Looking at the Seaport Capital website, their target industries don’t seem to include Sports clubs. It will be interesting to hear what experience they have in this space. Hopefully the website doesn’t show all their business interests.
Interesting read though, especially their strategy definition and with pictures of the partners etc.
@Onlooker said:
When I first started supporting Wycombe in the Loakes Park days I didn’t have the slightest interest in who owned the club or how secure the finances were. I am now a Legacy member of the trust and am still relatively sanguine about the current future ownership situation. Call me naive but having travelled to Torquay anticipating the implosion of my club I see every game at the present elevated level as a bonus. I am loving it this season and I am very interested in hearing more from the potential buyers. Who knows where they could take us and if they fail or commit some heinous misdeeds we can always pick ourselves up. And what if their plans are a success...
Naive
I am a cynical person by nature but I found Onlooker’s post a breath of fresh air. We need to be very cautious, of course, but he’s right to point out that this scenario could be positive for the club.
He literally asked me to call him naive. There's a joke in there somewhere. I don't disagree with the vast majority of what he said. However if you go with the"it could be great", let it be, you need to admit "it could be frigging horendous" as it was when your mate Steve got bored / busted.
I'm not wholly against the investment idea but there are many questions to be answered before I'm happy to give up fan owned status to people I don't know who may pass it on to whoever they like.
I am pro proper governance , transparency and protection in all transactions our club makes.
I am not confident at all that this process is being undertaken by adequately experienced , skilled or objective people on our behalf and so do not believe our club is in any position whatsoever to have best offers on the table , the optimal value of our club identified and calculated in any negotiations , And by definition adequate information required to support or reject any proposal of sale.
@Blue_since_1990 said:
Looking at the Seaport Capital website, their target industries don’t seem to include Sports clubs. It will be interesting to hear what experience they have in this space. Hopefully the website doesn’t show all their business interests.
Interesting read though, especially their strategy definition and with pictures of the partners etc.
I asked on another thread but ask again. Is the investment coming from Seaport as an acquisition for their portfolio which I agree doesn’t show sports as a typical target. Or is this two investors using their own money outside of their Seaport roles? This may have been made clear elsewhere so my apologies if I’m asking an answered question. I think it is important to know as it may well make a difference to their plans for the club.
I am pro proper governance , transparency and protection in all transactions our club makes.
I am not confident at all that this process is being undertaken by adequately experienced , skilled or objective people on our behalf and so do not believe our club is in any position whatsoever to have best offers on the table , the optimal value of our club identified and calculated in any negotiations , And by definition adequate information required to support or reject any proposal of sale.
Fully agree with this. My question for you is however how long will it take for us to be in a position to have the best offers on the table? To replace the board wholesale, run the club at optimal efficiency and attract interested investors in a transpararent manner will take several years, presumably several years run at currently unsustainable levels, possibly without people around the club with deep pockets to keep us going.
Sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt, regardless of the dealer.
Let’s see how the flop goes on 7 November. We can then make a better decision on whether to throw in some chips for the next card or fold.
(And again, sorry. I really regret my hurtful comment)
@Manboobs, a good question to ask on Wednesday. It will indeed have a major bearing on the strategy to be adopted should the investment come to fruition.
That makes me slightly more optimistic about the whole thing. Although it’s largely an irrelevance until the constitution (is it the constitution?) is changed, as there is no way the 75% threshold will be reached.
Thanks for the link @Uncle_T. Interesting indeed. On the face of it you can see why the Trust Board considers them a viable majority owner in the current situation. Doesn’t answer lots of questions about future ownership, etc, but has made me more interested in their proposals
@Blue_since_1990 said:
Looking at the Seaport Capital website, their target industries don’t seem to include Sports clubs. It will be interesting to hear what experience they have in this space. Hopefully the website doesn’t show all their business interests.
Interesting read though, especially their strategy definition and with pictures of the partners etc.
