@manboobs I'm sort of with you matey. I'm not sure I think anyone running the club has been acting with any malice...and there are serious issues that do need addressing. To be honest I think if we keep on doing well and over-achieving the Ryanair/BA would be put up with.
@Wendoverman said: @manboobs I'm sort of with you matey. I'm not sure I think anyone running the club has been acting with any malice...and there are serious issues that do need addressing. To be honest I think if we keep on doing well and over-achieving the Ryanair/BA would be put up with.
In enough numbers though? In South Bucks? I don’t know?
@Wendoverman said:
Dev is right. There are only two options. If the choice was Premier League football but being owned by an amazing Gorilla in top hat and spats whose IQ has been tested as just below that of a ten year old child and fan ownership and playing on the Rye with people throwing bread at you. Which would you prefer? (Obviously those fans with a gluten allergy would be placed in great danger.) There is nothing in between. Be careful what you wish for.
Whilst neither of these are my preferred option, they both sound like a pretty good value in terms of entertainment.
The big confusion is the change of approach versus the last few seasons, in that we're going with a big squad this year, and even shelling a fee out for McCarthy, but then suddenly saying things aren't sustainable.
This is the bit I struggle with most. Not saying it's not the sensible thing to do but it does go a bit counter to how we have seemed to do things the last few years and logic suggests does inflict significantly on our financial costs.
To knowingly increase your expenditure and then turn round and say ‘I can’t afford this and can’t get credit so no idea how I can pay for it’ doesn’t exactly seem sensible to me and, this is what does worry me, does have echoes of the previous ultimatum,
Quite.
Luckily, it hasn't come with the infamous "don't worry about the money" quote, or the massively upping the staff levels in "Preparation" for the championship.
Plus of course, the intertwining of two clubs to such a level it took tonnes of sorting out where the split lay.
@DevC said:
The accounts do not lie, I am afraid. They are far from healthy.
I would be very happy to back supporter ownership if there was a strong probability of staying in league football. As I understand it the trust doesn't think that is likely. Have I misunderstood?
You don't need to back it or not: Isn't that what we currently have - and been thus for a few years? Supporter Owned, financially secure Wycombe Wanderers who have paid off hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Beeks.Hayes era ?
The big confusion is the change of approach versus the last few seasons, in that we're going with a big squad this year, and even shelling a fee out for McCarthy, but then suddenly saying things aren't sustainable.
This is the bit I struggle with most. Not saying it's not the sensible thing to do but it does go a bit counter to how we have seemed to do things the last few years and logic suggests does inflict significantly on our financial costs.
To knowingly increase your expenditure and then turn round and say ‘I can’t afford this and can’t get credit so no idea how I can pay for it’ doesn’t exactly seem sensible to me and, this is what does worry me, does have echoes of the previous ultimatum,
This does appear confusing. But do we know how much this squad has cost? Is league 1 survival worth it? Was it something needed to keep Gaz? Personally I think straight back down again would be difficult to recover from, whether consortia invested or as we are.
Which accounts don't lie @devc? The ones where we were doing okay or the ones where f************k we've got no money? Unless you've seen the books of course.
Well yes I have seen the accounts, for all but the last year which haven't been completed yet. They are on the Trust website and companies house. We have been told what last years accounts are likely to say. That is consistent with previous years and i have no reason to believe our elected representative is lying about them.
They are actually expressed in commendably fairly clear layman's language but we all have different skills and if you are struggling to interpret them, i am sure someone on here can do so for you.
@DevC so your published information is 15 months old and you are being patronising to someone asking you a reasonable question. You haven't seen the latest financial position so don't tell us you have.
@Wendoverman said:
Which accounts don't lie @devc? The ones where we were doing okay or the ones where f************k we've got no money? Unless you've seen the books of course.
The interesting thing is the conclusions drawn. Last year - all looks OK. Now- shaky ground. Conclusions drawn from the hard to quantify ‘football fortune’ gamble. I buy into the theory that the Directors have emphasised the risks in relying on football fortune as they believe that investment is the only way. Why now though and not last year? I assume because they believe we now have genuine consortia interest, probably helped by reaching league 1 and having a good manager with a squad capable of staying there - due to the ‘investment’ in the larger squad. We know consortia talks were in play over the last two years but perhaps they weren’t interested in a league 2 club. Which raises questions in my mind.
