Imagine how negative a bastad Trevor would be if he actually saw the constraints we work to, rather than his magical fairyland that we "must" have plenty of money "cos we sold a few players"
@Malone said:
Imagine how negative a bastad Trevor would be if he actually saw the constraints we work to, rather than his magical fairyland that we "must" have plenty of money "cos we sold a few players"
i never said we had plenty of money i said we should not be in debt now .
Trevor read the Trust website. The trust has just renewed its Loans deal with Chairboys Funders. You might think "we should not be in debt now", but we are. However is is a long way from where it was in 2013 when the Trust took over.
I'm not as rich as @Wwfc2015_ but me and mrs w both work and we are still in debt. As a fan owned couple whose child transferred out some time ago and we sold a car for an.undisclosed sum I am appalled that we seem to be poorer than our neighbours.
@Wendoverman said:
I'm not as rich as @Wwfc2015_ but me and mrs w both work and we are still in debt. As a fan owned couple whose child transferred out some time ago and we sold a car for an.undisclosed sum I am appalled that we seem to be poorer than our neighbours.
But are they? Whose to say that they don't have a sugar daddy paying their gas/electricity bill?
We did have a bloke who lent us some money some time ago, but when we refused to move into our car while he knocked down our house and built a big white elephant he asked for it all back.
Without going all "marlow chair", a Wycombe fan told me a couple of years ago that he'd offered the club a loan of a fairly substantial sum of money, on a non interest basis.
He was knocked back. No reason to disbelieve him, and it was a random one off chat with a chap i'd never met, so it's unlikely it was "In confidence" to me.
No idea if there was anything going on, or some reason to keep this guy out of things, but it was the height of our "ask fans for money" period.
@Malone - There is logic if this offer of an interest free loan was actually made and turned down. In such a scenario, the current funders (or some of them) might not have been required and they would have consequently lost their interest income together with influence in the running of the club.
Am sure there's a decent reason, but to my non expert ears, it seemed odd to basically have a massive stack of cash there available, and to not take the offer up.
@Malone I think during the 'asking the fans for money' period...it was exactly that. They didn't want to take it from anyone foolish enough to want it back at some point!
@StrongestTeam said:
Annual reminder that people who cover losses out of the good of their hearts are benefactors, if you hope to make some money but may not you are an investor, if you lend money then want it back regardless of whether the recipient can afford it or need it and then demand it back regardless you are a loan shark.
This is absolutely bang on. We are currently hovering around the third option which is the basis of my concern mostly.
by @StrongestTeam definition anyone who loans the club money on a basis we must pay it back .Personally as a trust member I would expect any debt that is secured or able to be called in to be tabled and put to the membership for approval. Otherwise we may aswell be privately owned again. The jeapardy is large for clubs who accept loans as those who control the loans control the club.
The definition of a loan is a transfer of money that will eventually be returned.
It is the club managements job to source finance. We are not Enbsfleet.
Do you have any substantive problem with anything specific at WWFC or is this just another round of baseless insinuation in the hope that if you throw enough mud, some might stick.
I think the pending sale that due dilligence has been performed on without the knowledge or indeed approval of the members of the Trust is a tad concerning yes. I have a problem with that because it flies in the face of the reasons we are a proud supporter owned club in the first place. Anything else?
dofl @marlowchair you do type some waffling shite! all hot air and no substance. You're like a fart in a lift on here, mostly unwelcome! I beg you, please, put up or shut up.
I wouldn't necessarily rule out the existence of discussion about some sort of control in the club being passed on to 'investors'. However, if the poster is genuinely concerned about this, as would many others, why is he not going public with what he knows. Much harder to intimidate people when they have others around them.
@Baldric said:
I wouldn't necessarily rule out the existence of discussion about some sort of control in the club being passed on to 'investors'. However, if the poster is genuinely concerned about this, as would many others, why is he not going public with what he knows. Much harder to intimidate people when they have others around them.
We have been softened up for some time by statements such as " Options around the long term future model may have to be considered"
There isn't any issue with that and the board are tasked with being open minded at all times.
Clubs similar to ours such as Portsmouth informed their membership that they were actively seeking investors or purchasers and then went and did it. I think that is fair and correct process.
I have issue and concerns because there is a difference between saying we should be open to potential new ownership models in future, and representatives of our board actively courting purchasers and investors, inviting them as guests to the club and progressing the process to firm percentage of share negotiations and pricing etc. A rather big difference in my opinion but others may not share the same concerns.