I asked on another thread but ask again. Is the investment coming from Seaport as an acquisition for their portfolio which I agree doesn’t show sports as a typical target. Or is this two investors using their own money outside of their Seaport roles? This may have been made clear elsewhere so my apologies if I’m asking an answered question. I think it is important to know as it may well make a difference to their plans for the club.
I am pro proper governance , transparency and protection in all transactions our club makes.
I am not confident at all that this process is being undertaken by adequately experienced , skilled or objective people on our behalf and so do not believe our club is in any position whatsoever to have best offers on the table , the optimal value of our club identified and calculated in any negotiations , And by definition adequate information required to support or reject any proposal of sale.
Fully agree with this. My question for you is however how long will it take for us to be in a position to have the best offers on the table? To replace the board wholesale, run the club at optimal efficiency and attract interested investors in a transpararent manner will take several years, presumably several years run at currently unsustainable levels, possibly without people around the club with deep pockets to keep us going.
Sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt, regardless of the dealer.
Let’s see how the flop goes on 7 November. We can then make a better decision on whether to throw in some chips for the next card or fold.
(And again, sorry. I really regret my hurtful comment)
Firstly the cards were dealt months or years ago according to our chairman and FD and FC board so if it is too late they are fully responsible and accountable for us being in this position at this stage and history should remember their tenure in that context.
Secondly I disagree on the timelines and some presumptions , the board doesn’t need removing, it needs only to go about things the right way and appoint a third party right away .
There are numerous agency’s and consultants currently active in the market doing exactly thus arms length work for clubs . Burton Albion , and Northampton are just two of the many clubs bring considered by various sophisticated investors through a focused tender process of this nature .
Once we decided as a club we were Open to not being wholly supporter owned anymore a full market options test through these channels should be performed .
I know of at least one cashed up keen investor who never considered Wwfc because minority ownership of not their preference . We never got their offer to date as a result of that perception.
It won’t cost a penny up front , a success fee is paid on closing a deal.
At present , failing to have managed this well and failing to present a full market option position means our membership cannot be confident that whatever proposals the board presents us is the best available option , severely reducing confidence in the process and any likelihood of it being approved .
It’s about as good an own goal by a board and club as you will see.
Don’t disagree with much of this and we all know it won’t be agreed under the current 75% requirement.
It’s also probably fair to assume that the current board feel that they have acted reasonably and therefore are unlikely to see the need to appoint a third party, that presumably costs money - even if only at the end, to do something they already have done (presumably to their satisfaction). So therefore it is unrealistic to expect the existing board to shuffle the deck (keeping my metaphor alive). Logically that means to progress as you see it we will need to significantly change the board and effectively start from scratch.
This must surely mean it will take years? Or have you given up on your view that before going down the potential investor route we need to ‘prove’ whether we can be run sustainably or not?
Of course we cannot be confident that the existing proposal is the best available (and given the amateurish nature of how the club is inevitably run (we are run by volunteers!) in many areas that is hardly surprising. But even with the best agency’s and consultants out there you still won’t know that you are getting the ‘best’ proposal (although it probably increases the odds).
What you do then, and what you do now, is consider the proposals presented to you, ask the right questions, get the answers you need and then decide if that proposal is satisfactory or not to your current needs.
And yes. The board (which we elected) are accountable for us being in this position (a lower mid-table League 1 club with a fairly consistent £500,000 or so overspend every year) and we should recognise this and we can and should criticise the spin they have put on our financial position over the years.
But more importantly those who vote should be accountable for satisfying themselves that any proposals are in the best interest of the club in the medium to long term. To that end I am optimistic that the majority of members are aware of the lessons of recent history (I’m less convinced that the board have) and won’t blindly be led or railroaded into the wrong decisions.
But relax. Listen to what they have to say safe in the knowledge that we will still be supporter owned and run by amateurs after any vote, regardless of whether their proposals are in the best interests of the club or not.
Very few decisions are made with perfect information, or without various risks associated with each of the different options. It would be perfectly fair and reasonable for a legacy member to look at the options in front of them and vote to accept the proposal. It is no more blindly voting yes than it would be no.
