In a wider context I wonder what exactly an outside investor can do for the club? Putting money in could help finance more employees to sell / promote WW but then they in turn must produce a profit on their cost.
The club has got to generate more income either by (1) more bums on seats or (2) commercial activity. Whoever the club is courting will need a good knowledge of the local area in order to get the best out of developing fans / sponsorship of the club. “Putting money in” is not a complete panacea. Ideally, a wealthy supporter who loves the club and is prepared to bankroll it is the ideal scenario. Hopefully that individual would want a strong Trust to help run the club too.
@A_Worboys said:
In a wider context I wonder what exactly an outside investor can do for the club? Putting money in could help finance more employees to sell / promote WW but then they in turn must produce a profit on their cost.
The club has got to generate more income either by (1) more bums on seats or (2) commercial activity. Whoever the club is courting will need a good knowledge of the local area in order to get the best out of developing fans / sponsorship of the club. “Putting money in” is not a complete panacea. Ideally, a wealthy supporter who loves the club and is prepared to bankroll it is the ideal scenario. Hopefully that individual would want a strong Trust to help run the club too.
One of those very people with bonafide and Demonstrated links & commitment to
The club is one of the people who the FD and Chair referred to last night as having made an approach and was in talks.
The opinion of one or two directors deemed the approach not fit enough to proceed with in any great detail. Not on fit and proper purpose grounds or lack of funds or indeed ambition or intent, but on personal grounds because another powerful non elected director doesn’t like this person.
Hence my extreme concern that all viable and valid options for our club are not being tabled in an open minded and researched fashion
Also interesting - it was said that if we wanted to chase the ££ we could have had a payday loan company or suchlike sponsor the shirt, however decided not to do this. Is anyone aware of the difference in sponsorship revenues from Cherry Red and a loan company? Whilst I support small, independent businesses, we also need to support our own small, independent business - if the difference is negligible then fair enough, but if significant I would question this logic
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
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.
These were my thoughts as well.
There seemed to me at least to be some logical flaws in the presentation last night. On the one hand we need a "chairman's chequebook" in order to bridge the funding gap but on the other hand presenting slides which show that with a couple of exceptions every other club at our level is struggling and needs more cash.
And yet nearly all of those already are owned in the way that we are being nudged towards. So what they were really saying was that fan ownership is not a sustainable model, but nor really is private ownership.
In other words, it is the football system itself that is broken and needs fixing, not just the way our individual club is owned and run.
And to come back to the running theme amongst the questioners last night, I don't think that the "what's in it for them?" question was ever satisfactorily answered. The "they like what we're doing and want to be part of the journey" line just seems naïve at best.
"@marlowchair One of those very people with bonafide and Demonstrated links & commitment to
The club is one of the people who the FD and Chair referred to last night as having made an approach and was in talks.
The opinion of one or two directors deemed the approach not fit enough to proceed with in any great detail. Not on fit and proper purpose grounds or lack of funds or indeed ambition or intent, but on personal grounds because another powerful non elected director doesn’t like this person.
Hence my extreme concern that all viable and valid options for our club are not being tabled in an open minded and researched fashion."
Im pretty sure you are referring to an ex player, who has millions at his disposal, and has been linked to WWFC before, and the rumours that ive heard on a number of occasions, that the offer stalled as the consortium would find it difficult to work with the said 'powerful non elected director'.
@MBS said:
I have it on good authority the investor wanting a majority stake in the club is no other than Martin O’Neil!!! ..........now wouldn’t that be nice!
I suspect your "authority" is pulling your leg! However it seems Martin has managed to squirrel away some cash.
@ChasHarps said:
"@marlowchair One of those very people with bonafide and Demonstrated links & commitment to
The club is one of the people who the FD and Chair referred to last night as having made an approach and was in talks.
The opinion of one or two directors deemed the approach not fit enough to proceed with in any great detail. Not on fit and proper purpose grounds or lack of funds or indeed ambition or intent, but on personal grounds because another powerful non elected director doesn’t like this person.