If and when more consortia details emerge, will Trust members be able to ask questions in an open forum- such as “why now?” “What will your commitment be if we are relegated?” “You say you want the thrill of the journey, what happens if we have several years finishing 18th with no cup run, playing dull football?” I assume they will say the right things of course- I’d like to be able to look into they eyes and try to judge the sincerity.
Ok. Enough debate about the whys & wherefores of outside investment. If it all goes tits up we need a plan B.
In my opinion plan B has got to be about a hard sales/marketing push. Each Trust board member should head a committee of 5-7 people who would be responsible for developing the profile of the club. From Marlow to Aylesbury (particularly) and importantly social media we need to drive the business.
We need people with drive and experience to give the club a boost off the pitch. This is so important I am amazed it hasn’t been done before. There’s a wealth of expertise amongst the supporter-base - it needs to be tapped into, rather than the membership being given minimal information all the time.
IF the investment deal is off we also need a Trust members meeting a.s.a.p. with the sole intention of raising more share capital to help the cash shortfall in Nov/Dec.
If the outside “investment” is a non-starter then the club needs people who will get up & do something about it. There are plenty of people out there who would help but there has to be a willingness by the Trust board to say they need help and get those bodies on board.
There is a difference between the deadline companies are obliged to file their accounts and the decision to hold back the release of the already compiled information.
Last year the accounts were signed off on the 21/11/17 yet the accounts were not released before the AGM on 29/11.17.
This happened every year under the new regime.
They had the information but chose not to disclose it.
As some posters indicated before the AGM last year, the results were not as good as they appeared on the surface.
Hence the decision to keep people in the dark and try to pick off dissenters (by which I mean people who ask questions) on a one on one basis surrounded by the entire trust board at a meeting after the AGMs.
This year they won't be available to discuss how they have been running your money until 2 weeks after the AGM assuming we are still trading by then.
They don't want us to compare what we have generated in commercial revenues and compare that to what we have spent on the playing squad.
Hence concerns over the Chairman and conflict of interest.
Given we were told repeatedly at the September sales meeting that "cash is predictable" and problematical between "Late November and end of January" it is important trust members are able to assess for themselves what our financial status is.
@NiceCarrots, Notes from Trust Board Meeting 30.8.18 state "WWFC accounts audit in review stage, aiming for sign off in October. WWSGL audit moving to review stage."
Apart from the historical delays, what makes you say they will be not be released to members until two weeks after the AGM?
The Finance Forum is planned for Dec 12th In Monty's Bar, However, if the Accounts are released prior to the AGM I would assume that Members who wish to ask questions about the accounts( before accepting and approving the accounts) will have that opportunity at the AGM. The Meeting of the 12th would then be unneccessary. We certainly would not be able to question the Financial Director responsible for the presentation of the Accounts in Dec!
I worry that three members of the Trust will be standing for re-election at the AGM, presumably on the basis that they are the best people to deal with the financial problems the club is in, without supporters being able to judge them on the latest accounts, which seem the best evidence providable of their ability to steer us through this period.
I've said in previous years that releasing the accounts after the election rather than ahead of it is the sort of practice you'd expect from a banana republic and can only be designed to prop up the incumbents and benefit their re-election. Nothing in the last few weeks has made me change my mind on this.
@wformation, thanks, I was forgetting about the Finance Forum to discuss the accounts.
I listened to the General Meeting on the internet, I thought I heard Mark Burrell say that one of the interested parties managed a "thousand" businesses. I can't see that mentioned in the presentation download, can someone confirm that?
They did mention one consortium had bought 1000 companies, looks like they "want to have a fun journey" with lots of people.
The presentation was difficult to follow as they talked about "at least three partners" while using the word "both", you don't use the word "both" if you mean three.
I think it was when they went off-piste with the script that upset the potential buyers.
Now Burrell is stepping down in October ahead of the results and AGM in November, I assume there are now 4 places up for grabs in the elections in November?