The question is does the ‘offer’meet the needs of the club currently and in the future. If, after examining the evidence I conclude it does, I probably would vote yes.
Of course it would be nice to have a queue of people wanting to invest and we need to understand why the board have favoured one over the (alleged) others, but s satisfacory answer on that means that I can consider the offer in isolation.
Lets say I need to sell my house. My maintenance has been pretty poor over the years so let’s say it’s valued at £225 000 rather than the £250 000 (I live up northI could have theoretically got if I’d looked after it better. Not ideal but I am where I am. I then go to a cheap local estate agent rather than a flashy expensive one, because I’m basically skint and they don’t really market it well but manage to get 3 offers. One is for the full asking price, but I happen to know the buyer is a local drug dealer who will use it to grow cannabis (I live up north). Another is for £220 000 but they haven’t sold their house yet and I’m not sure they ever will. The third offer is for £200 000 but no chain and I actually only need £150 000 to move.
My estate agent recommends I consider the lower offer knowing it meets my needs and explains why.
Yes I should never have got myself into that position but I have and weighing up my needs (and values) and discussing it with my family take the lowest offer and move on with my life and don’t beat myself up about it.
Perhaps that experience has led them to consider us as a project akin to Derby that they can run on their own - or maybe they intend to create a ‘sports and entertaInment’ portfolio for Seaport? Or maybe they are the faces of GSE?
More relevantly perhaps will they tell us prior to any vote- how will they aim to grow the business? Where do they think we could be doing better? Attendance? Use of the club for non football activity? What do they think will happen financially if we are relegated or promoted in this or subsequent years? At what point would they ‘throw in the towel’ if their plans do not come to fruition? What guarantee do they give that they would not relocate the club in the interests of increased revenue (I just don’t think Americans get what this means). What will it mean for their plans that they won’t own the ground? Would they bring another sports team to the ground? Is the on field activity the part of the business they are interested in or do they see WWFC as a great corporate and entertainment venue with a football team attached?
@Chris said:
Very few decisions are made with perfect information, or without various risks associated with each of the different options. It would be perfectly fair and reasonable for a legacy member to look at the options in front of them and vote to accept the proposal. It is no more blindly voting yes than it would be no.
Illogical statement in my opinion .
Risk is far higher voting for change rather than remain with the status quo in most circumstances when a lack of information is available.
As a matter of interest, if you knew someone who was looking to invest cash into a football club, why didn’t you point them in the direction of WWWFC since you obviously have good contacts at the club?
@bookertease said:
The question is does the ‘offer’meet the needs of the club currently and in the future. If, after examining the evidence I conclude it does, I probably would vote yes.
Of course it would be nice to have a queue of people wanting to invest and we need to understand why the board have favoured one over the (alleged) others, but s satisfacory answer on that means that I can consider the offer in isolation.
Lets say I need to sell my house. My maintenance has been pretty poor over the years so let’s say it’s valued at £225 000 rather than the £250 000 (I live up northI could have theoretically got if I’d looked after it better. Not ideal but I am where I am. I then go to a cheap local estate agent rather than a flashy expensive one, because I’m basically skint and they don’t really market it well but manage to get 3 offers. One is for the full asking price, but I happen to know the buyer is a local drug dealer who will use it to grow cannabis (I live up north). Another is for £220 000 but they haven’t sold their house yet and I’m not sure they ever will. The third offer is for £200 000 but no chain and I actually only need £150 000 to move.
My estate agent recommends I consider the lower offer knowing it meets my needs and explains why.
Yes I should never have got myself into that position but I have and weighing up my needs (and values) and discussing it with my family take the lowest offer and move on with my life and don’t beat myself up about it.
If you accept the lower offer when three or four other buyers were looking but never shown your house because you tried to sell it yourself despite not being qualified , you’d be offering up a very relevant analogy .
Or what if you didn’t seriously entertain a buyer because your boss had a falling out with them ?
Would your dependants be right to be angry and critical ?