Hence my extreme concern that all viable and valid options for our club are not being tabled in an open minded and researched fashion."
Im pretty sure you are referring to an ex player, who has millions at his disposal, and has been linked to WWFC before, and the rumours that ive heard on a number of occasions, that the offer stalled as the consortium would find it difficult to work with the said 'powerful non elected director'.
What would stop this 'said consortium' from going public with their plans,ideas,investment ? If they felt they were being ushered from the top table
for those reasons mentioned ?
Am I right in thinking that an employee of the club has been tasked with doing the due diligence on any consortium looking to invest? Because if that's the case that's madness - both on grounds of competence and on grounds of undue influence / conflicts of interest. If the club is looking to bring in new investors it needs to employ a team of experts from Deloitte or KPMG or a similar firm who'll be able to take a dispassionate look and use the professional tools and databases at their disposal to conduct forensic checks. And as a gesture of goodwill, the various consortia should pay for said due diligence.
If the board are complaining they have no time to run the club in the spare time, some are being influenced by personal animosity to ex players (you can only be referring to Keith Scott, @ChasHarps) and we're relying on a limited staff team to do the heavy lifting - well that way lies disaster, I'm afraid.
Its certainly not Keith Scott, it wont take an awful lot of digging to find the 'data' of an ex Wanderers player who has made millions through business.
Sorry @ChasHarps (and Keith) - the googling turns up the name of Andrew Harman. At least if he invested we might see that big screen fixed or replaced finally!
@Tom said:
Also interesting - it was said that if we wanted to chase the ££ we could have had a payday loan company or suchlike sponsor the shirt, however decided not to do this. Is anyone aware of the difference in sponsorship revenues from Cherry Red and a loan company? Whilst I support small, independent businesses, we also need to support our own small, independent business - if the difference is negligible then fair enough, but if significant I would question this logic
I might have misheard but a caveat to having a payday lender or online casino sponsor the shirts is that you can't have the names of those companies on kids' shirts. I'd guess kids' shirts make up a significant proportion of sales. Correct me if I'm wrong; it wasn't always easy to hear what was being said.
@aloysius said:
Am I right in thinking that an employee of the club has been tasked with doing the due diligence on any consortium looking to invest? Because if that's the case that's madness - both on grounds of competence and on grounds of undue influence / conflicts of interest. If the club is looking to bring in new investors it needs to employ a team of experts from Deloitte or KPMG or a similar firm who'll be able to take a dispassionate look and use the professional tools and databases at their disposal to conduct forensic checks. And as a gesture of goodwill, the various consortia should pay for said due diligence.
If the board are complaining they have no time to run the club in the spare time, some are being influenced by personal animosity to ex players (you can only be referring to Keith Scott, @ChasHarps) and we're relying on a limited staff team to do the heavy lifting - well that way lies disaster, I'm afraid.
I am pretty sure he isn’t referring to Keith Scott,I certainly wasn’t.
You make great points but I would add that conflict of interest and a lack of potential dispassionate objectivity is not only the risk should paid employees perform due diligence but can also be present when directors are performing the due diligence.
Yes,bidders can and should be asked to cover a nominal legal and consultancy fee to allow full due diligence and transparency in compiling all available options. The rather alarming statement last night by the chairman that the large legal bill from the Steve Hayes era meant they were reluctant to seek external legal advice until the very latest point in this process was a real concern.
My biggest concern now is that the trust board opt for a majority holder, fail to get the required vote, then all leave their posts because they are jaded and disagree with the outcome.
We then find ourselves in a situation whereby we still have not found the additional funding, and on top of that are rudderless in terms of off field leadership.
Perhaps we find others of equal or better calibre when it comes to running a football club, but I feel the pool of unpaid, qualified, willing individuals in the area is probably very limited.
@OxfordBlue said:
My biggest concern now is that the trust board opt for a majority holder, fail to get the required vote, then all leave their posts because they are jaded and disagree with the outcome.
