But then it leads straight to the maybe cynical, but perfectly fair follow up of if they do have dodgy intentions, they sure as heck won't announce that!
They say history repeats itself. So a mere few years after almost losing everything, it'd would be an incredible vote to allow a takeover.
I'd love to know what "due diligence" checks actually mean.
Out dalliance with the last owner "arguably" left us in a right old crock of a mess. Some believe he didn't have our club's best interests to heart.
What "due diligence" was done, if any, and it it was done, how could it have worked out whether he was a good choice?
Another point to bear in mind is that the draft accounts, which we are told provide evidence that the current ownership structure is unsustainable and are being shared with prospective investors, relate to the period covering last season, when the club was in League Two, there were no player sales to speak of and no cup runs. This season the club is in League One, which should bring higher attendances and correspondingly higher income on home match days and already Luke O'Nien has been sold to Sunderland. Even without further player sales or a cup run, I would hope and expect the figures will not look as bad at the end of this season.
The key issue for me is that we take our eye off the ball with regards to the football side of things and this investment exercise becomes all encompassing.
Yes, very true @Blue_since_1990 . Especially as we've started to show real signs we can compete at this level, but without putting too many points on the board.
This weekend's game is a real opportunity to climb away from a rival.
History actually rarely repeats itself @Malone . Otherwise we would all be wiser and l I got in a perpetual Groundhog Day. The consequences of one event years sgo are more than likely to be different if repeated now.
Due diligence can never be 100% certain of getting the best decision. It can't possibly be of any help at all if every investor is matched to Steve Hayes. Also circumstances change for investors and in the current political and economic uncertainty no-one gas a clue what will happen.
At this point all this is a mute point though. We seem to be dreaming up all sorts of mythical investor options. There is no point.
I really don't want to do the Board any injustice or disservice, but I have to agree with Right_ in_ the middle. I didn't warm to the finance guy either. I found some of his comments a bit too flippant. Let's see how it pans out. Some extremely valid points have been posted here on the gasroom yesterday /today though and this should be Mandatory reading for all Trust (and Board) members. We can and will be a lot more critical in our analysis as things develop....if all the options have not been explored comprehensively or reasonable bids thrown out for illogical reasons. I would like all the options fully explored
I reckoned what would be useful at this time is a bullshit freeze. I know a number of posters get off on making shit up, exaggerating, creating fantasies etc but it would be nice (and you know who you are) if you could put a hold on it until this issue is resolved.
After that you can back to your fun
Although I didn’t know about the matter until someone mentioned it on here yesterday, why would the Trust Board not let the Trust/Legacy members know that they had previously turned down a proposal of investment from the Hartman consortium, if it actually happened? Surely as our elected body they would be obligated to do so.
Can someone from the Trust Board put this rumour to bed once and for all please?
I understand on one level why people fear asset strippers. Some football clubs have suffered this - not the vast majority but some.
I am not sure I quite understand what assets WWFC has to strip though. The stadium land has some value but relatively not much. There is no chance of residential development so probably at best you are looking at industrial sheds - not much value there.
There may be limited value on the existing squad - gape and McCarthy maybe- but again not much.
Some potential value in sell - ons from Hause, Ingram and Harris but with none of them in their first teams , no guarentee of much here.
In pure asset terms, it doesn’t look attractive if that is “investors” motivations.
I agree though that it is hard to understand what motivations “investors” have although the BDO report linked on the Trusr website does suggest substantial league one level interest.
@devc on the industrial estate where I park close to the ground what once was an office block right in the middle is now a residential development so I fear your assessment of the value of the ground for development is somewhat flawed. In fact I would say it is bollocks.
The Friend in Hand was still open last time DevC attended a game at Adams Park !!
If he knew much about Ingrams time at QPR, he would realise there is little chance of getting a 'sell on' out of that deal.
That was the point Chas.
Hause and Harris did at least make the premier league squads but neither looks like getting much game time.
Wendover, I believe the odds of resi development on Adams Park land are very small. If an independent surveyor confirmed this to you, would that alleviate some of your fears? If so perhaps the trust should organise - there must be one amongst the fan base.
Today seems to have seen a high level of aggression on the forum. It would be a shame if that became the norm (again)
Sorry devon I actually live in modern times and in bucks, most of which is being built on each and every day and if you don't think Adam's park would be sold to be developed in an instant I think you need to get out and about more and smell some of @wwfc2015 s famous coffee. Did you think hayes was going to build a park for underprivileged donkeys on the site once we had been evicted?
This may have changed but the land around Adams Park was once designated AOB (area of natural beauty) solely for sporting use and therefore not suitable for domestic or commercial development.