To be honest I am not quite sure I get how Marlow has managed to get traction with his "amateur" narrative. The club has a paid professional (in Davies) with long experience in sports club management running it on a day to day basis. For most of the relevant period it has been lucky to have as its chairman an experienced businessman with relevant experience in sports management (in Howard). He remains actively involved as of now. He will be greatly missed when he steps down going forward but he is part of the story of how we got here. We have a Trust Board made up of people skilled in various aspects of business acting in non-exec roles. We have on the football club board a director (in beeks) with vast football club management experience. In terms of profile, I am not sure for a lower level club it gets much better than that. it is for other individuals to judge whether they believe that team and those individuals have done a good job.
Someone said above that the Trust can just buy the club back if and when a successful Luby bid wants to sell out. Realistically i don't see that as an option. where would the money come from. My understanding of the structure of the deal is not that Luby will hand over large sums to the Trust to buy their shares with that money then sitting in the trust bank account. Instead my understanding is that new shares will be created with Luby purchasing those shares from the club with the money going straight into the club not the trust. I would suggest before you cast your vote, you ensure you understand the structure of the deal.
we perhaps all forget sometimes that the gasroom really isn't important. sadly like all social media it is very hard to have a serious discussion without diversions, unanswered questions, other agendas and at times sheer madness getting in the way. its what makes social media so infuriating but also so infuriatingly compelling. But the discussions here don't really matter (something i must try to persuade myself....).
Soon though many of you will have a vote and that one really will matter. It feels like a crossroads moment with the very future and possibly existence of the club on the line. and because of the (frankly bizarre) voting system, it will be close. Those of you with a vote have an onerous responsibility. Your vote in either direction be the one that tips the decision either way.
Many of you instinctively value fan ownership becuase of the perceived protection against a future asset stripper. No one can ever deny that at some level that risk exists. You will have to judge though how significant that potential risk is or whether it has been grossly exaggerated by those with other agendas. to an extent you may gain reassurance or otherwise from listening to Mr Luby, but in the end you are going to just have to make a judgement.
Against that you have to balance what is the alternative in the real world. My understanding is that ALL our elected representatives on the Trust Board are saying to you that the club cannot sustain its football league status under the current structure with all the very real consequences and risks that would envisage. others will tell you that is not what the trust Board are saying at all and that i have misunderstood. That is possible. I think you are obliged before the vote to carefully understand exactly what your representatives are saying armed with the detailed information they have.
If in fact the Trust representatives are saying that the club cannot survive in lg1 but can hang around for the foreseeable future in mid table league 2, you may well conclude that future is good enough and vote for that. i think I would agree with you.
If however my understanding was right, then i would suggest you have some serious thinking to do.
IF you genuinely believe with reasonable certainty (not just wishful thinking) that the clubs funding gap can be solved by different management finding more revenue or reducing costs without impacting on field performance, then you can safely reject this proposal.
OR IF you genuinely believe with reasonable certainty (not just wishful thinking) that the club funding gap can be solved by cup runs an/or significant player transfers, then again you can safely reject this proposal
OR if you genuinely believe with reasonable certainty (not just wishful thinking) that this bid can be rejected because there are other better bids waiting to come in, then again you can safely reject this proposal. some posters are actively promoting a bid from an ex-player - does it exist, if so why has the trust board not chosen it, will this bidder be at the meeting to confirm his counter -offer to you. Are you confident that that possibility is real and would offer a better future. if so you can safely reject this proposal.
OR if fan ownership is so important to you that whatever level the club can operate at sustainably under fan ownership is on principle better than private ownership, then no doubt with some trepidation about the road to get there, you should reject this proposal.
If however you cannot say yes with confidence to any of those alternatives, I don't really understand what with no doubt the best intentions you believe you are voting for if you do vote to reject. Ultimately though I don't have a vote so I haven't got to make that difficult choice.
I dont think I can contribute more to this conversation, no doubt much to most of your relief. I genuinely wish you well in resolving how you should vote.