We then find ourselves in a situation whereby we still have not found the additional funding, and on top of that are rudderless in terms of off field leadership.
Perhaps we find others of equal or better calibre when it comes to running a football club, but I feel the pool of unpaid, qualified, willing individuals in the area is probably very limited.
In the contrary. Nominations and support for new trust directors has been carefully managed and directed by the chairman and power group for a number of years, as has the nominations of trust representatives on the Football club board .
People have variously been encouraged or discouraged to “run” for a vacant seat depending on how the controlling faction perceive it may affect their numbers.
One only needs to view the professional and sincere approach Wimbledon take to seeking a directorship that is genuinely diverse in skill set and fullfills required experience and competency the board feels are lacking or needed to see how proactive and modern models operate successfully.
So if they threaten to, or actually take the stance you outline and walk away , having done a good job but having also brought the club along as far as they can under their watch, then that could only be a good thing for the club and new, perhaps more experienced and capable directors would be lining up.
@OxfordBlue said:
My biggest concern now is that the trust board opt for a majority holder, fail to get the required vote, then all leave their posts because they are jaded and disagree with the outcome.
We then find ourselves in a situation whereby we still have not found the additional funding, and on top of that are rudderless in terms of off field leadership.
Perhaps we find others of equal or better calibre when it comes to running a football club, but I feel the pool of unpaid, qualified, willing individuals in the area is probably very limited.
The loss of Gareth would be a much bigger concern.
If a potential minority investor does not get the ground and passes independent due diligence, I would not be opposed to such a deal, as a step forward, though with others I would be interested to know what the said investor hoped to get from their involvement. If it is a true love for the club and a desire to see us progress I cannot see much wrong with that if their pockets are deep enough. The caveat is, of course, that impartial due diligence is done on ALL possible bids so that the concerns @marlowchair expresses about personal animosity clouding judgement can be put to bed.
I see the Faragists are getting their campaign into motion.
As I understand it, the Finance director is incompetent and untrustworthy because of a minor typo. The day to day chief exec is incompetent because there are others on the board with more experience of M+A and he is better used running the day to day club. The board are all incompetent because they are all exhausted. Grand Bogeyman Of Them All Ivor Beeks is standing between an ideal outcome and disaster because of a personal issue. All these issues would miraculously disappear if only we hired competent people. And the evidence for all of this? None at all - just nods and winks and insinuations.
@OxfordBlue , I think you have highlighted a very key point. Having been involved in a number of M&A activities in the past, it goes without saying that sometimes you regard the successful conclusion of the activity as your ultimate goal. However, you can get too married to the project and thus lose much needed objectivity.
I was lucky enough to be involved in major acquisition exercises circa £120M plus as an Operations Director for B.T. but I would not regard myself as an expert or even think that I could conduct my own financial and commercial due diligence, we always used external experts to do that analysis.
I think it is OK having this early look at framing a potential deal and to get the critical aspects such as doesn’t include the ground or will not result in WWFC moving out of Wycombe et al (that is why I commended to Trust Board to this point). However, once you have sounded out those red line points and got an outline framework together, it is time to bring in the legal big boys to negotiate on your behalf.
I am for the investment but when it comes to actually voting then I, as well as most on here, will need to be absolutely sure that the deal is right for our club.
Comments
In a wider context I wonder what exactly an outside investor can do for the club? Putting money in could help finance more employees to sell / promote WW but then they in turn must produce a profit on their cost.
The club has got to generate more income either by (1) more bums on seats or (2) commercial activity. Whoever the club is courting will need a good knowledge of the local area in order to get the best out of developing fans / sponsorship of the club. “Putting money in” is not a complete panacea. Ideally, a wealthy supporter who loves the club and is prepared to bankroll it is the ideal scenario. Hopefully that individual would want a strong Trust to help run the club too.
So what is your solution to the club’s future wellbeing?
