@Right_in_the_Middle said:
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.
Can anyone who was there last night give a little more information on this exchange for those who weren't, please?
Also, what were the voting rules when we flogged the club to Hayes before? Was it 75% of Legacy members then, or is that a newer arrangement?
A supporter asked a very reasonable question about whether our most recent draft accounts - the ones the FD and board were citing as showing a large loss and using it to support their pro sale argument- could bd made available to members of the trust in the same manner they were being made available to the bidding parties.
Very fair question
The FD appeared immediately annoyed and offended by the question, became agitated , and very defensive. It was unnecessary.
A similar response was provided when another reasonable question was posed to the FD along the lines of “only last November you stood in front of us at the AGM and said our finances were strong and the outlook was positive, what has changed ?”
Marlow wants you to believe that the reason for WWFC financial issues is either that those running the club are corrupt, self serving or incompetent. your choice whether to believe that without any evidence whatsoever.
Meanwhile I see we are heading back to the old gasroom days of him and his mates personally abusing those who don't buy his evidence less accusations. I think that's a bit sad.
Ive not abused anyone and have no mates.
Also please don’t pretend to know what I want anyone to believe . I want people to have balanced and objective information at hand on all possible options for our club going forward. I don’t believe we have that yet.
To be fair, and I was dubious about his early shadowy hints and nods and winks, I think @marlowchair is raising questions that are not necessarily being answered by those best placed to do so which is bound to raise concerns. Does that make me a crony?
@DevC said:
Ignoring the personal abuse and lets concentrate on the issues.
The suggestion from Marlow and his cronies is that the trust has received a bid from a party which apparently resolves many of those financial issues. One director, presumably ivor beeks, allegedly doesn't like the "bidder". The accusation is that the rest of the board, including Trevor Stroud our elected representative, including Andrew Howard, a very successful businessman in his own right, and others have all agreed to reject the bid against the best interests of WWFC so as not to hurt the feelings of Mr Beeks.
Does that really have the ring of truth? Is there any evidence to support such an accusation?
You really are totally off the mark on this. I think we can dismiss your posts in future based on how poorly you have interpreted things here
@DevC said:
I confess that I assumed the unnamed non-exec was Beeks. he is a convenient bogeyman after all.
The non-exec directors are beeks, Burrell, Cook and Stroud. Who are you suggesting has put his own interests ahead of the club AND all the other directors have chosen the director concerned's feelings over the best interests of the club.
well these two from the meeting which he reports (unless others who were there dispute them of course) interested me:
'A supporter asked a very reasonable question about whether our most recent draft accounts - the ones the FD and board were citing as showing a large loss and using it to support their pro sale argument- could bd made available to members of the trust in the same manner they were being made available to the bidding parties.
Very fair question
The FD appeared immediately annoyed and offended by the question, became agitated , and very defensive. It was unnecessary.
A similar response was provided when another reasonable question was posed to the FD along the lines of “only last November you stood in front of us at the AGM and said our finances were strong and the outlook was positive, what has changed ?”
He was unable to provide an adequate answer.'
And asking how the management of the face stuffing franchise became so poor we had to resort to outside help seems reasonable. I may be wrong, but others who attended seem genuinely concerned about what they heard @DevC, and they can't all just be @marlowchair 's mum.
@HG1 said:
Call me naïve but we had this 5 year plan to get into Div 1,which we achieved but the trust board are now suggesting now we are here we cannot afford to be here unless we change things? The directors went on record stating that if we went up the last time when we were in the play offs we could not have afforded it and could have gone bust. Last season the goal was to get promotion and surely the board knew the impact on player wages by going up? The away crowds this season in terms of tickets sales, drinks etc must be helping with higher player wages costs plus larger numbers of home fans. We have suddenly decided to run a higher number of squad players and even spent money (£100k I heard) on a player. I just don't get if things are so bad why we have done this, why have we decided to change our approach to the way we run the club? why have we gambled with this approach? yes we want to stay in league 1 but not at the risk of the clubs survival.
At least 2 questions last night were around what does seem to be a clear change of approach, both batted away very quickly because football is getting more expensive without clear examples, I think the board would like things to be easier and to have more money to play with, this isn't necessarily good enough.