Two more thoughts, if i may, before leaving this thread to you. One is, I genuinely cant picture quite what happens if there is a turnout of say 80% and a positive vote of say 80% but therefore not enough to meet the threshold. I fear for the future of the club in that scenario. its probably the worst of all possible outcomes. Sadly I think its also the most likely scenario.
Oh and for @eric_plant and his post yesterday lunchtime. You are absolutely right that the future of WWFC shouldn't really matter to me. I haven't lived in the town for over thirty years. Since my dad died twenty years ago I have no real connection with it. I feel no affection for the town in truth or indeed any strong feelings towards it either way. Its football club is based four hours away from me and I get to see them play a handful of times a year. So you are right, all logic says I shouldn't remotely care. I cant even begin to explain rationally why I should care. I do though.
Wow @DevC you don’t half spout out a lot in one go. A War and Peace like effort. The ‘amateur narrative’ jibe @marlowchair was totally unwarranted and you just cannot resist slipping into your nasty troll mode which immediately stops anyone taking your posts seriously.
You must have a sad old life? Why not try a trip to Adams Park to watch some football, it may just make you smile a bit and get you out of that hole you appear to be in.
@Manboobs, thank you for that Derby County fan input, it certainly makes me feel a bit more comfortable with the choice of Luby and Collis. Their experience is obviously via GSE and they seem to have done a good job for Derby.
Their exit strategy being to sort out the running of the club and make it much more saleable and then sell.
Thank you again.
Comments
Looking at the Seaport Capital website, their target industries don’t seem to include Sports clubs. It will be interesting to hear what experience they have in this space. Hopefully the website doesn’t show all their business interests.
Interesting read though, especially their strategy definition and with pictures of the partners etc.
He literally asked me to call him naive. There's a joke in there somewhere. I don't disagree with the vast majority of what he said. However if you go with the"it could be great", let it be, you need to admit "it could be frigging horendous" as it was when your mate Steve got bored / busted.
I'm not wholly against the investment idea but there are many questions to be answered before I'm happy to give up fan owned status to people I don't know who may pass it on to whoever they like.
I agree with ST.
I am not against investment, nor am I for it.
I am pro proper governance , transparency and protection in all transactions our club makes.
I am not confident at all that this process is being undertaken by adequately experienced , skilled or objective people on our behalf and so do not believe our club is in any position whatsoever to have best offers on the table , the optimal value of our club identified and calculated in any negotiations , And by definition adequate information required to support or reject any proposal of sale.
Seriously, if you haven’t already looked at the Seaport Capital website then you should.
I asked on another thread but ask again. Is the investment coming from Seaport as an acquisition for their portfolio which I agree doesn’t show sports as a typical target. Or is this two investors using their own money outside of their Seaport roles? This may have been made clear elsewhere so my apologies if I’m asking an answered question. I think it is important to know as it may well make a difference to their plans for the club.
Shouldn’t you be called @glasshalfempty then? ?
The answer is simple. We need a bid from Howard Jones.
Whoo hoo hoo!
Nice one Bookertease, I should add that the one exception to my cynicism is WWFC!
The Prince of Darkness lives locally
Fully agree with this. My question for you is however how long will it take for us to be in a position to have the best offers on the table? To replace the board wholesale, run the club at optimal efficiency and attract interested investors in a transpararent manner will take several years, presumably several years run at currently unsustainable levels, possibly without people around the club with deep pockets to keep us going.
Sometimes you have to play the cards you are dealt, regardless of the dealer.
Let’s see how the flop goes on 7 November. We can then make a better decision on whether to throw in some chips for the next card or fold.
(And again, sorry. I really regret my hurtful comment)
@Manboobs, a good question to ask on Wednesday. It will indeed have a major bearing on the strategy to be adopted should the investment come to fruition.
A Wycombe supporter (not me) posted a question on a Derby County forum asking for their fans comments on the involvement of Bill Luby and partners with ownership of their club. The responses make interesting reading.
https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/30900-wycombe-fan-in-peace-seaport-capital-bill-luby-and-jim-collis/
That makes me slightly more optimistic about the whole thing. Although it’s largely an irrelevance until the constitution (is it the constitution?) is changed, as there is no way the 75% threshold will be reached.
