Training ground owners ??
Here's the BFP quote,
But therein lies the problem for a section of supporters. Howard is at Adams Park because of Beeks; the man who some still hold grudges against due to Steve Hayes’ reign and who is believed to be the co-owner of the club’s training ground.
Surely not ? As did not this consortium hike up the interest rate at the last minute, and make the Wanderers financial
position even more perilous ?
0
Comments
No need for that 'believed'...
What do you mean "interest rate"? There was no loan involved.
There's an interest rate on the buy back clause. And it was hiked at the last minute by the philanthropists involved...
I remember the quote coming from the top table re the last minute hike, I think it was from Gary Heath who repeated what one of the training ground consortium had informed him .
"I'm sorry,as we really didn't want to do this" were the words uttered !!
Perhaps worth reposting this that I first posted 20/2 just to lay the urban myth
"I know this will not be a popular post, but perhaps it needs to be said.
Quite simply as a pure property transaction, this was a very good deal for WWFC and a very poor deal for the buyers. Let me explain why i think this is the case.
Take emotion out of the transaction and just consider it as a pure business transaction.
Our buyers have two options
Deal A
A deal completed at a yield of 8.5% (i.e. buyer gets equivalent of 8.5% interest on his money). the lease was for ten years with a company that faced an imminent winding up order from HMRC. There was a very strong possibility, perhaps liklihood, that the tenant would not survive the lease period and hence would not pay its rent. The piece of land was subject to severe planning restrictions meaning that alternative use for the site was extremely difficult to identify and prospect of finding alternative tenant for existing use very low. In the extremely unlikely event that planning restrictions were eased in the ten year lease period, then the tenant has right to buy back the property keeping the gain for himself with a small proportion of the gain going to land buyers. There is no guarentee at the end of the ten year period that the lease will be renewed and then the same issues re land use/alternative tenant.
DEAL B
Alternatively buyers could buy an industrial property rented for 20 years to a tenant
with an impeccable credit history and future rating. Market yields at the time were about 7 -7.5% for such property. If that tenant failed, the property would have a reasonable chance of being relettable, as it would at the end of the lease. In the unlikely event that a more profitable use emerges for the land, most of the benefit of the uplift in property value would go to the landlord (although tenant may need a sweetener to buy him out of the lease).
Which option would any rational investor take do you think (clue it will not be A).
When bank interest rates were low, superficially it may look a good deal for the buyers. In reality no commercial lender/property investor would have touched it with a bargepole."
Yes, I remember the post from last time. Still not sure how it 'lays the urban myth'.
As it was such a terrible deal for Beeks and friends, why were they so keen on anonymity? It's almost like they thought people wouldn't thank them for their generosity.
Their anonymity clause and the late change of terms are reasonable cause for some suspicion.
Bearing in mind the Land Registry is a public record, why did Beeks try and keep this transaction secret. Surely he knew that the identity of the land owners would be easily discovered. It seems a very strange game for a businessman to play.
Who knows, and who knows who wanted to keep it secret and from whom?
Doesn't change the fact, however inconvenient that fact may be to some with agendas, as illustrated above that WWFC got a far far better than market rate deal.
They obviously didn't fancy receiving the hundreds of thank you cards that would have been immediately dispatched by supporters far and wide.
If i remember rightly at that meeting, a number of supporters stood up to offer to loan the club money at half that rate the consortium had pushed it up to at the last minute.
It is always worth remembrring who it was at the helm declaring the finances to be peachy whilst simultaneously steering us towards bankruptcy before debating quite how shiny his armour is.
@ChasHarps
May be so. I have no idea whether an even cheaper rate could have been found. All I am pointing out to you is that the training ground deal was struck at massively below any concept of market rate;. Presumably if the Trust Board believed lower offers could be delivered within the required timescale, presumably they would have accepted it.
