Listen @arnos_grove & co, as far as I am aware the meeting was about moving forward as a club under Trust stewardship, not Hayes bashing.
Effectively hijacking a positive thread on this forum to rehash a negative period in this fine club's long history, no matter how recent and apparently painful, is a matter for a thread entitled "SH buggered WWFC, who's with me?!". Feel free to start said thread and I will duly ignore in favour of actual news from the meeting I was unable to attend.
My position has nothing to do with short memory or light forgiveness, simply a personal desire to stay on topic and focus on getting a youth system back and other positives emerging from the Fans Forum.
Better to remember Frank Adams and MyOnlyWycombe than some loan shark nobody.
@DevC you keep repeating this line that he wrote of all the debt we accrued whilst he owned the club. Can you explain this in very simple terms to me please?
I'm sure you're right else you wouldn't be saying it but I just can't remember anything about this at all.
Eric, my understanding is this. If I am wrong , would be happy to be corrected.
There are three relevant periods.
1) Prior to Hayes sole ownership, cash was paid by the then owners to cover the gap between cash earned by the club trading and club costs. I believe these totalled around £1.2m (?). The ownership of these debts was transferred from these guys to Hayes, presumably in return for cash. On the purchase of the club by the Trust, these debts remained due to Hayes and are being repaid over 10 (?) years on an interest free basis.
2) In Hayes sole ownership, Hayes paid cash into the club to cover the gap between cash earned by the club trading and club costs. I believe these totalled around £4m. On the purchase of the club by the Trust, these debts were written off. There is therefore no debt from the club to Hayes relating to this period. The full cash loss in this period will forever remain incurred by Hayes himself. The club has no obligation to ever pay this money back.
3) After Hayes ownership in Trust ownership, there will inevitably have been some costs of transmission to the new structures, for example closing the Youth Academy will have cost redundancy fees, there may have been player contracts at high wages that hadn't expired etc. These were incurred by the Trust but debt as a result could fairly be blamed on Hayes. Compared to 1) and 2) above, these are likely to be small beer.
Not sure how clear that really is, if you are not clear what I have written, say so and I'll try again.
In cash paid into the club and not returned terms, the simple fact is (uncomfortable to some no doubt) Hayes is probably even in real terms the biggest benefactor the club has ever had, even bigger in real terms cash than Frank Adams. Whether the cash was used wisely is a separate discussion!
I don't understand this...The ownership of these debts was transferred from these guys to Hayes, presumably in return for cash. ( Para 1.) Hayes was paying cash to receive debts...ummm call me Mr Thicko but I can't make head nor tail of that. Have you worded it right???
the original owners loaned the club money - I believe around £1.2m but I am happy to be corrected. At that stage the club owed them money, the debt from the club was an asset to them.
Hayes bought the debt from them - the club still owed the same amount of money, but now owed the money to Hayes instead of the original owners. Hayes presumably paid money for these debts to the original owners - whether he paid 100% of the value of the debt or whether the original owners took a loss is to best of my knowledge not known or frankly any of our business.
(Another way of looking at (if he paid 100%) would be. Club owed original owners £1.2m. Hayes loaned club £1.2m who immediately used that cash to pay off original owners. )
Its not really an argument, it's what I understand happened.
Hayes took over the debt that the club owed to the other previous owners. He presumably paid them something for this debt (but we don't know nor should we much care whether this was face value or not). Whether or not he paid them anything for their shares , I don't know, or again much care. Either way doesn't affect the clubs finances.
Put simply Hayes put a very large amount of cash into the club during his sole ownership. He has not and will not receive a single penny back. The difference between cash spent and cash earned in that period is in no way responsible for the clubs financial predicament now.
Stop making that excuse and start to focus on whether and how todays cost and revenue can be balanced and we may solve todays problems. Keep on pretending they are a result of the Ogre that was Hayes and we are less likely to.
Of course it is responsible for our current situation - not on repayment of any debt but he created an unsustainable set up whereby costs massively outweighed income. This can't easily or quickly be rectified but the club is on the right lines to get everything back in line
No sorry FmG that doesn't work. Not 2.5 years on.
You are right initially as I have acknowledged above but in a relatively simple business, that excuse wore off many moons ago. Apart from loan repayments, What cash outflowings are still being incurred today that derive from Hayes and preceding eras.
Hi @DevC . Following your discussion with interest and I follow alot of what you say. Hayes has left alot of his 'investment' in the club but I'm not sure I follow these bits.
Above you say he won't 'receive a single penny back'. He is receiving £1.4 million back at some point isn't he? Can I check if you are counting this as pre sole ownership debt?