Comments
I don’t really see @trevor as an owner.
Imagine how negative a bastad Trevor would be if he actually saw the constraints we work to, rather than his magical fairyland that we "must" have plenty of money "cos we sold a few players"
i never said we had plenty of money i said we should not be in debt now .
Trevor read the Trust website. The trust has just renewed its Loans deal with Chairboys Funders. You might think "we should not be in debt now", but we are. However is is a long way from where it was in 2013 when the Trust took over.
I'm not as rich as @Wwfc2015_ but me and mrs w both work and we are still in debt. As a fan owned couple whose child transferred out some time ago and we sold a car for an.undisclosed sum I am appalled that we seem to be poorer than our neighbours.
But are they? Whose to say that they don't have a sugar daddy paying their gas/electricity bill?
We did have a bloke who lent us some money some time ago, but when we refused to move into our car while he knocked down our house and built a big white elephant he asked for it all back.
Without going all "marlow chair", a Wycombe fan told me a couple of years ago that he'd offered the club a loan of a fairly substantial sum of money, on a non interest basis.
He was knocked back. No reason to disbelieve him, and it was a random one off chat with a chap i'd never met, so it's unlikely it was "In confidence" to me.
No idea if there was anything going on, or some reason to keep this guy out of things, but it was the height of our "ask fans for money" period.
@Malone - There is logic if this offer of an interest free loan was actually made and turned down. In such a scenario, the current funders (or some of them) might not have been required and they would have consequently lost their interest income together with influence in the running of the club.
Am sure there's a decent reason, but to my non expert ears, it seemed odd to basically have a massive stack of cash there available, and to not take the offer up.
@Malone I think during the 'asking the fans for money' period...it was exactly that. They didn't want to take it from anyone foolish enough to want it back at some point!
Utter rubbish Bookertease, the're not Bent in any way shape or form.
This is absolutely bang on. We are currently hovering around the third option which is the basis of my concern mostly.
What is your concern mostly, marlow? You never seem to quite say.
That we are hovering around the third option???????
Explain what you mean please.
Who would you suggest is behaving like a "loan shark"
by @StrongestTeam definition anyone who loans the club money on a basis we must pay it back .Personally as a trust member I would expect any debt that is secured or able to be called in to be tabled and put to the membership for approval. Otherwise we may aswell be privately owned again. The jeapardy is large for clubs who accept loans as those who control the loans control the club.
The definition of a loan is a transfer of money that will eventually be returned.
It is the club managements job to source finance. We are not Enbsfleet.
Do you have any substantive problem with anything specific at WWFC or is this just another round of baseless insinuation in the hope that if you throw enough mud, some might stick.
I think the pending sale that due dilligence has been performed on without the knowledge or indeed approval of the members of the Trust is a tad concerning yes. I have a problem with that because it flies in the face of the reasons we are a proud supporter owned club in the first place. Anything else?
dofl @marlowchair you do type some waffling shite! all hot air and no substance. You're like a fart in a lift on here, mostly unwelcome! I beg you, please, put up or shut up.
Who is the "sale" to? At what price? Do tell....
Be specific @marlowchair Pending sale? Of the club?
I wouldn't necessarily rule out the existence of discussion about some sort of control in the club being passed on to 'investors'. However, if the poster is genuinely concerned about this, as would many others, why is he not going public with what he knows. Much harder to intimidate people when they have others around them.
Yes. well not all of it but a large slice.
To whom, at what price, to be announced when?
Or just another load of made up nonsense.
We have been softened up for some time by statements such as " Options around the long term future model may have to be considered"
There isn't any issue with that and the board are tasked with being open minded at all times.
Clubs similar to ours such as Portsmouth informed their membership that they were actively seeking investors or purchasers and then went and did it. I think that is fair and correct process.
I have issue and concerns because there is a difference between saying we should be open to potential new ownership models in future, and representatives of our board actively courting purchasers and investors, inviting them as guests to the club and progressing the process to firm percentage of share negotiations and pricing etc. A rather big difference in my opinion but others may not share the same concerns.
Play a different tune son.
Questions remaining unanswered I see.
Have to conclude it's the load of made up nonsense then. Ho hum.
What an incredible load of nonsense.
Any supporter wishing to to loan the club money can just buy into the share scheme. Case closed.