No timeline other than the Trust are looking to move fairly quickly, after getting some member feedback. No formal vote at this point. I suspect that will come when the preferred proposal has been formalised.
We're supporter owned by TRUST members and managed by the TRUST Directors and Board. This entire issue is about our TRUST in them to do the best thing for the club. They (and we) in turn will need to trust the potential investors and indeed they us. Perhaps we should 'BELIEVE' in trust! Onward to the next phase where we should see who's who and what they have to say to us before we trust in democracy and vote.
I understand a vote is only required for a majority stake of the club.
The way the minority investment was presented was as a 3 year cash injection from investors with the view to then holding a majority stake thereafter as the Trust / Trust members wouldn't be able to continue funding the required amount as a majority holder.
This is an important point that would need clarifying
Of course not. I’m saying that I’m not comfortable with the quality or accuracy of information from
Someone who showed lack of attention to detail over something so important .
It wasn’t just a typo at all, it was someone neglecting to check detail because the error was supportive of their agenda.
I feel we need more objectivity than what was displayed tonight in order to be fully informed to the point of being able to vote on anything.
A very valid question was asked by a man to my right regarding draft accounts being made available to potential investors but not to trust members. How is that an objective and fair situation?
It's what happens at the end of the 3 year period for the Minority investor that is interesting. Will we need to then move to a Majority investment? I realize that this is the classic unanswerable question but we have to do something and we must surly take the advice of our Board in the meantime until we are able to meet the 'investors' face to face and ask them.
@DJWYC14 said:
Taking online sniping to a new level. Shameful behaviour.
Obviously a “layman net troll” highlighting a glaring error in important trust communications that the FD, chairman and everyone else missed, just when they were about to ask for members to place a huge amount of trust in their abilities and competency has struck a raw nerve. I apologise for any embarrassment my flagging of the error has caused and to all egos bruised ?
@DJWYC14 said:
I understand a vote is only required for a majority stake of the club.
The way the minority investment was presented was as a 3 year cash injection from investors with the view to then holding a majority stake thereafter as the Trust / Trust members wouldn't be able to continue funding the required amount as a majority holder.
This is an important point that would need clarifying
Interesting, if they say bought 20% of the club in one go and there was no great change in value that wouldn't be easily sellable or worth a lot, but if we agreed this matching their investment or letting them take another 20% or so each year they'd end up owners after 3 years if they didn't lose interest.
Either way 100% could conceivably not be worth a lot in 3 years with no ground included if no other party was interested at that time.
Surely then the next step would be us being skint and needing to sell the ground to buy the club back.
Giving potential investors account information under stricy NDA whilst requiring trust members / shareholders to wait for audited accounts is absolutely standard operating practice.
@ValleyWanderer said:
Or it may just continue as minority......
I’m not sure that would be possible longer term, as once their investment is used up over three years, surely we’ll be back in a similar position to tonight, needing extra cash investment?
Oh! how I long for the days when I used to just turn up, hand over some cash at the turnstile and cheer Scotty and Gupps etc onto another victory, I never used to give ownership and finances a second thought.
@Stewie63 said:
Oh! how I long for the days when I used to just turn up, hand over some cash at the turnstile and cheer Scotty and Gupps etc onto another victory, I never used to give ownership and finances a second thought.
@marlowchair - I noticed that you remarked a while ago that the investors (at least one group, I assume) were not British, which implies you may know their identity? Is there anything more you can say, or are you bound by confidentiality to your source at the club?
I thought last nights update by the Board was a good one and I have no doubt in my mind that we require additional funding in order to survive. That being said, when the time is right -say when we have various commercial propositions to put to the members and things area bit more defined then they need to come forward with their ideas and we really need to scrutinise them in order to come to an informed decision. I do hope that they tske the due dillegence point to heart so that we get the right advice at the right time. Otherwise we should take them to task.
Shev, it is obviously a major concern if the "investors" are from overseas, especially if English is not their first language. The potential for more typos is surely just too high.
Felt pretty sad after listening to last nights presentation. To hear how a reasonably well run and supported club can see no way to bridge a funding gap shows just how screwed professional football is. It is not a problem specific to Wycombe but is a massive issue for the sport. Surely this issue must be addressed at a high level.
I thought the presentation last night was pretty good if a little unbalanced by the contribution by the very biased finance guy. I felt a bit railroaded by him and fiund myself fighting against it. This was especially the case during his uncomfortable exchange with Don Woodward.
In all honesty I am not sure what is going to happen from here. I am happy for the Trust to explore options but I am not sure if I will actually get the say or vote some seem to assume. A 75% legacy vote is almost impossible to achieve so a minority investment seems the most likely. My understanding is that this requires not vote and indeed no further approval by Trust members as a whole. Is it possible a minority investor could just be introduced of the back of last night?