You seem to have plenty of questions but no answers.
One of those very people with bonafide and Demonstrated links & commitment to
The club is one of the people who the FD and Chair referred to last night as having made an approach and was in talks.
The opinion of one or two directors deemed the approach not fit enough to proceed with in any great detail. Not on fit and proper purpose grounds or lack of funds or indeed ambition or intent, but on personal grounds because another powerful non elected director doesn’t like this person.
Hence my extreme concern that all viable and valid options for our club are not being tabled in an open minded and researched fashion
Also interesting - it was said that if we wanted to chase the ££ we could have had a payday loan company or suchlike sponsor the shirt, however decided not to do this. Is anyone aware of the difference in sponsorship revenues from Cherry Red and a loan company? Whilst I support small, independent businesses, we also need to support our own small, independent business - if the difference is negligible then fair enough, but if significant I would question this logic
Andy Warboys, my post was in response to Nicecarrots, not you.
These were my thoughts as well.
There seemed to me at least to be some logical flaws in the presentation last night. On the one hand we need a "chairman's chequebook" in order to bridge the funding gap but on the other hand presenting slides which show that with a couple of exceptions every other club at our level is struggling and needs more cash.
And yet nearly all of those already are owned in the way that we are being nudged towards. So what they were really saying was that fan ownership is not a sustainable model, but nor really is private ownership.
In other words, it is the football system itself that is broken and needs fixing, not just the way our individual club is owned and run.
And to come back to the running theme amongst the questioners last night, I don't think that the "what's in it for them?" question was ever satisfactorily answered. The "they like what we're doing and want to be part of the journey" line just seems naïve at best.
"@marlowchair One of those very people with bonafide and Demonstrated links & commitment to
The club is one of the people who the FD and Chair referred to last night as having made an approach and was in talks.
The opinion of one or two directors deemed the approach not fit enough to proceed with in any great detail. Not on fit and proper purpose grounds or lack of funds or indeed ambition or intent, but on personal grounds because another powerful non elected director doesn’t like this person.
Hence my extreme concern that all viable and valid options for our club are not being tabled in an open minded and researched fashion."
Im pretty sure you are referring to an ex player, who has millions at his disposal, and has been linked to WWFC before, and the rumours that ive heard on a number of occasions, that the offer stalled as the consortium would find it difficult to work with the said 'powerful non elected director'.
I have it on good authority the investor wanting a majority stake in the club is no other than Martin O’Neil!!! ..........now wouldn’t that be nice!
I suspect your "authority" is pulling your leg! However it seems Martin has managed to squirrel away some cash.
https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/athletes/coach/martin-oneill-net-worth/
You’ve good information
What would stop this 'said consortium' from going public with their plans,ideas,investment ? If they felt they were being ushered from the top table
for those reasons mentioned ?
They may have signed non disclosure agreements
Am I right in thinking that an employee of the club has been tasked with doing the due diligence on any consortium looking to invest? Because if that's the case that's madness - both on grounds of competence and on grounds of undue influence / conflicts of interest. If the club is looking to bring in new investors it needs to employ a team of experts from Deloitte or KPMG or a similar firm who'll be able to take a dispassionate look and use the professional tools and databases at their disposal to conduct forensic checks. And as a gesture of goodwill, the various consortia should pay for said due diligence.
If the board are complaining they have no time to run the club in the spare time, some are being influenced by personal animosity to ex players (you can only be referring to Keith Scott, @ChasHarps) and we're relying on a limited staff team to do the heavy lifting - well that way lies disaster, I'm afraid.
Its certainly not Keith Scott, it wont take an awful lot of digging to find the 'data' of an ex Wanderers player who has made millions through business.
They did.
Sorry @ChasHarps (and Keith) - the googling turns up the name of Andrew Harman. At least if he invested we might see that big screen fixed or replaced finally!
@marlowchair how do you know?