Wendover, I don't think there is the remotest chance that anybody would get planning permission for residential development on the land that is currently AP. But although I have some knowledge of planning, I am not a surveyor. I notice you didnt answer my question. If an independent surveyor was to tell you that AP would not command a significant resi driven market value, would that alleviate your asset stripping concerns?
We could try being civil and respecting other peoples right to hold differing opinions. Radical for an internet forum I know but actually until today, we have been doing pretty well.
I believe the concern, Oxford, is that once involved with the club, any new investor would hold the club to ransom to get his hands on the stadium. To be fair that scenario is not unknown (currently happening to Torquay for example) if rare.
I had understood, Wformation, that the £7m "valuation" was a calculated cost of recreating what is there (stands building, pitch, car park, infrastructure etc) rather than the resale value of the land for development. Might be wrong though. do you have a link.
Maybe its just me who sees it as a relevant piece of information.
Sad state of affairs Mooney if someone expressing a different viewpoint is the subject of abuse rather than argument. I hope that doesn't become the culture here.
@DevC said:
I believe the concern, Oxford, is that once involved with the club, any new investor would hold the club to ransom to get his hands on the stadium. To be fair that scenario is not unknown (currently happening to Torquay for example) if rare.
I had understood, Wformation, that the £7m "valuation" was a calculated cost of recreating what is there (stands building, pitch, car park, infrastructure etc) rather than the resale value of the land for development. Might be wrong though. do you have a link.
Maybe its just me who sees it as a relevant piece of information.
Sad state of affairs Mooney if someone expressing a different viewpoint is the subject of abuse rather than argument. I hope that doesn't become the culture here.
I haven’t abused you but if I were that kind of person I coukd see why your penchant for making arguments personal could lead to you being abused.
You don’t offer alternate view point , you personally attack others , liken then to farage, label others cronies , falsely paraphrase things I have said and misrepresent things said weeks ago .
You take great umbrage at questions or comments that are critical of sitting directors of our club or management of our club , in a similar way the FD did on Wednesday night . This overly defensive stance which seems to demand no questions are asked and that we all must have complete faith in the abilities and competency’s of our volunteer directors is misplaced and dangerous . We are debating the future of our club. Just because someone volunteers and works hard dues bit mean they are good at what they do or immune from accountability or questions about their performance .
Volunteering does not make one competent or beyond criticism.
I agree that a person shouldn’t be exempt from criticism just because they are in a voluntary role. However, I am concerned that some of your posts suggest that you have a vendetta against certain individuals in the club’s hierarchy and there could be personal reasons why that is so. Also, leaking sensitive information on this forum is either a betrayal of the position you or your contact hold or have held within the club.
Well said Mr Marlow, Like i said before, this is exactly the same tactic DevC used when trying to promote Sharkys land grab on the old Gasroom. Fortunately enough people could see through his sneering mandate then, and got organised alongside other groups to maintain a vocal opposition, and ultimate see the demise of Steve Hayes attempted plan.
Now a few years on, we see people being shouted down and attempted to silence, when they question whether all is 'above board' and in the interests of Wycombe Wanderers in these so called investment talks.
We should be very careful to turning a blind eye to those consortiums that have been seducing/in talks with the present board.
I couldn’t agree more to your comments Chas and we must be careful not to sleepwalk to disaster. As an aside, I have lost the plot a bit as to where we are in the club structures. We own the stadium right and it wouldn’t be part of any future takeover. Is ‘WE’ the organisation called FALL, and if so does FALL own the ground..if so if it were sold who benefits from the sale, is it shareholders, trust members, legacy members or what!! Can anyone please enlighten me, I would really appreciate that.
@glasshalffull said:
I agree that a person shouldn’t be exempt from criticism just because they are in a voluntary role. However, I am concerned that some of your posts suggest that you have a vendetta against certain individuals in the club’s hierarchy and there could be personal reasons why that is so. Also, leaking sensitive information on this forum is either a betrayal of the position you or your contact hold or have held within the club.
Betrayal,whistleblowing,speaking out of concern even if Is against the establishment, challenging the status quo. Courageous or stepping out of line . There are various ways to look at it depending on ones politics or whether one is loyal to the board.
It also doesn’t matter. What matters is we are here , months down the track , having the exact discussion I promoted a while ago.
I have said numerous times it isn’t personal and it isn’t. I take very seriously transparency and due process. If my questioning of that is taking personally by those tasked with upholding those values at our club that is their choice. ( and their supporters choice )
I must apologise I think I'm still living in the past where rich businessmen can pay good lawyers and cash strapped corrupt morally bankrupt local government often collude to tear up agreements that everyone thinks are watertight. I tend to approach things suspecting the worst. If there is a cigar chewing benevolent moneyman out there willing to put money into the club just for the fun and excitement that will be fantastic.
