Probably not really of relevance now but having served on the WWT Board for 3 years until this year I share no such concerns.
WWT and the Chairman have openly stated in meetings and programme notes that in order to help secure our long term future they are exploring options of outward investment which may or may not involve the partial sale of the club, and that any developments will be shared with the membership as they arise (selling a share of the club in return for investment would require a members vote).
So yeah, I think you are trying to create an issue that doesn't exist, particularly when there is no reason to question the credibility of Trust directors. Not any reason why they shouldn't be open and active in seeking outside investment after being given that platform by being voted in by members. When there is any development we will hear what has to be said. Why should they not be trusted to do this?
I also note continual failure to state your source(s) for statements and claims that would no doubt be considered sensitive info.
That's from someone with no real ties to the club or trust as things stand other than my legacy membership.
@marlowchair "Clubs similar to ours such as Portsmouth"! Well I guess we both play football in a professional capacity? they are at least three times our size with a budget to match. Surely a better comparison would be Wimbledon/Exeter?
@NorsQuarters said:
Any supporter wishing to to loan the club money can just buy into the share scheme. Case closed.
I thought the cabal of individuals that had loaned money to the club were receiving substantial interest income. That is totally different to true supporters investing in the share scheme.
Actually, if we WERENT considering some form of external investment now we are in L1 especially to help secure our financial future,and simply continued to make cuts and bumble along i'd be more concerned.
@DJWYC14 said:
Actually, if we WERENT considering some form of external investment now we are in L1 especially to help secure our financial future,amd simpky continued to make cunts and bumble along i'd be more concerned.
@DJWYC14 said:
Actually, if we WERENT considering some form of external investment now we are in L1 especially to help secure our financial future,and simply continued to make cuts and bumble along i'd be more concerned.
There is of course the option of not bumbling along too yes?
Utter rubbish Bookertease, the're not Bent in any way shape or form.
Sorry. I anticipated having to explain to @trevor that it was a joke, but your usual level of debate (albeit I do struggle to get it sometimes) meant that I thought you’d see that. My humble apologies
@marlowchair the general consensus on the food and beverage discussion is that there are ‘nice to have’ improvements that could be made, but these are by no means significant enough to have an impact on the future ownership model of the club.
Excellent stuff @DJWYC14 . Perhaps worth adding that if the Trust directors did think a change of control was in the long term interests of the club and the Trust, I believe the Trusts constitution states that they would first have to put it to a vote of the Legacy Members and a 75 per cent majority would be required.
I’ve tried to follow this thread and all the others that @marlowchair has been inserting the same rhetoric into, and I genuinely haven’t got a flying clue what he’s on about. Might as well be alien abduction stories.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
Which of your premises do you want me to comment on @marlowchair ?
More than happy to do so but I'm a bit lost on what you are asking?
If we were at the stage where multiple purchases had done due dilligence on buying varying percentage shares of our club, do you think the cart has been put before the horse in terms of trust members being informed that a proactive and vigorous process to find a buyer was underway?
I don’t mean detail or commercially sensitive information but other clubs have made clear statements that they are “ on the market” do to speak,
I don’t believe we have made that decision strategically or officially as a club. Yes we have had some very soft inferences that one day we might have to look at our model , but that is a long way from board members being given a remit to shop us around. In my opinion. Former Trust Director Dale has said that in his view it is not surprising and he fully expects our directors to be in discussions about selling all or part of our club. His candor is refreshing and should be applauded but I am a little surprised at the admission as I think it’s a rather important matter for a proud trust owned club
As I understand it, all directors of the trust are elected. The club directors are appointed and can be removed by the voting shareholder of the club, which is the Trust. That’s basic company law. No one can be a director of a company if the majority shareholder(s) isn’t in agreement. So to all intents and purposes, yes, all directors of the club are elected. Anyway, aren’t three of the five club directors also trust directors (and thus directly elected by trust members?
This is all a matter of public record, I’m not sure what the issue is.
The issue appears to be horrible bad Mr Beeks and horrible bad Mr Howard (when he's not being nice good Mr Howard) are apparently conspiring to sell shares in the club so they can get their loans back having first secured preferential rates for his ice cream business. Mr Stroud has been corrupted by Mr Howard with some consultancy work so it's horrible bad Mr Stroud too now. It's not entirely clear which of Mr Cook and Mr Burrell is the really nice good one coming on here to warn us about these foul deeds (but it is certainly not whichever of them is responsible for catering - he's horrible and bad and conspiring to deliberately run the club finances down by serving dodgy coffee.)
I don't see why you can't all see the truth. Obviously the reason for the large attendance on Saturday were all the new investors queueing up to put their money into a loss making lg1 club with no property assets in the club.
Comments
Exactly right Nors they can and should. Anyone who puts money in other ways is usually a creditor u less it is a very generous donation
Floyd, dev and right in the middle your outright dismissal of the premise I’d noted and I accept your right to take that position.
Humour me and Suppose it’s true for a minute.what are your thoughts ?
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Probably not really of relevance now but having served on the WWT Board for 3 years until this year I share no such concerns.