Thanks for the link @Uncle_T. Interesting indeed. On the face of it you can see why the Trust Board considers them a viable majority owner in the current situation. Doesn’t answer lots of questions about future ownership, etc, but has made me more interested in their proposals
Encouraging comments from Derby fans. Thanks for the link @Uncle_T.
Firstly the cards were dealt months or years ago according to our chairman and FD and FC board so if it is too late they are fully responsible and accountable for us being in this position at this stage and history should remember their tenure in that context.
Secondly I disagree on the timelines and some presumptions , the board doesn’t need removing, it needs only to go about things the right way and appoint a third party right away .
There are numerous agency’s and consultants currently active in the market doing exactly thus arms length work for clubs . Burton Albion , and Northampton are just two of the many clubs bring considered by various sophisticated investors through a focused tender process of this nature .
Once we decided as a club we were Open to not being wholly supporter owned anymore a full market options test through these channels should be performed .
I know of at least one cashed up keen investor who never considered Wwfc because minority ownership of not their preference . We never got their offer to date as a result of that perception.
It won’t cost a penny up front , a success fee is paid on closing a deal.
At present , failing to have managed this well and failing to present a full market option position means our membership cannot be confident that whatever proposals the board presents us is the best available option , severely reducing confidence in the process and any likelihood of it being approved .
It’s about as good an own goal by a board and club as you will see.
Don’t disagree with much of this and we all know it won’t be agreed under the current 75% requirement.
It’s also probably fair to assume that the current board feel that they have acted reasonably and therefore are unlikely to see the need to appoint a third party, that presumably costs money - even if only at the end, to do something they already have done (presumably to their satisfaction). So therefore it is unrealistic to expect the existing board to shuffle the deck (keeping my metaphor alive). Logically that means to progress as you see it we will need to significantly change the board and effectively start from scratch.
This must surely mean it will take years? Or have you given up on your view that before going down the potential investor route we need to ‘prove’ whether we can be run sustainably or not?
Of course we cannot be confident that the existing proposal is the best available (and given the amateurish nature of how the club is inevitably run (we are run by volunteers!) in many areas that is hardly surprising. But even with the best agency’s and consultants out there you still won’t know that you are getting the ‘best’ proposal (although it probably increases the odds).
What you do then, and what you do now, is consider the proposals presented to you, ask the right questions, get the answers you need and then decide if that proposal is satisfactory or not to your current needs.
And yes. The board (which we elected) are accountable for us being in this position (a lower mid-table League 1 club with a fairly consistent £500,000 or so overspend every year) and we should recognise this and we can and should criticise the spin they have put on our financial position over the years.
But more importantly those who vote should be accountable for satisfying themselves that any proposals are in the best interest of the club in the medium to long term. To that end I am optimistic that the majority of members are aware of the lessons of recent history (I’m less convinced that the board have) and won’t blindly be led or railroaded into the wrong decisions.
But relax. Listen to what they have to say safe in the knowledge that we will still be supporter owned and run by amateurs after any vote, regardless of whether their proposals are in the best interests of the club or not.
And vote against any proposal if you see a legacy member.
Because as you agree we have no confidence in knowing if the offers are even close to being Goid value or not ,
No member with the clubs best interests at heart can blindly vote for a single option on their basis.
Very few decisions are made with perfect information, or without various risks associated with each of the different options. It would be perfectly fair and reasonable for a legacy member to look at the options in front of them and vote to accept the proposal. It is no more blindly voting yes than it would be no.
The question is does the ‘offer’meet the needs of the club currently and in the future. If, after examining the evidence I conclude it does, I probably would vote yes.
Of course it would be nice to have a queue of people wanting to invest and we need to understand why the board have favoured one over the (alleged) others, but s satisfacory answer on that means that I can consider the offer in isolation.
