that very few L2 goals are scored with after a long passing move. > @fedup1980 said:
He said if we went up last year it would have been a financial disaster (not quite sure why). This year with the extra money (£400k) it would actually be a good thing.
Sorry messed that up. Didn't finish the first bit about goals and passing. Was going to say it's reminded me of Taylor and Charles Hughes philosophy about football.
@StrongestTeam Is the standard of league 1 really that much higher than league 2? Judging by how the teams who went up last year have fared, I'm not sure it is.
We would also have missed out on the big local games, with no fixtures against Oxford Northampton Luton etc. But surely promotion has to be the aim, otherwise what's the point.
I think the big cost if we had gone up would have been due to the fact the league is quite northern based with long trips, requiring hotel and travel expenses plus the drop in away attendances when we are at home.
Peterborough,millwall,Swindon,Sheffield united and Coventry would more than likely bring 1500+
Couldn't make it last night and the general gasroom early news is nearly always to focus on the negative bits.
Did Howard really say that the club couldn't afford to get promoted last year? I must admit I'm really struggling with this pleading poverty line now. He needs to give supporters something to hold on to other than just treading water.
Hopefully someone will give a more positive account of the evening soon. It couldn't have been set up to be so negative surely.
It will be interesting to see how many of the people who moaned about the closure of the Academy will put their hands in their pockets and contribute to the PDP
Righty I agree with you regarding the pleading poverty line. Howard and Ainsworth have to get this message right, there are other clubs in this division coping on far less income than Wycombe but I haven't heard the poverty line being argued too much, though I recognise the debt we are in, due to Hayes and poor past management from the board. Ainsworth used the phrase 'little Wycombe' a few weeks ago whilst being ineterviewed. Of course this can then create a win win situation for them both as if we do ok that's unexpectedly brilliant for such a little club, if we do badly, then of course we lack the money and resources. A small club that punches above it's weight at times is a better PR approach to me.
The fans need hope and aspiration, and that's part of what gets bums on seats in the end. There have been many years past when this 'little Wycombe' tag was never used...to me,being a caustic old git, it becomes a little tiresome.
Ok we are in debt, but someone stop me if I am wrong....we own our stadium ( FALL ) and debts we have could be repaid if we sold the stadium. ( Our main asset ). Am i right or have I missed something. To me it's like I could sell my house if personal debt became too much, so I never worry too much as I own my own house.
I believe the problem would have come from promotion wage increases in player contracts if we'd gone up last year - I don't think it's too far from the truth that we are better off financially from not going up. Not sure if this will have been sorted for if we manage it this year.
Not a good advert from the club for any potential new players. Join us but we don't want promotion because we can't afford it!
Nobody else seems to have picked up MBS points, so I will have a go.
I am afraid there are a number of fallacies.
Firstly the debt that the club is in is not "due to Hayes" at least not primarily. All debts that were incurred during Hayes ownership were written off at time of sale, the only debts we have that could be blamed on him are a) debts incurred while he was one of the four joint owners which I believe were not written off and b) debts incurred on restructuring costs (eg redundancies) on his departure.
More importantly debts have a relatively limited effect on cash flow, and it is cash flow that is the issue. Historic debts only impact this to the extent that they have to be repaid now - I believe current repayments are around £100k per year (can somebody confirm) significant but not the prime driver of cash flow issues. Put simply cash flow issues today are caused by less cash coming through the door today than is going out in costs today. Only if cash in and cash out can be brought in line will a supporter owned club without cash being put in by its shareholders (either a sugar daddy or continued cash contributions from its supporters) be viable and sustainable. At the moment we are just about managing this helped by high transfer fees received. We do need to ask ourselves whether this could be maintained without those transfer fees or if results and possibly attendances got worse. If the answer is no, then we may have to look again at the model if we want the club to survive.
