@Stewie63 said:
Ultimately for supporter ownership to be a success we need more bums on seats
And, sadly, that is the most intractable element in the list of income sources. It is too much of a constant and, for league games at least, it is too readily predictable. It's a pity that next Saturday is traditionally the one when gates are at their lowest because, with the advent of Special K, we might otherwise be looking at one of our better gates. (When was the last time we scored fewer than two goals?) Of course another factor on Saturday, and clearly in recognition of the likelihood of a dip in numbers, we have the £5 a guest offer so, for different reasons, we may have one of our better attendances. Let's hope so.
There are plusses and minuses for all forms of ownership.
Some would wish to switch the ownership model now in search of L1 and possible championship glory. I'm not one of those unless an incredible opportunity presented itself.
I suspect most would be happy to stay with the current ownership model if it delivers finances compared to other clubs likely to be sufficient to maintain Lg 2 status with possibility of an occasional run at lg1 for the foreseeable future (say 10 years). I would agree with this.
Less would be happy to stay with the model (although some would be) if it appeared likely that the budget it delivered gave a strong likelihood of a drop out of the league in the next ten years but offered prospect of sustainable future in conference or conference south. This would be where I would be looking at alternatives.
Presumably virtually nobody would want to stay with the model if the budget it delivered gave a strong likelihood of a spiral down through the conference levels and probable extinction.
We don't really have the figures to judge where we are in comparison to others and what the implications of that are. I suggest we wait to see what the trust Board present when they are ready, ask them some searching questions and then conclude the best path forward based on that information.
Very good post Dev and pretty much nail on the head
I guess it will come down to what people want for their football club. For me i want to see the club push on and try and reach the status of being a steady league one club. Though more and more non league teams are heavily armed financially and are going to put pressure on the smaller football league clubs like ourselves to retain our FL status. One thinks that something must surely have to give at some point in the not too distant future
With 5 former heads of the FA complaining about the regulation of football, I doubt that any model for a smaller club could guarantee a sustainable future at present. At least the Trust appears to be establishing an annual sustainable approach for our future, and hopefully we never again get into a situation where one small group can control the running of the club for their own personal reasons. Maybe we could insist that membership on any board should have an agreed timescale to ensue that fresh minds are constantly reviewing the progress. With crowds below 10,000 our future can only be League 1 with a outside chance of making the Championship. The highlights since we gained League status have been promotion to League 1 and some great Cup runs. Long may this scenario continue. The dream of Premiership status can stay with us on a nightly basis.
Ok, for starters the Barça link was to get info on why not us. The figures: look pretty good right now with debts coming down at a record rate. Imagine us starting from scratch and receiving that kind of money - bright future, no?
We have got the monkey off our back and should be looking at rebuying the training ground with future windfalls. We are still in both cups and have financial potential from them also keeping the fanbase happy. With a place in the playoffs and an amazing run we are flying high, as GA mentioned on the radio it is time to get more bums on seats towards the old days of home crowds of 5 to 6K.
We do have the catchment area to attract more fans on a consistant basis and with the proper structure in place I see no reason why we can't continue with this ownership model and challenge competetively in both the league and the cups.
Wycombe have traditionally been a bit of a yo-yo team but the stability of the present management and back room is to be applauded. We are still working our way back from financial mismanagement and once we are back up out of the red it can be blue (quartered) sky up the leagues, picking up more and more supporters along the way.
@NorsQuarters I'm not sure I follow the repurchase of the training ground? Why would we want to own an asset we can (and do) lease? It's not as if it's a heritage asset, and the money we would spend on buying it back could be better used elsewhere. The majority of businesses trade from leasehold premises, so that their working capital can be used in their main business (whether it's retail, manufacturing or whatever). AP itself is a heritage asset and it's right that we own it, but I don't see any reason to treat the training ground in the same way. There are far better things for WWFC to be spending its money on, such as building the stability you (and surely all of us) seek..
@Wig_and_Pen I would buy it back. Make it into a local centre of excellence with a couple of 4G pitches as well as Grass, you can then hire out and have an income. Paying out rent is a pointless exercise.
@Wig_and_Pen The reason that @NorsQuarters and others would like to buy the Training Ground back is that it is quite simply an Asset with huge development potential.
Whether or not we would ever get the opportunity to buy the land back is of course another matter.
Since the default on the lease occurred recent Planning changes have meant that the Land is worth far more now than it was then - I doubt we could afford to buy it back now.
@Its_Cold_Up_North so we should spend our hard-earned, and very scarce, cash on property speculation? Is that what people really want? I'm not wholly convinced.
Would have been a great idea @StrongestTeam and yes I hate paying rent and yes I think it is best to be self sufficient and yes I think that if it is worth so much more and we owned it we could trade up.