Thanks @NiceCarrots, that one sounds like a hedge fund. I will await their presentation but if they are, and bearing in mind the Coventry City situation, they will have a lot of convincing to do.
Comments
@manboobs I'm sort of with you matey. I'm not sure I think anyone running the club has been acting with any malice...and there are serious issues that do need addressing. To be honest I think if we keep on doing well and over-achieving the Ryanair/BA would be put up with.
In enough numbers though? In South Bucks? I don’t know?
You could be right.
Whilst neither of these are my preferred option, they both sound like a pretty good value in terms of entertainment.
@OxfordBlue who can not like a learned ape?
This is the bit I struggle with most. Not saying it's not the sensible thing to do but it does go a bit counter to how we have seemed to do things the last few years and logic suggests does inflict significantly on our financial costs.
To knowingly increase your expenditure and then turn round and say ‘I can’t afford this and can’t get credit so no idea how I can pay for it’ doesn’t exactly seem sensible to me and, this is what does worry me, does have echoes of the previous ultimatum,
Quite.
Luckily, it hasn't come with the infamous "don't worry about the money" quote, or the massively upping the staff levels in "Preparation" for the championship.
Plus of course, the intertwining of two clubs to such a level it took tonnes of sorting out where the split lay.
You don't need to back it or not: Isn't that what we currently have - and been thus for a few years? Supporter Owned, financially secure Wycombe Wanderers who have paid off hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Beeks.Hayes era ?
@marlowchair You really have nothing to apologise for.
This does appear confusing. But do we know how much this squad has cost? Is league 1 survival worth it? Was it something needed to keep Gaz? Personally I think straight back down again would be difficult to recover from, whether consortia invested or as we are.
Which accounts don't lie @devc? The ones where we were doing okay or the ones where f************k we've got no money? Unless you've seen the books of course.
Well yes I have seen the accounts, for all but the last year which haven't been completed yet. They are on the Trust website and companies house. We have been told what last years accounts are likely to say. That is consistent with previous years and i have no reason to believe our elected representative is lying about them.
They are actually expressed in commendably fairly clear layman's language but we all have different skills and if you are struggling to interpret them, i am sure someone on here can do so for you.
@DevC so your published information is 15 months old and you are being patronising to someone asking you a reasonable question. You haven't seen the latest financial position so don't tell us you have.
The interesting thing is the conclusions drawn. Last year - all looks OK. Now- shaky ground. Conclusions drawn from the hard to quantify ‘football fortune’ gamble. I buy into the theory that the Directors have emphasised the risks in relying on football fortune as they believe that investment is the only way. Why now though and not last year? I assume because they believe we now have genuine consortia interest, probably helped by reaching league 1 and having a good manager with a squad capable of staying there - due to the ‘investment’ in the larger squad. We know consortia talks were in play over the last two years but perhaps they weren’t interested in a league 2 club. Which raises questions in my mind.
If and when more consortia details emerge, will Trust members be able to ask questions in an open forum- such as “why now?” “What will your commitment be if we are relegated?” “You say you want the thrill of the journey, what happens if we have several years finishing 18th with no cup run, playing dull football?” I assume they will say the right things of course- I’d like to be able to look into they eyes and try to judge the sincerity.
Ok. Enough debate about the whys & wherefores of outside investment. If it all goes tits up we need a plan B.
In my opinion plan B has got to be about a hard sales/marketing push. Each Trust board member should head a committee of 5-7 people who would be responsible for developing the profile of the club. From Marlow to Aylesbury (particularly) and importantly social media we need to drive the business.
We need people with drive and experience to give the club a boost off the pitch. This is so important I am amazed it hasn’t been done before. There’s a wealth of expertise amongst the supporter-base - it needs to be tapped into, rather than the membership being given minimal information all the time.
IF the investment deal is off we also need a Trust members meeting a.s.a.p. with the sole intention of raising more share capital to help the cash shortfall in Nov/Dec.
If the outside “investment” is a non-starter then the club needs people who will get up & do something about it. There are plenty of people out there who would help but there has to be a willingness by the Trust board to say they need help and get those bodies on board.
Who heads up the Governance Group at the club?