Overall I enjoyed hearing the different issues people thought were important. Some I hadn't thought of and some were fairly random. Due diligence is key but we can never ever be sure of an investors intentions, worthyness or outlook. That could change for any number of reasons. That may put some off but I don't know how the events of the past can't be used as a line to judge the future.
North_of_the_border, it is obvious that our elected Trust Board love the club just as much as we do and will thus ensure due diligence is concluded in a right and proper manner.
Reflecting on the meeting, I sense that although one or maybe two of the potential investors would be ok with taking a minority shareholding, it would only be temporary fix. The real need is for a majority shareholder to invest the right level of cash needed to sustain life in FL1 etc.
It seems to be a given in other comments that if we go with a minority investment, we will in due course be faced with an inevitable decision about allowing that investor to move from a minority position to a majority position. I don't think that's right.
If I were going to support a minority investment, and I think that's where I am, it would be because I wanted it to give the club the breathing space to turn itself from one of the 62% of FL1 clubs that relies on its shareholders to fund losses, to one of the 38% that doesn't (figures extracted from the BDO report), while still remaining competitive on the field. I don't see that it's inevitable that at the end of the minority investment period - 3 years? - we can't have become a sustainable operation; not easy, for sure, but achievable - more than one in three FL1 clubs appear to manage it.
"No takeover or change in ownership of the Club that would result in the Trust’s shareholding being less than 50% +1 can proceed without 75% approval from the Legacy Members."
Peter, I would read that as being 75% of those legacy members who voted rather than 75% of all. I believe others above have stated otherwise. Are you able to clarify - its a major difference.
@mooneyman , if the investment is in the form of ordinary shares then it wouldn't be repayable - it's not debt which as was said last night we don't want to be taking on, and in any event debt doesn't of itself give a minority or majority position. The sense I get is that if debt is available at all it's very expensive - the BDO report seems to suggest there's not much around anyway - and so not a viable option, and so I'm assuming the investments being talked about would be in the form of shares.
There are other ways than were discussed last night by the Board understandably feel tired after doing good work to date. The number of times “ it’s been so busy” “ it’s nearly a full time job” “ we have day jobs” was said highlights this.
We cannot allow the fact the current board ( or at least the ones driving this project daily ) are tired of at the end of their realistic ability to continue contribute so much bias or push the dialogue towards selling at all costs.
Let me make it clear , selling may be the best option. BUT only once all other scenarios have been given due consideration and equal time , thought and presentation.
what became clear last night was that our directors are required to ,or choose to, take a rather executive role in these important mergers and acquisition talks. YES they must certainly should be at the table and driving the strategic and governing view ,but they ideally should be standing with and supporting our paid executive who is full time and paid handsomely and whose job it is to do the administrational due diligence , operational application and essentially the groundwork of the boards strategic vision. That is 101...
Last night we learned we don’t have that capacity, or competency ,or willingness to allow that paid executive to perform in that way. Whichever it is it is far from ideal . We are paying a good salary to take the lead but for whatever reason not getting an executive performance and so our volunteer directors are performing full time roles whilst juggling their day jobs ,
We therefore have NOT been operating with the best chance of limiting or reducing that loss and we are therefore NOT in the strongest position to deliver a measured and objective report, negotiation, or presentation on this crucial strategic options process.
Not personal,never is personal. Just business & strategy decision making 101.
I won’t bore you with the widely accepted theory and texts that support this diagnosis ( or my position on it ) however anyone interested should take a look at google for heuristics bias in business decision making , strategic decision making tools , etc
Excellent article from here that outlines how most objective business analysts or consultants would measure the subjectivity or bias in our clubs current decision making process
According to Burrell costs are under control - well let's see the figures. How are player costs' doing? Look's like little Wycombe may have bought themselves promotion, commercial revenues are mostly in Beechdean's hands anyway so hiring expensive executives while preventing them from being able to sell anything isnt the way forward. Astonished there wasn't any discussion about Stroud's alleged hiring by Beechdean. Believed the Wasps move (I was wrong) could see the Steve Hayes 25% that was a disaster , believed the club when they said they wanted to buy back the training ground, believed the share issue was for working capital (they bought Michael Harriman), restablish youth scheme and possible re=purchase of training ground, I was wrong on all counts. When you hear David Smith is the same bloke doing the due diligence that allowed Harry Kerr through the net (Google his name + Avalon) then it will only end in tears. Didn't answr any questions on the figures and failed a) why we should believe him this time after Novemebers agm and b) the commercial logic for a minority investor in 1000 companies apparently 'want to have a fun journey'.The do you want to be a Portsmouth or a Newport was clumsy
Comments
No timeline other than the Trust are looking to move fairly quickly, after getting some member feedback. No formal vote at this point. I suspect that will come when the preferred proposal has been formalised.