Comments
Yep, cuts to the chase perfectly
But then it leads straight to the maybe cynical, but perfectly fair follow up of if they do have dodgy intentions, they sure as heck won't announce that!
They say history repeats itself. So a mere few years after almost losing everything, it'd would be an incredible vote to allow a takeover.
I'd love to know what "due diligence" checks actually mean.
Out dalliance with the last owner "arguably" left us in a right old crock of a mess. Some believe he didn't have our club's best interests to heart.
What "due diligence" was done, if any, and it it was done, how could it have worked out whether he was a good choice?
Another point to bear in mind is that the draft accounts, which we are told provide evidence that the current ownership structure is unsustainable and are being shared with prospective investors, relate to the period covering last season, when the club was in League Two, there were no player sales to speak of and no cup runs. This season the club is in League One, which should bring higher attendances and correspondingly higher income on home match days and already Luke O'Nien has been sold to Sunderland. Even without further player sales or a cup run, I would hope and expect the figures will not look as bad at the end of this season.
The key issue for me is that we take our eye off the ball with regards to the football side of things and this investment exercise becomes all encompassing.
Yes, very true @Blue_since_1990 . Especially as we've started to show real signs we can compete at this level, but without putting too many points on the board.
This weekend's game is a real opportunity to climb away from a rival.
History actually rarely repeats itself @Malone . Otherwise we would all be wiser and l I got in a perpetual Groundhog Day. The consequences of one event years sgo are more than likely to be different if repeated now.
Due diligence can never be 100% certain of getting the best decision. It can't possibly be of any help at all if every investor is matched to Steve Hayes. Also circumstances change for investors and in the current political and economic uncertainty no-one gas a clue what will happen.
At this point all this is a mute point though. We seem to be dreaming up all sorts of mythical investor options. There is no point.
A better quote is "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
At least, the whole almost going bankrupt ting was a mere few years ago, so I agree, it will be remembered.
However, even now there are those who still believe Booker was a good idea, and a real shame that it didn't happen!
I really don't want to do the Board any injustice or disservice, but I have to agree with Right_ in_ the middle. I didn't warm to the finance guy either. I found some of his comments a bit too flippant. Let's see how it pans out. Some extremely valid points have been posted here on the gasroom yesterday /today though and this should be Mandatory reading for all Trust (and Board) members. We can and will be a lot more critical in our analysis as things develop....if all the options have not been explored comprehensively or reasonable bids thrown out for illogical reasons. I would like all the options fully explored
I reckoned what would be useful at this time is a bullshit freeze. I know a number of posters get off on making shit up, exaggerating, creating fantasies etc but it would be nice (and you know who you are) if you could put a hold on it until this issue is resolved.
After that you can back to your fun
Although I didn’t know about the matter until someone mentioned it on here yesterday, why would the Trust Board not let the Trust/Legacy members know that they had previously turned down a proposal of investment from the Hartman consortium, if it actually happened? Surely as our elected body they would be obligated to do so.
Can someone from the Trust Board put this rumour to bed once and for all please?
Harman
I understand on one level why people fear asset strippers. Some football clubs have suffered this - not the vast majority but some.
I am not sure I quite understand what assets WWFC has to strip though. The stadium land has some value but relatively not much. There is no chance of residential development so probably at best you are looking at industrial sheds - not much value there.
There may be limited value on the existing squad - gape and McCarthy maybe- but again not much.
Some potential value in sell - ons from Hause, Ingram and Harris but with none of them in their first teams , no guarentee of much here.
In pure asset terms, it doesn’t look attractive if that is “investors” motivations.
I agree though that it is hard to understand what motivations “investors” have although the BDO report linked on the Trusr website does suggest substantial league one level interest.
@devc on the industrial estate where I park close to the ground what once was an office block right in the middle is now a residential development so I fear your assessment of the value of the ground for development is somewhat flawed. In fact I would say it is bollocks.
The Friend in Hand was still open last time DevC attended a game at Adams Park !!
If he knew much about Ingrams time at QPR, he would realise there is little chance of getting a 'sell on' out of that deal.
That was the point Chas.
Hause and Harris did at least make the premier league squads but neither looks like getting much game time.
Wendover, I believe the odds of resi development on Adams Park land are very small. If an independent surveyor confirmed this to you, would that alleviate some of your fears? If so perhaps the trust should organise - there must be one amongst the fan base.