Or anodata even
I might have misheard but a caveat to having a payday lender or online casino sponsor the shirts is that you can't have the names of those companies on kids' shirts. I'd guess kids' shirts make up a significant proportion of sales. Correct me if I'm wrong; it wasn't always easy to hear what was being said.
I am pretty sure he isn’t referring to Keith Scott,I certainly wasn’t.
You make great points but I would add that conflict of interest and a lack of potential dispassionate objectivity is not only the risk should paid employees perform due diligence but can also be present when directors are performing the due diligence.
Yes,bidders can and should be asked to cover a nominal legal and consultancy fee to allow full due diligence and transparency in compiling all available options. The rather alarming statement last night by the chairman that the large legal bill from the Steve Hayes era meant they were reluctant to seek external legal advice until the very latest point in this process was a real concern.
You were on the board,how don’t you know?
My biggest concern now is that the trust board opt for a majority holder, fail to get the required vote, then all leave their posts because they are jaded and disagree with the outcome.
We then find ourselves in a situation whereby we still have not found the additional funding, and on top of that are rudderless in terms of off field leadership.
Perhaps we find others of equal or better calibre when it comes to running a football club, but I feel the pool of unpaid, qualified, willing individuals in the area is probably very limited.
@marlowchair that wasn't the question. Any chance you could stop dodging it and answer?
In the contrary. Nominations and support for new trust directors has been carefully managed and directed by the chairman and power group for a number of years, as has the nominations of trust representatives on the Football club board .
People have variously been encouraged or discouraged to “run” for a vacant seat depending on how the controlling faction perceive it may affect their numbers.
One only needs to view the professional and sincere approach Wimbledon take to seeking a directorship that is genuinely diverse in skill set and fullfills required experience and competency the board feels are lacking or needed to see how proactive and modern models operate successfully.
So if they threaten to, or actually take the stance you outline and walk away , having done a good job but having also brought the club along as far as they can under their watch, then that could only be a good thing for the club and new, perhaps more experienced and capable directors would be lining up.
The loss of Gareth would be a much bigger concern.
Agreed
If a potential minority investor does not get the ground and passes independent due diligence, I would not be opposed to such a deal, as a step forward, though with others I would be interested to know what the said investor hoped to get from their involvement. If it is a true love for the club and a desire to see us progress I cannot see much wrong with that if their pockets are deep enough. The caveat is, of course, that impartial due diligence is done on ALL possible bids so that the concerns @marlowchair expresses about personal animosity clouding judgement can be put to bed.
I see the Faragists are getting their campaign into motion.
As I understand it, the Finance director is incompetent and untrustworthy because of a minor typo. The day to day chief exec is incompetent because there are others on the board with more experience of M+A and he is better used running the day to day club. The board are all incompetent because they are all exhausted. Grand Bogeyman Of Them All Ivor Beeks is standing between an ideal outcome and disaster because of a personal issue. All these issues would miraculously disappear if only we hired competent people. And the evidence for all of this? None at all - just nods and winks and insinuations.
And still the world turns.
@OxfordBlue , I think you have highlighted a very key point. Having been involved in a number of M&A activities in the past, it goes without saying that sometimes you regard the successful conclusion of the activity as your ultimate goal. However, you can get too married to the project and thus lose much needed objectivity.
I was lucky enough to be involved in major acquisition exercises circa £120M plus as an Operations Director for B.T. but I would not regard myself as an expert or even think that I could conduct my own financial and commercial due diligence, we always used external experts to do that analysis.
I think it is OK having this early look at framing a potential deal and to get the critical aspects such as doesn’t include the ground or will not result in WWFC moving out of Wycombe et al (that is why I commended to Trust Board to this point). However, once you have sounded out those red line points and got an outline framework together, it is time to bring in the legal big boys to negotiate on your behalf.
I am for the investment but when it comes to actually voting then I, as well as most on here, will need to be absolutely sure that the deal is right for our club.
@DevC , please do not make this a personal battle between you and @marlowchair. The issue is far too big for petty points scoring.