Lets say I need to sell my house. My maintenance has been pretty poor over the years so let’s say it’s valued at £225 000 rather than the £250 000 (I live up northI could have theoretically got if I’d looked after it better. Not ideal but I am where I am. I then go to a cheap local estate agent rather than a flashy expensive one, because I’m basically skint and they don’t really market it well but manage to get 3 offers. One is for the full asking price, but I happen to know the buyer is a local drug dealer who will use it to grow cannabis (I live up north). Another is for £220 000 but they haven’t sold their house yet and I’m not sure they ever will. The third offer is for £200 000 but no chain and I actually only need £150 000 to move.
My estate agent recommends I consider the lower offer knowing it meets my needs and explains why.
Yes I should never have got myself into that position but I have and weighing up my needs (and values) and discussing it with my family take the lowest offer and move on with my life and don’t beat myself up about it.
That estate agent must be working for a flat rate fee.
Not sure about the relevance of living up north to growing cannabis?
Would you not sell to the cannabis grower for ethical reasons?
Interesting indeed. If I have it right Luby and Collis were there not as Seaport but as part of GSE http://www.generalsports.com/about.php
Perhaps that experience has led them to consider us as a project akin to Derby that they can run on their own - or maybe they intend to create a ‘sports and entertaInment’ portfolio for Seaport? Or maybe they are the faces of GSE?
More relevantly perhaps will they tell us prior to any vote- how will they aim to grow the business? Where do they think we could be doing better? Attendance? Use of the club for non football activity? What do they think will happen financially if we are relegated or promoted in this or subsequent years? At what point would they ‘throw in the towel’ if their plans do not come to fruition? What guarantee do they give that they would not relocate the club in the interests of increased revenue (I just don’t think Americans get what this means). What will it mean for their plans that they won’t own the ground? Would they bring another sports team to the ground? Is the on field activity the part of the business they are interested in or do they see WWFC as a great corporate and entertainment venue with a football team attached?
Illogical statement in my opinion .
Risk is far higher voting for change rather than remain with the status quo in most circumstances when a lack of information is available.
As a matter of interest, if you knew someone who was looking to invest cash into a football club, why didn’t you point them in the direction of WWWFC since you obviously have good contacts at the club?
If you accept the lower offer when three or four other buyers were looking but never shown your house because you tried to sell it yourself despite not being qualified , you’d be offering up a very relevant analogy .
Or what if you didn’t seriously entertain a buyer because your boss had a falling out with them ?
Would your dependants be right to be angry and critical ?
To be honest I am not quite sure I get how Marlow has managed to get traction with his "amateur" narrative. The club has a paid professional (in Davies) with long experience in sports club management running it on a day to day basis. For most of the relevant period it has been lucky to have as its chairman an experienced businessman with relevant experience in sports management (in Howard). He remains actively involved as of now. He will be greatly missed when he steps down going forward but he is part of the story of how we got here. We have a Trust Board made up of people skilled in various aspects of business acting in non-exec roles. We have on the football club board a director (in beeks) with vast football club management experience. In terms of profile, I am not sure for a lower level club it gets much better than that. it is for other individuals to judge whether they believe that team and those individuals have done a good job.
Someone said above that the Trust can just buy the club back if and when a successful Luby bid wants to sell out. Realistically i don't see that as an option. where would the money come from. My understanding of the structure of the deal is not that Luby will hand over large sums to the Trust to buy their shares with that money then sitting in the trust bank account. Instead my understanding is that new shares will be created with Luby purchasing those shares from the club with the money going straight into the club not the trust. I would suggest before you cast your vote, you ensure you understand the structure of the deal.
we perhaps all forget sometimes that the gasroom really isn't important. sadly like all social media it is very hard to have a serious discussion without diversions, unanswered questions, other agendas and at times sheer madness getting in the way. its what makes social media so infuriating but also so infuriatingly compelling. But the discussions here don't really matter (something i must try to persuade myself....).