WWT and the Chairman have openly stated in meetings and programme notes that in order to help secure our long term future they are exploring options of outward investment which may or may not involve the partial sale of the club, and that any developments will be shared with the membership as they arise (selling a share of the club in return for investment would require a members vote).
So yeah, I think you are trying to create an issue that doesn't exist, particularly when there is no reason to question the credibility of Trust directors. Not any reason why they shouldn't be open and active in seeking outside investment after being given that platform by being voted in by members. When there is any development we will hear what has to be said. Why should they not be trusted to do this?
I also note continual failure to state your source(s) for statements and claims that would no doubt be considered sensitive info.
That's from someone with no real ties to the club or trust as things stand other than my legacy membership.
@marlowchair "Clubs similar to ours such as Portsmouth"! Well I guess we both play football in a professional capacity? they are at least three times our size with a budget to match. Surely a better comparison would be Wimbledon/Exeter?
I thought the cabal of individuals that had loaned money to the club were receiving substantial interest income. That is totally different to true supporters investing in the share scheme.
Actually, if we WERENT considering some form of external investment now we are in L1 especially to help secure our financial future,and simply continued to make cuts and bumble along i'd be more concerned.
@marlowchair are the Chairboys funders " loan sharks"?
Depends on the level of interest the funders are receiving.
Dale you make salient points especially the one around the directors who are tasked with shopping us around are elected to do so....
The trust is tasked with ensuring the long term financial sustainability of the club under trust ownership.
You call it shopping around, I call it considering all options.
And yes the directors are elected every 3 years?
Magnificient work Dale
Very sensible words by Dale.
So the directors tasked with considering all options are elected?
There is of course the option of not bumbling along too yes?
The food and beverage discussion for example
Sorry. I anticipated having to explain to @trevor that it was a joke, but your usual level of debate (albeit I do struggle to get it sometimes) meant that I thought you’d see that. My humble apologies
@marlowchair the general consensus on the food and beverage discussion is that there are ‘nice to have’ improvements that could be made, but these are by no means significant enough to have an impact on the future ownership model of the club.
Yes
Are you questioning this?
Which of your premises do you want me to comment on @marlowchair ?
More than happy to do so but I'm a bit lost on what you are asking?
Excellent stuff @DJWYC14 . Perhaps worth adding that if the Trust directors did think a change of control was in the long term interests of the club and the Trust, I believe the Trusts constitution states that they would first have to put it to a vote of the Legacy Members and a 75 per cent majority would be required.
I’ve tried to follow this thread and all the others that @marlowchair has been inserting the same rhetoric into, and I genuinely haven’t got a flying clue what he’s on about. Might as well be alien abduction stories.
Is this 75 per cent of all the Legacy Members or 75 per cent of those voting? If the former I can't see it ever getting approval.
Actually, this could be a fun game. Post 1/10th of your favourite conspiracy bollocks and tenuously link it to Wycombe Wanderers.
If you all knew what a certain three letter agency was looking into with regards to the top car park, well... You’ll see when I’m proved right.
Oh my god. Not the NCP!!!!
The former, I think. And if so, then yes, it certainly would present a challenge.
It was 75% of those voting when Hayes gained control.
http://www.chairboys.co.uk/onthenet/news0910/vote-6july2009.htm
If we were at the stage where multiple purchases had done due dilligence on buying varying percentage shares of our club, do you think the cart has been put before the horse in terms of trust members being informed that a proactive and vigorous process to find a buyer was underway?
I don’t mean detail or commercially sensitive information but other clubs have made clear statements that they are “ on the market” do to speak,
I don’t believe we have made that decision strategically or officially as a club. Yes we have had some very soft inferences that one day we might have to look at our model , but that is a long way from board members being given a remit to shop us around. In my opinion. Former Trust Director Dale has said that in his view it is not surprising and he fully expects our directors to be in discussions about selling all or part of our club. His candor is refreshing and should be applauded but I am a little surprised at the admission as I think it’s a rather important matter for a proud trust owned club
I genuinely wonder how you view it?
Are all directors of our club elected?
As I understand it, all directors of the trust are elected. The club directors are appointed and can be removed by the voting shareholder of the club, which is the Trust. That’s basic company law. No one can be a director of a company if the majority shareholder(s) isn’t in agreement. So to all intents and purposes, yes, all directors of the club are elected. Anyway, aren’t three of the five club directors also trust directors (and thus directly elected by trust members?
This is all a matter of public record, I’m not sure what the issue is.
The issue appears to be horrible bad Mr Beeks and horrible bad Mr Howard (when he's not being nice good Mr Howard) are apparently conspiring to sell shares in the club so they can get their loans back having first secured preferential rates for his ice cream business. Mr Stroud has been corrupted by Mr Howard with some consultancy work so it's horrible bad Mr Stroud too now. It's not entirely clear which of Mr Cook and Mr Burrell is the really nice good one coming on here to warn us about these foul deeds (but it is certainly not whichever of them is responsible for catering - he's horrible and bad and conspiring to deliberately run the club finances down by serving dodgy coffee.)
I don't see why you can't all see the truth. Obviously the reason for the large attendance on Saturday were all the new investors queueing up to put their money into a loss making lg1 club with no property assets in the club.