Today seems to have seen a high level of aggression on the forum. It would be a shame if that became the norm (again)
Sorry devon I actually live in modern times and in bucks, most of which is being built on each and every day and if you don't think Adam's park would be sold to be developed in an instant I think you need to get out and about more and smell some of @wwfc2015 s famous coffee. Did you think hayes was going to build a park for underprivileged donkeys on the site once we had been evicted?
And passive aggression is just as irritating as open aggression.
This may have changed but the land around Adams Park was once designated AOB (area of natural beauty) solely for sporting use and therefore not suitable for domestic or commercial development.
Wendover, I don't think there is the remotest chance that anybody would get planning permission for residential development on the land that is currently AP. But although I have some knowledge of planning, I am not a surveyor. I notice you didnt answer my question. If an independent surveyor was to tell you that AP would not command a significant resi driven market value, would that alleviate your asset stripping concerns?
We could try being civil and respecting other peoples right to hold differing opinions. Radical for an internet forum I know but actually until today, we have been doing pretty well.
The ground wouldn’t be involved in any purchase, so this discussion is entirely pointless isn’t it?
The Trust Website quotes Adams Park as being assessed as worth about 7 Million.
Unfortunately many of your posts seem to be a catalyst for that aggression. Have you ever considered why that is?
I believe the concern, Oxford, is that once involved with the club, any new investor would hold the club to ransom to get his hands on the stadium. To be fair that scenario is not unknown (currently happening to Torquay for example) if rare.
I had understood, Wformation, that the £7m "valuation" was a calculated cost of recreating what is there (stands building, pitch, car park, infrastructure etc) rather than the resale value of the land for development. Might be wrong though. do you have a link.
Maybe its just me who sees it as a relevant piece of information.
Sad state of affairs Mooney if someone expressing a different viewpoint is the subject of abuse rather than argument. I hope that doesn't become the culture here.
I haven’t abused you but if I were that kind of person I coukd see why your penchant for making arguments personal could lead to you being abused.
You don’t offer alternate view point , you personally attack others , liken then to farage, label others cronies , falsely paraphrase things I have said and misrepresent things said weeks ago .
You take great umbrage at questions or comments that are critical of sitting directors of our club or management of our club , in a similar way the FD did on Wednesday night . This overly defensive stance which seems to demand no questions are asked and that we all must have complete faith in the abilities and competency’s of our volunteer directors is misplaced and dangerous . We are debating the future of our club. Just because someone volunteers and works hard dues bit mean they are good at what they do or immune from accountability or questions about their performance .
Volunteering does not make one competent or beyond criticism.
I agree that a person shouldn’t be exempt from criticism just because they are in a voluntary role. However, I am concerned that some of your posts suggest that you have a vendetta against certain individuals in the club’s hierarchy and there could be personal reasons why that is so. Also, leaking sensitive information on this forum is either a betrayal of the position you or your contact hold or have held within the club.
Well said Mr Marlow, Like i said before, this is exactly the same tactic DevC used when trying to promote Sharkys land grab on the old Gasroom. Fortunately enough people could see through his sneering mandate then, and got organised alongside other groups to maintain a vocal opposition, and ultimate see the demise of Steve Hayes attempted plan.
Now a few years on, we see people being shouted down and attempted to silence, when they question whether all is 'above board' and in the interests of Wycombe Wanderers in these so called investment talks.
We should be very careful to turning a blind eye to those consortiums that have been seducing/in talks with the present board.
I couldn’t agree more to your comments Chas and we must be careful not to sleepwalk to disaster. As an aside, I have lost the plot a bit as to where we are in the club structures. We own the stadium right and it wouldn’t be part of any future takeover. Is ‘WE’ the organisation called FALL, and if so does FALL own the ground..if so if it were sold who benefits from the sale, is it shareholders, trust members, legacy members or what!! Can anyone please enlighten me, I would really appreciate that.
Betrayal,whistleblowing,speaking out of concern even if Is against the establishment, challenging the status quo. Courageous or stepping out of line . There are various ways to look at it depending on ones politics or whether one is loyal to the board.
It also doesn’t matter. What matters is we are here , months down the track , having the exact discussion I promoted a while ago.
I have said numerous times it isn’t personal and it isn’t. I take very seriously transparency and due process. If my questioning of that is taking personally by those tasked with upholding those values at our club that is their choice. ( and their supporters choice )
As a genuine matter of interest, were you one of the members who raised a question at the meeting on Wednesday night?
I must apologise I think I'm still living in the past where rich businessmen can pay good lawyers and cash strapped corrupt morally bankrupt local government often collude to tear up agreements that everyone thinks are watertight. I tend to approach things suspecting the worst. If there is a cigar chewing benevolent moneyman out there willing to put money into the club just for the fun and excitement that will be fantastic.