@Ed_
That is an entirely different issue. The point could be debated but it is an entirely different point. The point at question is was the training ground deal a good deal for the club or the investors. Despite what you may wish, the facts say it was a better dealo for the club.
My point was merely that it is always worth remembering who you can trust and who might be telling you lies. You can carry on putting words into my mouth now, toddles.
If we some how manage to club the money back in the final 'buy back' year to reaquire
the training ground. Those 'very noble' benefactors would have made 390,000 profit whilst having the security of the land all along.
I wonder what kind of return those very same people would have made in the stocks and share markets for the same outlay ? at a hugely increased risk .
The football club only buy the land back if so doing at that stage it is a good deal for them. It is entirely at their option and effectively is an anti-embarrassment clause ensuring the football club gain if the land unexpectedly was rezoned for housing.
This was a property deal , stocks and shares are irrelevant (although has to be said, you have a very odd attitude to risk. I have outlined above the property options that were available at the time to the investors. Are you seriously saying you or any investor assessing those opportunities on commercial grounds would choose option A over B.
the trouble is, if Beeks knows what a lot of the fans feel about him. Had he done it publicly, people would have given him stick for 'only doing it for the praise', 'whats his ulterior motive' etc so he doesn't go public. The result of doing it anonymously is that now he's getting 'whats he hiding? he must have an ulterior motive'.
I'm not trying to defend him, the mistrust due to things he has done in the past is valid. That being said, he's just as aware of his history and it probably hurts him a lot that the decisions he made, thinking they were in the best interests of the club turned out to be quite the opposite. He doesn't want the club to fail and I think he may just be trying again, to do something right for the club, almost trying to make amends for the mistakes of the past.
as I said I'm not saying any of this because I'm Team Beeks or something like that, more because I'm a Wycombe Wanderers Supporter and I think we should all do what we can to keep the momentum we currently have going and infighting, resentment and suspicion will only cause the opposite (sentiment that can also be applied to the anti gasroom chanting and getting on the back of the team when they're having an off day).
And here we go again...same old bores banging on about Beeks. round and round and round and we go zzzzzzzz. The £350K we got for the training ground just about saved us so just what is the point of this? get over it and move on.
Sounds you are still seething at the Trust's election results Mr Frigid ?
During the run up to the ballot, i think you were the only one to actually slate
potential candidates on this site ? Did you have an agenda ?
Good job the majority of the Trust memberships were not at all influenced by your rants, and duly elected the right honourable Sumners and Jenkins to the board.
Perhaps an early morning smoothie containing bitter lemons and sour grapes will help
control your frustrations.
Can't stop, as im off to Sarfend now !!
The Trust lied to its members. They denied the people taking the training ground had anything to do with the Board and specifically ruled out links with Beaks and Kane. They insisted on anonymity.
We didn't believe them at the time. You can see it in black and white above. Beeks himself is a signatory and the second is Brian Kane's wife.
So come on @AlanCecil how does the Trust absolve itself of a straight out lie? And why should we trust you EVER again?
@Tory_Goon I think the Trust said at the time that there was no direct link with Steve Hayes and none of them were on the WW Trust or WWFC Club Board. That is correct. I don't think a link to Beeks / Kane was ruled out, from memory. I believe the Trust said one of the consortium was a Trust member which I believe is Ian Keizner - profile here: http://www.wwset.co.uk/trustees.php
We asked re Board Members past and present as we had specific concerns about Hayes, Beeks and Kane. I was never convinced by their answers and the anonymity clause (which really only made sense if it was someone already known) and I voted against the proposal to lease out.
ToryGoon, while I applaud the sentiments of your last post, some humility from perhaps the Trust's biggest cheerleader back on the last board might be appropriate?
Everytime someone attempted to ask the Trust difficult questions you would pop up fast to shoot them down; normally insinuating that anything other than slavish and blind devotion made the accuser nothing better than a Hayes apologist.