Also surely that puts a massive cash drain on a loss making club, even if minimum payments are made. It casts a shadow and means the money gained by the club in recent player sales can't be invested again as it's paying of this debt.
"Above you say he won't 'receive a single penny back'. He is receiving £1.4 million back at some point isn't he? Can I check if you are counting this as pre sole ownership debt?"
Yes this is the pre sole ownership debt. This is all we are paying back. (I have quoted £1.2m above but you may be right, it may be £1.4m). We are not paying back any of the cash losses incurred during his sole ownership.
The only cash drain of these loans are the loan repayments themselves. They are significant doubtless , I wouldn't call them massive. But regardless they result from pre Hayes sole ownership days, so you really cant blame Hayes for these.
If todays cash issues would overnight be solved once the loan repayments cease, then that is a more encouraging picture than I understand the clubs finances to be. My understanding is that that is not the case. I also have to say I am concerned that we are struggling even with transfer fees which have been reasonably significant over the last couple of years. There is no guarantee of course that we will get any transfer fees at all in the next couple of years - they should be a bonus not a necessity to balance the books.
If todays cash issues would overnight be solved once the loan repayments cease, then that is a more encouraging picture than I understand the clubs finances to be. My understanding is that that is not the case. I also have to say I am concerned that we are struggling even with transfer fees which have been reasonably significant over the last couple of years. There is no guarantee of course that we will get any transfer fees at all in the next couple of years - they should be a bonus not a necessity to balance the books.
This is definitely a huge concern. We've pretty much sold off the family silver now that all our youth teamers have gone. Like Thatcher selling off the railways and the oil.
@drcongo Thanks for the info. Doc.
I wonder if you considered all this as such a folly at the time - or just with the benefit of hindsight.
Quote:-
"Building up an endowment is something politicians would often agree is a good idea. But they almost never do it (we don’t for instance have a real National Insurance fund but rather a pay-as-you-go system). The reason is very simple. A politician in a democracy must be re-elected in, at latest, five years’ time. An endowment must be built up, unspent, for much longer than that if it is to yield anything worth having."
Indeed. This is one of the biggest paradoxes of democracy, it encourages short-sighted decisions as nobody wants to benefit the opposition when they eventually get in and take over.
Not that the Norgies are earning anything on it, thouth they are filling the coffers of investment bwankers! We'll see how much its all worth after the next market crash.
So, how to restore Wycombe's family silver... I am putting a clause in my will to give ten percent of my estate to the Trust (hopefully I won't have frittered it all away coming over to matches!) and if everyone who holds WWFC dear did thid, surely the club's long term future would be secured.
As long as we the people don't let poor management run up debts as they did in the years leading up to privatisation, we should have a stable future to continue watching the progress of our beloved club for year s to come!
I for one am confident in both our structure and the current MD, the Trust is improving communication with us fans/ investors(?!) and the long term future is bright. Cowan Hall coming out in Get Bucks with talk of keeping up the promotion challenge is great PR and with the division as tight at the top as it is today, anything is possible!
And this is why we follow (we follow, we follow) through seasons thick and thin. I do it for the spirit of the Wanderers, epitomised by our singing at Villa Park, Stamford Bridge and the like and conversely the half hearted pitch invasion upon our promotion under Taylor at AP after the loss to... Notts County I think it was.
Anyway, a stable back room can only help GA and the boys, and I appreciate the club's openness and realism about the financial state of affairs. This Forum is a fantastic place for all things Wycombe and makes my life a little brighter when the positivity shines through.
Stirring stuff @NorsQuarters. Of course, for detailed and in-depth analysis and intellectual comment, it has to be the Wanderers' Fans Facebook Page. Doesn't it?
I know I'm a bit late on this discussion, though Hayes's harmful impact on the club wasn't limited to debts he ran up during his time of sole ownership. The 'idiosyncratic' accounting and sponsorship arrangements left for the Trust to sort out put the club at a massive disadvantage for a good long while, stymying their ability to get the club back on an even keel.
Also there's on going legacy of allowing the rugby franchise to relegate us to playing second fiddle for attracting floating spectators looking to catch live sport. Just because they've inevitably buggered off to pastures new when it suited them doesn't mean that they'll automatically come flooding back to WWFC as their port of call. This trend may take years, if not decades to reverse.
Comments
Listen @arnos_grove & co, as far as I am aware the meeting was about moving forward as a club under Trust stewardship, not Hayes bashing.
Effectively hijacking a positive thread on this forum to rehash a negative period in this fine club's long history, no matter how recent and apparently painful, is a matter for a thread entitled "SH buggered WWFC, who's with me?!". Feel free to start said thread and I will duly ignore in favour of actual news from the meeting I was unable to attend.