Soon though many of you will have a vote and that one really will matter. It feels like a crossroads moment with the very future and possibly existence of the club on the line. and because of the (frankly bizarre) voting system, it will be close. Those of you with a vote have an onerous responsibility. Your vote in either direction be the one that tips the decision either way.
Many of you instinctively value fan ownership becuase of the perceived protection against a future asset stripper. No one can ever deny that at some level that risk exists. You will have to judge though how significant that potential risk is or whether it has been grossly exaggerated by those with other agendas. to an extent you may gain reassurance or otherwise from listening to Mr Luby, but in the end you are going to just have to make a judgement.
Against that you have to balance what is the alternative in the real world. My understanding is that ALL our elected representatives on the Trust Board are saying to you that the club cannot sustain its football league status under the current structure with all the very real consequences and risks that would envisage. others will tell you that is not what the trust Board are saying at all and that i have misunderstood. That is possible. I think you are obliged before the vote to carefully understand exactly what your representatives are saying armed with the detailed information they have.
If in fact the Trust representatives are saying that the club cannot survive in lg1 but can hang around for the foreseeable future in mid table league 2, you may well conclude that future is good enough and vote for that. i think I would agree with you.
If however my understanding was right, then i would suggest you have some serious thinking to do.
IF you genuinely believe with reasonable certainty (not just wishful thinking) that the clubs funding gap can be solved by different management finding more revenue or reducing costs without impacting on field performance, then you can safely reject this proposal.
OR IF you genuinely believe with reasonable certainty (not just wishful thinking) that the club funding gap can be solved by cup runs an/or significant player transfers, then again you can safely reject this proposal
OR if you genuinely believe with reasonable certainty (not just wishful thinking) that this bid can be rejected because there are other better bids waiting to come in, then again you can safely reject this proposal. some posters are actively promoting a bid from an ex-player - does it exist, if so why has the trust board not chosen it, will this bidder be at the meeting to confirm his counter -offer to you. Are you confident that that possibility is real and would offer a better future. if so you can safely reject this proposal.
OR if fan ownership is so important to you that whatever level the club can operate at sustainably under fan ownership is on principle better than private ownership, then no doubt with some trepidation about the road to get there, you should reject this proposal.
If however you cannot say yes with confidence to any of those alternatives, I don't really understand what with no doubt the best intentions you believe you are voting for if you do vote to reject. Ultimately though I don't have a vote so I haven't got to make that difficult choice.
I dont think I can contribute more to this conversation, no doubt much to most of your relief. I genuinely wish you well in resolving how you should vote.
Two more thoughts, if i may, before leaving this thread to you. One is, I genuinely cant picture quite what happens if there is a turnout of say 80% and a positive vote of say 80% but therefore not enough to meet the threshold. I fear for the future of the club in that scenario. its probably the worst of all possible outcomes. Sadly I think its also the most likely scenario.
Oh and for @eric_plant and his post yesterday lunchtime. You are absolutely right that the future of WWFC shouldn't really matter to me. I haven't lived in the town for over thirty years. Since my dad died twenty years ago I have no real connection with it. I feel no affection for the town in truth or indeed any strong feelings towards it either way. Its football club is based four hours away from me and I get to see them play a handful of times a year. So you are right, all logic says I shouldn't remotely care. I cant even begin to explain rationally why I should care. I do though.
Lots of words of a day we have a game. Haven't read them but I am guessing it is adding nothing new. Maybe another summary might help @DevC
COYB
Wow @DevC you don’t half spout out a lot in one go. A War and Peace like effort. The ‘amateur narrative’ jibe @marlowchair was totally unwarranted and you just cannot resist slipping into your nasty troll mode which immediately stops anyone taking your posts seriously.
You must have a sad old life? Why not try a trip to Adams Park to watch some football, it may just make you smile a bit and get you out of that hole you appear to be in.
@Manboobs, thank you for that Derby County fan input, it certainly makes me feel a bit more comfortable with the choice of Luby and Collis. Their experience is obviously via GSE and they seem to have done a good job for Derby.
Their exit strategy being to sort out the running of the club and make it much more saleable and then sell.
Thank you again.