We're supporter owned by TRUST members and managed by the TRUST Directors and Board. This entire issue is about our TRUST in them to do the best thing for the club. They (and we) in turn will need to trust the potential investors and indeed they us. Perhaps we should 'BELIEVE' in trust! Onward to the next phase where we should see who's who and what they have to say to us before we trust in democracy and vote.
Impossible I would say.
Does there need to be a vote for a minority stake?
Or can the trust board just go ahead with it as our elected representatives?
I understand a vote is only required for a majority stake of the club.
The way the minority investment was presented was as a 3 year cash injection from investors with the view to then holding a majority stake thereafter as the Trust / Trust members wouldn't be able to continue funding the required amount as a majority holder.
This is an important point that would need clarifying
Of course not. I’m saying that I’m not comfortable with the quality or accuracy of information from
Someone who showed lack of attention to detail over something so important .
It wasn’t just a typo at all, it was someone neglecting to check detail because the error was supportive of their agenda.
I feel we need more objectivity than what was displayed tonight in order to be fully informed to the point of being able to vote on anything.
A very valid question was asked by a man to my right regarding draft accounts being made available to potential investors but not to trust members. How is that an objective and fair situation?
It's what happens at the end of the 3 year period for the Minority investor that is interesting. Will we need to then move to a Majority investment? I realize that this is the classic unanswerable question but we have to do something and we must surly take the advice of our Board in the meantime until we are able to meet the 'investors' face to face and ask them.
We’ll be in a similar position to tonight, and then only the majority option will be on the table
Obviously a “layman net troll” highlighting a glaring error in important trust communications that the FD, chairman and everyone else missed, just when they were about to ask for members to place a huge amount of trust in their abilities and competency has struck a raw nerve. I apologise for any embarrassment my flagging of the error has caused and to all egos bruised ?
Indeed, however the point still stands that 75% approval of legacy members is needed.
The only difference will be the bargaining power of the investor(s) if they have put money in across that time
Or it may just continue as minority......
Interesting, if they say bought 20% of the club in one go and there was no great change in value that wouldn't be easily sellable or worth a lot, but if we agreed this matching their investment or letting them take another 20% or so each year they'd end up owners after 3 years if they didn't lose interest.
Either way 100% could conceivably not be worth a lot in 3 years with no ground included if no other party was interested at that time.
Surely then the next step would be us being skint and needing to sell the ground to buy the club back.
They really need to go through every scenario.
Giving potential investors account information under stricy NDA whilst requiring trust members / shareholders to wait for audited accounts is absolutely standard operating practice.
I'm not sure how the revelation that one of the interested parties has bought 1,000 businesses was meant to reassure us
As others have said, the devil will be in the detail, and as of now we have next to none
I’m not sure that would be possible longer term, as once their investment is used up over three years, surely we’ll be back in a similar position to tonight, needing extra cash investment?
Oh! how I long for the days when I used to just turn up, hand over some cash at the turnstile and cheer Scotty and Gupps etc onto another victory, I never used to give ownership and finances a second thought.
So true and I'm sure we all feel that way.
@marlowchair - I noticed that you remarked a while ago that the investors (at least one group, I assume) were not British, which implies you may know their identity? Is there anything more you can say, or are you bound by confidentiality to your source at the club?
I thought last nights update by the Board was a good one and I have no doubt in my mind that we require additional funding in order to survive. That being said, when the time is right -say when we have various commercial propositions to put to the members and things area bit more defined then they need to come forward with their ideas and we really need to scrutinise them in order to come to an informed decision. I do hope that they tske the due dillegence point to heart so that we get the right advice at the right time. Otherwise we should take them to task.
Shev, it is obviously a major concern if the "investors" are from overseas, especially if English is not their first language. The potential for more typos is surely just too high.
Felt pretty sad after listening to last nights presentation. To hear how a reasonably well run and supported club can see no way to bridge a funding gap shows just how screwed professional football is. It is not a problem specific to Wycombe but is a massive issue for the sport. Surely this issue must be addressed at a high level.
I thought the presentation last night was pretty good if a little unbalanced by the contribution by the very biased finance guy. I felt a bit railroaded by him and fiund myself fighting against it. This was especially the case during his uncomfortable exchange with Don Woodward.
In all honesty I am not sure what is going to happen from here. I am happy for the Trust to explore options but I am not sure if I will actually get the say or vote some seem to assume. A 75% legacy vote is almost impossible to achieve so a minority investment seems the most likely. My understanding is that this requires not vote and indeed no further approval by Trust members as a whole. Is it possible a minority investor could just be introduced of the back of last night?