While I for one am delighted the switch to GasRoom 2.0 had brought a more enlightened ToryGoon, I do think it's a bit revisionist of you to completely ignore your previous attitude. Care to explain what made you change your tune?
@DJWYC14 oh and I think the training ground deal went through in February 2013 (that's when the meetings were held. See: http://www.wycombewandererstrust.com/2013/02/training-ground-the-latest). Meanwhile, Ivor Beeks did not step down from the Board until August that year (http://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/article/ivor-beeks-retires-from-blues-board-1006519.aspx). At the time then he was still on the Club Board. So even by your recollection the response was still knowingly wrong. Ivor Beeks was still on the Football Club Board at the time of the denial.
@Tory_Goon I don't think you are correct. These were the questions asked:
Training Ground Proposed Sale and Lease Back
Questions and Answers
Q: Have you had the Training Ground valued and what is it worth?
A: Yes, approximately £450k. In any deal of this nature, there will always be a potential upside for the investors should we default on our side of the agreement.
Q: How much is the rental?
A: £30k per annum.
Q: What are the details of the buy back option?
A: We have the option to buy back after 5 or 10 years at the purchase price, adjusted for inflation, plus 5%.
Q: Can the investors sell the land to build houses (or for any other reason) in the meantime?
A: No.
Q: Will WWFC continue to have exclusive rights to use the training ground in the meantime?
A: Yes.
Q: Who are the investors?
A: They have insisted on anonymity as a condition of the deal. We either respect this, or we don’t do the deal.
Q: Is one of the investors Steve Hayes and/or are any of the investors connected to Steve Hayes?
A: No.
Q: Are any of the investors Trust Directors?
A: No.
Q: Are any of the investors directors of Frank Adams Legacy Limited?
A: No.
Q: Are the investors Trust members?
A: Yes, one is.
Q: If you don’t tell us who the investors are, how can we judge their integrity and motives?
A: This is a fair point. However all of the Trust Directors are more than satisfied that the investors have the interests of Wycombe Wanderers at heart. We are all fans as well and if we weren’t satisfied, we wouldn’t be making this proposal.
Q: If the investors are life long supporters, why don’t they just donate the £350,000?
A: We haven’t found any one person (or group of people) willing to donate this amount. If you know of anyone, please tell us.
Q: Why don’t the investors just lend the Club the £350,000?
A: As we stated at the AGM, we have been trying to secure a loan for some months without success. The proposed arrangement offers security to the investors and suits our immediate needs.
@DJWYC14 We definitely asked about Beeks and Kane. I don't know why the Trust's record of the questions would not include that.
@aloysius not sure I recognise any 'revisionism'? I have always been critical of the Trust when I've disagreed with them. I was critical of them over anonymity, the lease of the training ground (which I voted against), the elections to the Board last year (which I wrote to them about and got them to change many of their processes), any number of gun to the head proposals from Hayes via the Trust. I could go on.
I am, however, supportive of the Trust ownership model, I.e. As a concept. That,s why I am/was a WWFT Founder Member, a life member and former board member of WWST, a current life member of WWT and why I will be a shareholder under the scheme about to be launched.
I don't have any notion that the Trust are perfect. They are far from it and personally I preferred some of the critical inquiry employed by Francis Glenister. However, they are what we have. That doesn't mean that they are immune to criticism.
This is what the BFP said (www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/10253124.Wanderers_could_have_to_sell_training_ground/):
"The Trust has said the group interested in buying the training ground have asked to remain anonymous as part of any deal, although they have said none of the would-be investors have any links to previous owner Steve Hayes.
One of the group is a Trust member, they added, but not a director, nor is anyone a member of the Frank Adams Legacy Limited, a body set up to safeguard the future of the club at Adams Park."
They don't say "Trust Director" but you could argue that from the context (though it's careful wording). However no links of any kind to Hayes by Beeks or Kane? I think that's deliberately misleading at best. Of course Beeks and Kane have links of some kind to Hayes!