Finally I am afraid ownership of the stadium is not the answer to debts and/or future cash flow issues. A building is only worth what it is worth to an outside investor. Your house would have a ready market value for someone else who wanted to live in your house. its hard to see who would wish to pay any serious money for a football stadium. What would they do with it? Then you have to ask that assuming you want the club to continue, where would it play. If you sold your house, you could buy a smaller one or rent somewhere in the area, what stadium would WWFC buy instead or where would we rent? So what about a sale and then renting it back and continue to play there. That doesn't really work either. In an investor eyes that is simply equivalent to a partially secured loan to the club. Given lack of saleability of the asset if the club folded, that would make a lousy investment.
The answer I am afraid is clear. Either the club has to find a way to make income from gate receipts plus any money the supporters are prepared to pay on top as "investment" from them equal or higher to costs or the club has to find a sugar daddy prepared to make up the difference.
@robin it was made clear we won't be signing any players so that doesn't really apply here.
If the club can't afford promotion then it would not make financial sense to bring in any new players. Logically, now we are safe from relegation, it would make sense to send a couple more out on loan to save their wages. It is not essential to have a full bench as we experienced earlier in the season.
Once we're definitely safe from relegation, we should ship out the majority of the squad and play with the bare minimum number of players (7 on the pitch is it?). This will do our cash flow a world of good and will get around appearance bonuses and other such nonsense.
Thanks DevC, interesting perspective and analysis. I'm not really with you on Hayes culpability, I think he has more to answer than you have alluded to. The stadium itself is problematic, I realise that, but it's not the stadium that has the value, it's the land of course, and it has an industrial value, because no houses would be built there. Therefore there is a reasoable value in the stadium, but it's value could only be realised for us as a club if we borrowed against that asset. Why would we borrow any more when we are in such a lot of debt!!
I think I am going to take up 'Football Manager' ..playing that game not in the real world would be a lot easier than having to resolve the future of WWFC.
Howard has to give the supporters something other than the prospect of treading water.
Sounds like we've basically given up on this season but if the supporters do the same the club loses gate receipts and cash flow.
I really hope the youth scheme works. It is maybe the one thing to cling on to at the moment. I'm just not sure what it offers an investor but fingers crossed someone see some benefit. We've sold most of the family silver. We need some more.
I believe the thinking is that when we go up we want to stay up. This is perceived to be better achievable if we get promoted next season rather than this season. I can see the logic in that. Whether or not that has a bearing on what the club strives for this season is anybody's guess. Mine is that we won't be busting a gut once the target of 61 points is reached. DevC asked for confirmation of debt repayment - I believe that we pay Steve Hayes £100K per year as debt repayment but there is also the interest payment to Chairboys Funders amounting to about £35k per annum and there may well be other reduction of debt/interest payments that I am unaware of.
I was at the meeting last night and having read these comments suggest that people should attend and listen first hand.There was a discussion regarding the gulf in wages between Div 1 & 2 ..ave Div 1 £4k-£7k pw this alone would have not made WWFC financially stable if we got promoted although AH mentioned from a footballing perspective we would survive.A number of teams in Div 2 are currently running on Div 1 playing budgets this is not an option for us. The club are looking to have 18 first teamers next season with 7 development players aged 18-22 average who have the capability to step into the first team some could be loan others locally sourced. By having the extra players this will allow for reserve matches to stop players leaving on loan to get match fit.The new loan rules next season will impact on teams like us as the loan will be transfer window to transfer window hence the new structure.As for comments like we have given up for the season this could not be further from the truth the management are keen for WWFC to progress.The club will look for sponsorship of the Development squad plus coach which is envisaged will be circa £100k.18 months ago the club was in a mess AH took the chair and we now see it being structured in a business manner to be self supporting.Things in the past like loads of complimentary tickets have stopped as this was not bringing in extra revenue.Those at the meeting appreciated the opportunity to listen and have their say.AH confirmed there will be future meetings on a similar basis so take the opportunity to go.
The comment about not being able to afford promotion was said in the context of last season.
I thought it was made clear at last night's meeting that this season it would be far more lucrative to go up.
They even put a number on it, saying the difference between promotion last season and this is between £300,000 and £400,000.
As a supporter I want to see us set up and intent on winning if financially we can't afford to bring anyone in so be it, if being safe means we can play a more open entertaining style all the better but what I don't want is a half arsed run in.