Given the on-going issue with Stroud, shouldn't he or she resign?
We need to introduce the concept of corporate governance to Planet Wycombe.
Whoever stands at A.G.M in November who is pro-governance will get my vote.
We need to stop putting people forward just because they are friends and start putting people forward because of their skill set.
We need an FD who is qualified.
We need someone who is as quick to release financial information to the members as we are to release figures to consortia.
If we do not get a full set of accounts BEFORE the A.G.M then we should call an E.G.M and propose a vote of no confidence.
Our year end is June30th, if they cannot send out a full set of accounts to members before an AGM in end November then we need to change the people.
When was the last year we had accounts released before the AGM?
Dur if only I hadn't wasted my book learning time actually going to dem footy balling matches I would be as clever as you @devc
You would need to read all the books in the British Library to get anywhere near Dev's intelligence @Wendoverman!!
This does not seem an excessive length of time to me. Limited companies have 9 months to file their accounts.
There is a difference between the deadline companies are obliged to file their accounts and the decision to hold back the release of the already compiled information.
Last year the accounts were signed off on the 21/11/17 yet the accounts were not released before the AGM on 29/11.17.
This happened every year under the new regime.
They had the information but chose not to disclose it.
As some posters indicated before the AGM last year, the results were not as good as they appeared on the surface.
Hence the decision to keep people in the dark and try to pick off dissenters (by which I mean people who ask questions) on a one on one basis surrounded by the entire trust board at a meeting after the AGMs.
This year they won't be available to discuss how they have been running your money until 2 weeks after the AGM assuming we are still trading by then.
They don't want us to compare what we have generated in commercial revenues and compare that to what we have spent on the playing squad.
Hence concerns over the Chairman and conflict of interest.
Given we were told repeatedly at the September sales meeting that "cash is predictable" and problematical between "Late November and end of January" it is important trust members are able to assess for themselves what our financial status is.
@DevC fortunately you don't have a say in the matter
@NiceCarrots, Notes from Trust Board Meeting 30.8.18 state "WWFC accounts audit in review stage, aiming for sign off in October. WWSGL audit moving to review stage."
Apart from the historical delays, what makes you say they will be not be released to members until two weeks after the AGM?
The Finance Forum is planned for Dec 12th In Monty's Bar, However, if the Accounts are released prior to the AGM I would assume that Members who wish to ask questions about the accounts( before accepting and approving the accounts) will have that opportunity at the AGM. The Meeting of the 12th would then be unneccessary. We certainly would not be able to question the Financial Director responsible for the presentation of the Accounts in Dec!
I worry that three members of the Trust will be standing for re-election at the AGM, presumably on the basis that they are the best people to deal with the financial problems the club is in, without supporters being able to judge them on the latest accounts, which seem the best evidence providable of their ability to steer us through this period.
I've said in previous years that releasing the accounts after the election rather than ahead of it is the sort of practice you'd expect from a banana republic and can only be designed to prop up the incumbents and benefit their re-election. Nothing in the last few weeks has made me change my mind on this.
Hopefully, whoever is elected to the Board, a new Chairman will be appointed.
@wformation, thanks, I was forgetting about the Finance Forum to discuss the accounts.
I listened to the General Meeting on the internet, I thought I heard Mark Burrell say that one of the interested parties managed a "thousand" businesses. I can't see that mentioned in the presentation download, can someone confirm that?
They did mention one consortium had bought 1000 companies, looks like they "want to have a fun journey" with lots of people.
The presentation was difficult to follow as they talked about "at least three partners" while using the word "both", you don't use the word "both" if you mean three.
I think it was when they went off-piste with the script that upset the potential buyers.
Now Burrell is stepping down in October ahead of the results and AGM in November, I assume there are now 4 places up for grabs in the elections in November?
Are you gonna throw your name forward Carrotsy?
Thanks @NiceCarrots, that one sounds like a hedge fund. I will await their presentation but if they are, and bearing in mind the Coventry City situation, they will have a lot of convincing to do.
It goes without saying, or it should, that we refuse to put Wycombe Wanderers at the whim of someone who 'wants to have a fun journey.'