My position has nothing to do with short memory or light forgiveness, simply a personal desire to stay on topic and focus on getting a youth system back and other positives emerging from the Fans Forum.
Better to remember Frank Adams and MyOnlyWycombe than some loan shark nobody.
End of rant.
@DevC you keep repeating this line that he wrote of all the debt we accrued whilst he owned the club. Can you explain this in very simple terms to me please?
I'm sure you're right else you wouldn't be saying it but I just can't remember anything about this at all.
Eric, my understanding is this. If I am wrong , would be happy to be corrected.
There are three relevant periods.
1) Prior to Hayes sole ownership, cash was paid by the then owners to cover the gap between cash earned by the club trading and club costs. I believe these totalled around £1.2m (?). The ownership of these debts was transferred from these guys to Hayes, presumably in return for cash. On the purchase of the club by the Trust, these debts remained due to Hayes and are being repaid over 10 (?) years on an interest free basis.
2) In Hayes sole ownership, Hayes paid cash into the club to cover the gap between cash earned by the club trading and club costs. I believe these totalled around £4m. On the purchase of the club by the Trust, these debts were written off. There is therefore no debt from the club to Hayes relating to this period. The full cash loss in this period will forever remain incurred by Hayes himself. The club has no obligation to ever pay this money back.
3) After Hayes ownership in Trust ownership, there will inevitably have been some costs of transmission to the new structures, for example closing the Youth Academy will have cost redundancy fees, there may have been player contracts at high wages that hadn't expired etc. These were incurred by the Trust but debt as a result could fairly be blamed on Hayes. Compared to 1) and 2) above, these are likely to be small beer.
Not sure how clear that really is, if you are not clear what I have written, say so and I'll try again.
In cash paid into the club and not returned terms, the simple fact is (uncomfortable to some no doubt) Hayes is probably even in real terms the biggest benefactor the club has ever had, even bigger in real terms cash than Frank Adams. Whether the cash was used wisely is a separate discussion!
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2012/oct/16/wycombe-wanderers-league-two
I don't understand this...The ownership of these debts was transferred from these guys to Hayes, presumably in return for cash. ( Para 1.) Hayes was paying cash to receive debts...ummm call me Mr Thicko but I can't make head nor tail of that. Have you worded it right???
Sorry let me try again.
the original owners loaned the club money - I believe around £1.2m but I am happy to be corrected. At that stage the club owed them money, the debt from the club was an asset to them.
Hayes bought the debt from them - the club still owed the same amount of money, but now owed the money to Hayes instead of the original owners. Hayes presumably paid money for these debts to the original owners - whether he paid 100% of the value of the debt or whether the original owners took a loss is to best of my knowledge not known or frankly any of our business.
(Another way of looking at (if he paid 100%) would be. Club owed original owners £1.2m. Hayes loaned club £1.2m who immediately used that cash to pay off original owners. )
Is that clearer.
Yes but my brain hurts.
So under your argument the club was given away for nothing to Hayes. The money he paid to clear the original owners debt became an asset to Hayes.
Its not really an argument, it's what I understand happened.
Hayes took over the debt that the club owed to the other previous owners. He presumably paid them something for this debt (but we don't know nor should we much care whether this was face value or not). Whether or not he paid them anything for their shares , I don't know, or again much care. Either way doesn't affect the clubs finances.
Put simply Hayes put a very large amount of cash into the club during his sole ownership. He has not and will not receive a single penny back. The difference between cash spent and cash earned in that period is in no way responsible for the clubs financial predicament now.
Stop making that excuse and start to focus on whether and how todays cost and revenue can be balanced and we may solve todays problems. Keep on pretending they are a result of the Ogre that was Hayes and we are less likely to.
Of course it is responsible for our current situation - not on repayment of any debt but he created an unsustainable set up whereby costs massively outweighed income. This can't easily or quickly be rectified but the club is on the right lines to get everything back in line
No sorry FmG that doesn't work. Not 2.5 years on.
You are right initially as I have acknowledged above but in a relatively simple business, that excuse wore off many moons ago. Apart from loan repayments, What cash outflowings are still being incurred today that derive from Hayes and preceding eras.
Hi @DevC . Following your discussion with interest and I follow alot of what you say. Hayes has left alot of his 'investment' in the club but I'm not sure I follow these bits.
Above you say he won't 'receive a single penny back'. He is receiving £1.4 million back at some point isn't he? Can I check if you are counting this as pre sole ownership debt?
Also surely that puts a massive cash drain on a loss making club, even if minimum payments are made. It casts a shadow and means the money gained by the club in recent player sales can't be invested again as it's paying of this debt.