Separately as much as Marlowchair is annoying, bleeding tiny bits of info and inferring wrong doing there are a huge number of concerns that need addressing before wripping up models and constitutions.
I don't think anyone's proposing to rip up the constitution, @StrongestTeam - all I've heard about this suggests that the Board are planning to follow it very carefully. What is your source for this please as I personally would find it very concerning if true, as I'm sure would others.
How you sell a majority of the club without doing so isn't clear, and as we got with Hayes any deteriation in our finances despite the investment, or even due to increased confidence and spending would lead to really limited options down the line and some very harsh choices.
Few too many nods yesterday to philanthropic people enthused by the journey. Counts for nothing after the controlling stake is sold.
it's been a new low for Dev today, which is really saying something
Starting a new discussion in which he decides which supporters should be paying more, having not contributed a penny towards the club in years is as poor as it gets really
I think @DevC has as much right on here as anyone to express his views based on his reading of events. How far away he lives, how often he visits AP and how much he has financed the club are fairly irrelevant in that context. (Whether these views are rational or not is entirely for each individual to decide).
I have to agree that @marlowchair’s contributions are currently helpful to the debate (but I still struggle to get beyond his apparent antipathy -and I too detect a degree of the Farage in how he posts- towards someone or some people on the board which may or may not be valid).
As I currently understand it (from afar), the board have spent the last few years trying to cut their cloth, but at the same time taking the view that we can not really survive long-term without outside investment and have been actively seeking such investment.
(If this assessment is accurate it is slightly interesting as to whether this has clouded/dictated their judgement - which I guess is (one of) marlowchair’s point(s)).
Having reached the point where the board have decided that they have a number of potentially viable ‘investors’, they then have acted appropriately in sounding out the Legacy Trust members.
(The wicket-rolling in preparation for this is - to me - very interesting. It seems that Prudence has taken a bit of a holiday this year, which may of course be purely coincidental).
It does look inevitable that a minority shareholding will be given to one of the investors but the board do need to be fully open about who these are where we may be in three years time. If we are presented with a fait d’accompli about having to sell up then I believe (and hope) sufficient members would stick two fingers up and we would need to have not sold off enough of the family silver to survive as a club, at our home, at whatever level.
The strategy of ramping up running costs (if that's what has happened) to a point where we are in no position to refuse to sell - because we'd go bankrupt otherwise - is a scarily familiar one.
I personally find the change in the picture painted from a year ago - finances fine, on target for breakeven to unsustainable loses - very worrying but not entirely surprising. Did we all really believe Lg1 status could be achieved and sustained under the current ownership model? Or maybe we didn't want to think about it for too long because we wanted the answer to be yes but knew it might be no?
If we accept a minority investor, what safeguards will be put in place to ensure we don't end up in 3 years time with no choice but to accept a majority or complete sale?
Personally I feel I know the answer (none!) but I don't want to think about it too much because the alternatives are either come up with a plausible way to close the current funding gap - and look what's happened to DevC attempt to start that discussion - or accept that even Lg2 status might be more than we can hope for.
@bookertease, it was mentioned on a few occasions last night that a minority investment may not be adequate. I suspect that the Board really want to go the majority investor route but if rejected by the members, may fall back to the minority investment.
Do the Board need the 75% Legacy backing to go the minority investment route?
I don't see how anyone would be satisfied with minority investment. The only way I could see it playing out is that a consortium comes in, 'invests' loan notes and then in three years time demands either majority control or the loans back with interest - which we clearly wouldn't be able to do, so we either sell up or go bust.
In the meantime the board uses the three years to work out how to get past the 75% legacy member issue. I have no idea how legally watertight that clause is. Just thinking out loud here but would it be possible for the Trust board to abolish itself and set up another holding company with the same share structure but without the legacy members clause? And then put the sale to the vote with a simple 50+1 majority needed?
I wouldn't be using 'being a Wycombe fan' as a criteria for a good owner. Plenty of evidence around that many would be awful owners.
In all seriousness though I am struggling to see how some will get past the Steve Hayes comparison as I can't see what can be said be anyone to put minds at rest. A 75% vote of all Legacy members is impossible as a result.