I have this silly little dream that we could do a 'Stourbridge' and have many a youth team and build a base of support through youth for years to come. Perhaps it is better to rent the training pitches but it seems they are only increasing in value and as a long term strategy whatever makes the club money is good business.
@aloysius said:
And while we're on a pedantry diversion, Special K is an appellation for ketamine. Perhaps not the best choice of nickname for Scott Kashket, micra?
I plead ignorance but, having checked what ketamine is, I agree it is most inappropriate. No way does Scott Kashket induce a trance-like state. Quite the opposite.
@A_Worboys said:
Reading the post-match comments of some of the Leyton Orient fans regarding their owner, do we really want to give up supporter-ownership?
Long live Supporter ownership. With the right Chairman/Manager combination and a fair proportion of generous supporters, it seems to work pretty well. Tight squad, no prima donnas, good sprinkling of youth shrewdly recruited with a view to development and improving performances leading to the prospect of profitable sales and sell-ons. What's not to like?
"Since the default on the lease occurred recent Planning changes have meant that the Land is worth far more now than it was then - I doubt we could afford to buy it back now."
It's a shame that nobody connected with the club is in the housing development business and could have foreseen the Planning changes and advised the Trust to keep the land?
Apologies if this has been posted before / elsewhere, but was browsing the Trust website (for any news on TOTvWYC) and came across this which was apparently part of a piece by Trevor Stroud in the programme at the start of the year -
"Off the pitch, we will need to continue the debate regarding the best model for the ownership and funding of our Football Club, going forward. We’ve relied, as do many of our competitors, on “football fortune” to survive, be it via cup runs (including the much maligned Checkatrade trophy), player sales or sell on fees. We can of course hope, and do our best, to ensure this continues, but there are absolutely no guarantees that it will.
We can “cut our cloth” to what we can afford, which would mean a further reduced player budget and an inevitable tumble down the leagues. The other route would be to look for inward investment, which would mean selling part or a controlling interest in the Football Club. As I said at the Trust AGM, your Trust board are currently investigating routes open to us, and at an appropriate time I will call a special meeting to update members and have a debate about our findings. In the meantime, you have the reassurance that the Club cannot be sold without the approval of 75% of Legacy Members (members who have held a season ticket for more than three seasons)."
Comments
And, sadly, that is the most intractable element in the list of income sources. It is too much of a constant and, for league games at least, it is too readily predictable. It's a pity that next Saturday is traditionally the one when gates are at their lowest because, with the advent of Special K, we might otherwise be looking at one of our better gates. (When was the last time we scored fewer than two goals?) Of course another factor on Saturday, and clearly in recognition of the likelihood of a dip in numbers, we have the £5 a guest offer so, for different reasons, we may have one of our better attendances. Let's hope so.
Not sure Barcelona is overly relevant.
There are plusses and minuses for all forms of ownership.
Some would wish to switch the ownership model now in search of L1 and possible championship glory. I'm not one of those unless an incredible opportunity presented itself.
I suspect most would be happy to stay with the current ownership model if it delivers finances compared to other clubs likely to be sufficient to maintain Lg 2 status with possibility of an occasional run at lg1 for the foreseeable future (say 10 years). I would agree with this.
Less would be happy to stay with the model (although some would be) if it appeared likely that the budget it delivered gave a strong likelihood of a drop out of the league in the next ten years but offered prospect of sustainable future in conference or conference south. This would be where I would be looking at alternatives.
Presumably virtually nobody would want to stay with the model if the budget it delivered gave a strong likelihood of a spiral down through the conference levels and probable extinction.
We don't really have the figures to judge where we are in comparison to others and what the implications of that are. I suggest we wait to see what the trust Board present when they are ready, ask them some searching questions and then conclude the best path forward based on that information.
Very good post Dev and pretty much nail on the head
I guess it will come down to what people want for their football club. For me i want to see the club push on and try and reach the status of being a steady league one club. Though more and more non league teams are heavily armed financially and are going to put pressure on the smaller football league clubs like ourselves to retain our FL status. One thinks that something must surely have to give at some point in the not too distant future
Trying very hard to resist... trying so hard... no, sorry, can't do it...
"Less would be happy to stay with the model"
FEWER!
And while we're on a pedantry diversion, Special K is an appellation for ketamine. Perhaps not the best choice of nickname for Scott Kashket, @micra?
With 5 former heads of the FA complaining about the regulation of football, I doubt that any model for a smaller club could guarantee a sustainable future at present. At least the Trust appears to be establishing an annual sustainable approach for our future, and hopefully we never again get into a situation where one small group can control the running of the club for their own personal reasons. Maybe we could insist that membership on any board should have an agreed timescale to ensue that fresh minds are constantly reviewing the progress. With crowds below 10,000 our future can only be League 1 with a outside chance of making the Championship. The highlights since we gained League status have been promotion to League 1 and some great Cup runs. Long may this scenario continue. The dream of Premiership status can stay with us on a nightly basis.