"Above you say he won't 'receive a single penny back'. He is receiving £1.4 million back at some point isn't he? Can I check if you are counting this as pre sole ownership debt?"
Yes this is the pre sole ownership debt. This is all we are paying back. (I have quoted £1.2m above but you may be right, it may be £1.4m). We are not paying back any of the cash losses incurred during his sole ownership.
The only cash drain of these loans are the loan repayments themselves. They are significant doubtless , I wouldn't call them massive. But regardless they result from pre Hayes sole ownership days, so you really cant blame Hayes for these.
If todays cash issues would overnight be solved once the loan repayments cease, then that is a more encouraging picture than I understand the clubs finances to be. My understanding is that that is not the case. I also have to say I am concerned that we are struggling even with transfer fees which have been reasonably significant over the last couple of years. There is no guarantee of course that we will get any transfer fees at all in the next couple of years - they should be a bonus not a necessity to balance the books.
This is definitely a huge concern. We've pretty much sold off the family silver now that all our youth teamers have gone. Like Thatcher selling off the railways and the oil.
Or Brown our gold reserves...let's have a bit of balance here!
Damn beat me to it
Hear, hear, arnos.
What oil?
@Cyclops See here and here:
See also Wytch Farm, the largest on shore oil field in western Europe, privatised and flogged off to make a bunch of her cronies into billionaires.
All in all, if this lot hadn’t been flogged off, it would be paying for the NHS twenty times over for the next 30 years.
Makes Gordon Brown’s gold look like peanuts.
EDIT: Just to add some perspective to how fucking stupid this was..
From here.
And just for scale, Texas is almost three times the size of the UK.
@drcongo Thanks for the info. Doc.
I wonder if you considered all this as such a folly at the time - or just with the benefit of hindsight.
Quote:-
"Building up an endowment is something politicians would often agree is a good idea. But they almost never do it (we don’t for instance have a real National Insurance fund but rather a pay-as-you-go system). The reason is very simple. A politician in a democracy must be re-elected in, at latest, five years’ time. An endowment must be built up, unspent, for much longer than that if it is to yield anything worth having."
Who'd be a politician?
Indeed. This is one of the biggest paradoxes of democracy, it encourages short-sighted decisions as nobody wants to benefit the opposition when they eventually get in and take over.
Just think if we had put all that oil money into a sovereign wealth fund like Norway damn you politicos grr
Not that the Norgies are earning anything on it, thouth they are filling the coffers of investment bwankers! We'll see how much its all worth after the next market crash.
So, how to restore Wycombe's family silver... I am putting a clause in my will to give ten percent of my estate to the Trust (hopefully I won't have frittered it all away coming over to matches!) and if everyone who holds WWFC dear did thid, surely the club's long term future would be secured.
As long as we the people don't let poor management run up debts as they did in the years leading up to privatisation, we should have a stable future to continue watching the progress of our beloved club for year s to come!
I for one am confident in both our structure and the current MD, the Trust is improving communication with us fans/ investors(?!) and the long term future is bright. Cowan Hall coming out in Get Bucks with talk of keeping up the promotion challenge is great PR and with the division as tight at the top as it is today, anything is possible!
And this is why we follow (we follow, we follow) through seasons thick and thin. I do it for the spirit of the Wanderers, epitomised by our singing at Villa Park, Stamford Bridge and the like and conversely the half hearted pitch invasion upon our promotion under Taylor at AP after the loss to... Notts County I think it was.
Anyway, a stable back room can only help GA and the boys, and I appreciate the club's openness and realism about the financial state of affairs. This Forum is a fantastic place for all things Wycombe and makes my life a little brighter when the positivity shines through.
Onwards and upwards, roll on Saturday!
Stirring stuff @NorsQuarters. Of course, for detailed and in-depth analysis and intellectual comment, it has to be the Wanderers' Fans Facebook Page. Doesn't it?
Yes well done @NorsQuarters as for the Facebook page @micra it's okay as long as you are a yoof and you like to blame particular players for a loss.
I know I'm a bit late on this discussion, though Hayes's harmful impact on the club wasn't limited to debts he ran up during his time of sole ownership. The 'idiosyncratic' accounting and sponsorship arrangements left for the Trust to sort out put the club at a massive disadvantage for a good long while, stymying their ability to get the club back on an even keel.
Also there's on going legacy of allowing the rugby franchise to relegate us to playing second fiddle for attracting floating spectators looking to catch live sport. Just because they've inevitably buggered off to pastures new when it suited them doesn't mean that they'll automatically come flooding back to WWFC as their port of call. This trend may take years, if not decades to reverse.