Overall I enjoyed hearing the different issues people thought were important. Some I hadn't thought of and some were fairly random. Due diligence is key but we can never ever be sure of an investors intentions, worthyness or outlook. That could change for any number of reasons. That may put some off but I don't know how the events of the past can't be used as a line to judge the future.
North_of_the_border, it is obvious that our elected Trust Board love the club just as much as we do and will thus ensure due diligence is concluded in a right and proper manner.
Reflecting on the meeting, I sense that although one or maybe two of the potential investors would be ok with taking a minority shareholding, it would only be temporary fix. The real need is for a majority shareholder to invest the right level of cash needed to sustain life in FL1 etc.
It seems to be a given in other comments that if we go with a minority investment, we will in due course be faced with an inevitable decision about allowing that investor to move from a minority position to a majority position. I don't think that's right.
If I were going to support a minority investment, and I think that's where I am, it would be because I wanted it to give the club the breathing space to turn itself from one of the 62% of FL1 clubs that relies on its shareholders to fund losses, to one of the 38% that doesn't (figures extracted from the BDO report), while still remaining competitive on the field. I don't see that it's inevitable that at the end of the minority investment period - 3 years? - we can't have become a sustainable operation; not easy, for sure, but achievable - more than one in three FL1 clubs appear to manage it.
Trust website says:
"No takeover or change in ownership of the Club that would result in the Trust’s shareholding being less than 50% +1 can proceed without 75% approval from the Legacy Members."
What happens if the investor wants his/her money back at any time?
Peter, I would read that as being 75% of those legacy members who voted rather than 75% of all. I believe others above have stated otherwise. Are you able to clarify - its a major difference.
@mooneyman , if the investment is in the form of ordinary shares then it wouldn't be repayable - it's not debt which as was said last night we don't want to be taking on, and in any event debt doesn't of itself give a minority or majority position. The sense I get is that if debt is available at all it's very expensive - the BDO report seems to suggest there's not much around anyway - and so not a viable option, and so I'm assuming the investments being talked about would be in the form of shares.
It was clarified last night as 75% of all Legacy members, not just those who vote.
Copied here in request from
other thread
There are other ways than were discussed last night by the Board understandably feel tired after doing good work to date. The number of times “ it’s been so busy” “ it’s nearly a full time job” “ we have day jobs” was said highlights this.
We cannot allow the fact the current board ( or at least the ones driving this project daily ) are tired of at the end of their realistic ability to continue contribute so much bias or push the dialogue towards selling at all costs.
Let me make it clear , selling may be the best option. BUT only once all other scenarios have been given due consideration and equal time , thought and presentation.
what became clear last night was that our directors are required to ,or choose to, take a rather executive role in these important mergers and acquisition talks. YES they must certainly should be at the table and driving the strategic and governing view ,but they ideally should be standing with and supporting our paid executive who is full time and paid handsomely and whose job it is to do the administrational due diligence , operational application and essentially the groundwork of the boards strategic vision. That is 101...
Last night we learned we don’t have that capacity, or competency ,or willingness to allow that paid executive to perform in that way. Whichever it is it is far from ideal . We are paying a good salary to take the lead but for whatever reason not getting an executive performance and so our volunteer directors are performing full time roles whilst juggling their day jobs ,
We therefore have NOT been operating with the best chance of limiting or reducing that loss and we are therefore NOT in the strongest position to deliver a measured and objective report, negotiation, or presentation on this crucial strategic options process.
Not personal,never is personal. Just business & strategy decision making 101.
I won’t bore you with the widely accepted theory and texts that support this diagnosis ( or my position on it ) however anyone interested should take a look at google for heuristics bias in business decision making , strategic decision making tools , etc
Excellent article from here that outlines how most objective business analysts or consultants would measure the subjectivity or bias in our clubs current decision making process
http://uk.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-that-affect-decisions-2015-8
According to Burrell costs are under control - well let's see the figures. How are player costs' doing? Look's like little Wycombe may have bought themselves promotion, commercial revenues are mostly in Beechdean's hands anyway so hiring expensive executives while preventing them from being able to sell anything isnt the way forward. Astonished there wasn't any discussion about Stroud's alleged hiring by Beechdean. Believed the Wasps move (I was wrong) could see the Steve Hayes 25% that was a disaster , believed the club when they said they wanted to buy back the training ground, believed the share issue was for working capital (they bought Michael Harriman), restablish youth scheme and possible re=purchase of training ground, I was wrong on all counts. When you hear David Smith is the same bloke doing the due diligence that allowed Harry Kerr through the net (Google his name + Avalon) then it will only end in tears. Didn't answr any questions on the figures and failed a) why we should believe him this time after Novemebers agm and b) the commercial logic for a minority investor in 1000 companies apparently 'want to have a fun journey'.The do you want to be a Portsmouth or a Newport was clumsy