I don't follow this growing argument about costs deliberately being increased has come from. The only possible argument is an increased player budget but anyone who has been around the club in recent months must see the effects of cost cuts. I didn't warm at all to the Finance Guy last night and despite him not answering the point in any way I can't see how anything other than player costs have gone up.
Still not sure if Legacy members are actually needed to get involved in a minority share offer. It could just happen behind the scenes with no further involvement or discussion if I am right.
Comments
No answer to my questions then @DevC ?
I'm confused then.
Perhaps someone could make the suggestion in clear unequivocal terms and who knows maybe even provide some evidence.
Then we could all move on.
I wish you would.
Nothing to dodge, they signed NDA’s the FD said this last night.
@DJWYC14 , Marlow isn't going to reveal his sources is he!
A supporter asked a very reasonable question about whether our most recent draft accounts - the ones the FD and board were citing as showing a large loss and using it to support their pro sale argument- could bd made available to members of the trust in the same manner they were being made available to the bidding parties.
Very fair question
The FD appeared immediately annoyed and offended by the question, became agitated , and very defensive. It was unnecessary.
A similar response was provided when another reasonable question was posed to the FD along the lines of “only last November you stood in front of us at the AGM and said our finances were strong and the outlook was positive, what has changed ?”
He was unable to provide an adequate answer.
Ive not abused anyone and have no mates.
Also please don’t pretend to know what I want anyone to believe . I want people to have balanced and objective information at hand on all possible options for our club going forward. I don’t believe we have that yet.
To be fair, and I was dubious about his early shadowy hints and nods and winks, I think @marlowchair is raising questions that are not necessarily being answered by those best placed to do so which is bound to raise concerns. Does that make me a crony?
You really are totally off the mark on this. I think we can dismiss your posts in future based on how poorly you have interpreted things here
Getting colder...?
You’ve really shown yourself up in this Dev.
genuine question Wendover, as I may have missed them.
Which questions do you think Marlow has asked which are not necessarily being answered?
well these two from the meeting which he reports (unless others who were there dispute them of course) interested me:
'A supporter asked a very reasonable question about whether our most recent draft accounts - the ones the FD and board were citing as showing a large loss and using it to support their pro sale argument- could bd made available to members of the trust in the same manner they were being made available to the bidding parties.
Very fair question
The FD appeared immediately annoyed and offended by the question, became agitated , and very defensive. It was unnecessary.
A similar response was provided when another reasonable question was posed to the FD along the lines of “only last November you stood in front of us at the AGM and said our finances were strong and the outlook was positive, what has changed ?”
He was unable to provide an adequate answer.'
And asking how the management of the face stuffing franchise became so poor we had to resort to outside help seems reasonable. I may be wrong, but others who attended seem genuinely concerned about what they heard @DevC, and they can't all just be @marlowchair 's mum.
At least 2 questions last night were around what does seem to be a clear change of approach, both batted away very quickly because football is getting more expensive without clear examples, I think the board would like things to be easier and to have more money to play with, this isn't necessarily good enough.
Separately as much as Marlowchair is annoying, bleeding tiny bits of info and inferring wrong doing there are a huge number of concerns that need addressing before wripping up models and constitutions.
I don't think anyone's proposing to rip up the constitution, @StrongestTeam - all I've heard about this suggests that the Board are planning to follow it very carefully. What is your source for this please as I personally would find it very concerning if true, as I'm sure would others.
Oh dear. I await a three page essay on how ‘cronies’ has been reclaimed as a positive statement.
Fair enough Wendover, if you see those as important questions that is your right.
Strongest is absolutely right that any reasonable concerns need to be addressed as much as is possible.
How you sell a majority of the club without doing so isn't clear, and as we got with Hayes any deteriation in our finances despite the investment, or even due to increased confidence and spending would lead to really limited options down the line and some very harsh choices.
Few too many nods yesterday to philanthropic people enthused by the journey. Counts for nothing after the controlling stake is sold.
it's been a new low for Dev today, which is really saying something
Starting a new discussion in which he decides which supporters should be paying more, having not contributed a penny towards the club in years is as poor as it gets really
@DevC Thanks I thought it was my right to decide what I think are important questions...but your confirmation is most welcome.