Ok, for starters the Barça link was to get info on why not us. The figures: look pretty good right now with debts coming down at a record rate. Imagine us starting from scratch and receiving that kind of money - bright future, no?
We have got the monkey off our back and should be looking at rebuying the training ground with future windfalls. We are still in both cups and have financial potential from them also keeping the fanbase happy. With a place in the playoffs and an amazing run we are flying high, as GA mentioned on the radio it is time to get more bums on seats towards the old days of home crowds of 5 to 6K.
We do have the catchment area to attract more fans on a consistant basis and with the proper structure in place I see no reason why we can't continue with this ownership model and challenge competetively in both the league and the cups.
Wycombe have traditionally been a bit of a yo-yo team but the stability of the present management and back room is to be applauded. We are still working our way back from financial mismanagement and once we are back up out of the red it can be blue (quartered) sky up the leagues, picking up more and more supporters along the way.
Long live supporter ownership, long live WWFC!
@NorsQuarters I'm not sure I follow the repurchase of the training ground? Why would we want to own an asset we can (and do) lease? It's not as if it's a heritage asset, and the money we would spend on buying it back could be better used elsewhere. The majority of businesses trade from leasehold premises, so that their working capital can be used in their main business (whether it's retail, manufacturing or whatever). AP itself is a heritage asset and it's right that we own it, but I don't see any reason to treat the training ground in the same way. There are far better things for WWFC to be spending its money on, such as building the stability you (and surely all of us) seek..
@Wig_and_Pen I would buy it back. Make it into a local centre of excellence with a couple of 4G pitches as well as Grass, you can then hire out and have an income. Paying out rent is a pointless exercise.
@M3G - The average cost of constructing a 4G pitch is £500k. How are you going to raise the funds?
@Wig_and_Pen The reason that @NorsQuarters and others would like to buy the Training Ground back is that it is quite simply an Asset with huge development potential.
Whether or not we would ever get the opportunity to buy the land back is of course another matter.
Since the default on the lease occurred recent Planning changes have meant that the Land is worth far more now than it was then - I doubt we could afford to buy it back now.
@mooneyman I have no idea.
@Its_Cold_Up_North so we should spend our hard-earned, and very scarce, cash on property speculation? Is that what people really want? I'm not wholly convinced.
@Wig_and_Pen isn't that what Sharkey tried?
As per my previous post the Training Ground has huge development potential.
The reason this matter continually gets raised at meetings is that Supporters were/are still not happy at the manner in which this Asset was lost.
Whether we ever get the chance again to buy the Training Ground back is of course another matter.
Would have been a great idea @StrongestTeam and yes I hate paying rent and yes I think it is best to be self sufficient and yes I think that if it is worth so much more and we owned it we could trade up.
I have this silly little dream that we could do a 'Stourbridge' and have many a youth team and build a base of support through youth for years to come. Perhaps it is better to rent the training pitches but it seems they are only increasing in value and as a long term strategy whatever makes the club money is good business.
I plead ignorance but, having checked what ketamine is, I agree it is most inappropriate. No way does Scott Kashket induce a trance-like state. Quite the opposite.
I dunno, if you look at the faces of the defenders as he dances past them...
Reading the post-match comments of some of the Leyton Orient fans regarding their owner, do we really want to give up supporter-ownership?
Long live Supporter ownership. With the right Chairman/Manager combination and a fair proportion of generous supporters, it seems to work pretty well. Tight squad, no prima donnas, good sprinkling of youth shrewdly recruited with a view to development and improving performances leading to the prospect of profitable sales and sell-ons. What's not to like?
"Since the default on the lease occurred recent Planning changes have meant that the Land is worth far more now than it was then - I doubt we could afford to buy it back now."
It's a shame that nobody connected with the club is in the housing development business and could have foreseen the Planning changes and advised the Trust to keep the land?
Apologies if this has been posted before / elsewhere, but was browsing the Trust website (for any news on TOTvWYC) and came across this which was apparently part of a piece by Trevor Stroud in the programme at the start of the year -
"Off the pitch, we will need to continue the debate regarding the best model for the ownership and funding of our Football Club, going forward. We’ve relied, as do many of our competitors, on “football fortune” to survive, be it via cup runs (including the much maligned Checkatrade trophy), player sales or sell on fees. We can of course hope, and do our best, to ensure this continues, but there are absolutely no guarantees that it will.
We can “cut our cloth” to what we can afford, which would mean a further reduced player budget and an inevitable tumble down the leagues. The other route would be to look for inward investment, which would mean selling part or a controlling interest in the Football Club. As I said at the Trust AGM, your Trust board are currently investigating routes open to us, and at an appropriate time I will call a special meeting to update members and have a debate about our findings. In the meantime, you have the reassurance that the Club cannot be sold without the approval of 75% of Legacy Members (members who have held a season ticket for more than three seasons)."