I think @DevC has as much right on here as anyone to express his views based on his reading of events. How far away he lives, how often he visits AP and how much he has financed the club are fairly irrelevant in that context. (Whether these views are rational or not is entirely for each individual to decide).
I have to agree that @marlowchair’s contributions are currently helpful to the debate (but I still struggle to get beyond his apparent antipathy -and I too detect a degree of the Farage in how he posts- towards someone or some people on the board which may or may not be valid).
As I currently understand it (from afar), the board have spent the last few years trying to cut their cloth, but at the same time taking the view that we can not really survive long-term without outside investment and have been actively seeking such investment.
(If this assessment is accurate it is slightly interesting as to whether this has clouded/dictated their judgement - which I guess is (one of) marlowchair’s point(s)).
Having reached the point where the board have decided that they have a number of potentially viable ‘investors’, they then have acted appropriately in sounding out the Legacy Trust members.
(The wicket-rolling in preparation for this is - to me - very interesting. It seems that Prudence has taken a bit of a holiday this year, which may of course be purely coincidental).
It does look inevitable that a minority shareholding will be given to one of the investors but the board do need to be fully open about who these are where we may be in three years time. If we are presented with a fait d’accompli about having to sell up then I believe (and hope) sufficient members would stick two fingers up and we would need to have not sold off enough of the family silver to survive as a club, at our home, at whatever level.
Interesting times
Until we know who they are and why they want to invest I can't have an opinion either way really.
Still open minded for now
The strategy of ramping up running costs (if that's what has happened) to a point where we are in no position to refuse to sell - because we'd go bankrupt otherwise - is a scarily familiar one.
I personally find the change in the picture painted from a year ago - finances fine, on target for breakeven to unsustainable loses - very worrying but not entirely surprising. Did we all really believe Lg1 status could be achieved and sustained under the current ownership model? Or maybe we didn't want to think about it for too long because we wanted the answer to be yes but knew it might be no?
If we accept a minority investor, what safeguards will be put in place to ensure we don't end up in 3 years time with no choice but to accept a majority or complete sale?
Personally I feel I know the answer (none!) but I don't want to think about it too much because the alternatives are either come up with a plausible way to close the current funding gap - and look what's happened to DevC attempt to start that discussion - or accept that even Lg2 status might be more than we can hope for.
@bookertease, it was mentioned on a few occasions last night that a minority investment may not be adequate. I suspect that the Board really want to go the majority investor route but if rejected by the members, may fall back to the minority investment.
Do the Board need the 75% Legacy backing to go the minority investment route?
What is the loan position at the moment and will these loans get paid off in full as part of any majority investment?
I don't see how anyone would be satisfied with minority investment. The only way I could see it playing out is that a consortium comes in, 'invests' loan notes and then in three years time demands either majority control or the loans back with interest - which we clearly wouldn't be able to do, so we either sell up or go bust.
In the meantime the board uses the three years to work out how to get past the 75% legacy member issue. I have no idea how legally watertight that clause is. Just thinking out loud here but would it be possible for the Trust board to abolish itself and set up another holding company with the same share structure but without the legacy members clause? And then put the sale to the vote with a simple 50+1 majority needed?
Why are be blocking any sales for the club...? To the right buyer, selling the club is the best and most sustainable route forward.
How do you judge "the right buyer", @chairboy123?
In the absence of any billionaire wycombe fans?
I assume as @chairboy123 just joined he's one of the bidders.
I wouldn't be using 'being a Wycombe fan' as a criteria for a good owner. Plenty of evidence around that many would be awful owners.
In all seriousness though I am struggling to see how some will get past the Steve Hayes comparison as I can't see what can be said be anyone to put minds at rest. A 75% vote of all Legacy members is impossible as a result.
I don't follow this growing argument about costs deliberately being increased has come from. The only possible argument is an increased player budget but anyone who has been around the club in recent months must see the effects of cost cuts. I didn't warm at all to the Finance Guy last night and despite him not answering the point in any way I can't see how anything other than player costs have gone up.
Still not sure if Legacy members are actually needed to get involved in a minority share offer. It could just happen behind the scenes with no further involvement or discussion if I am right.
Amidst the sea of speculation, rumours, innuendo and insults following last night’s meeting, I find this simple comment a real breath of fresh air.