Not sure I understand your point Mooney or Strongest. As I said the other two are very longstanding charges. They are charges against the stadium as far as I can see, just like the Luby one.
Simply wondered @DevC wether the statement is correct that the loan was taken out by the football club rather than the trust (or Fall), how the charge could be against a Fall asset that the club doesn't own, and wether the phrasing in the email does anything to reassure the concerns it mentions, although that is for individuals to decide.
@DevC said:
I understand now Strongest. the charge document makes it clear that the loan is between Luby and WWFC but that loan has been guaranteed by FALL.
Ok, so maybe gets round the rule but probably not the spirit of the rule or the spirit of the creation / purpose of FALL .
@DevC said:
I'd agree with that Strongest. you could probably say the same about the other two charges that exist.
Faced with a cash flow hole, could I ask what else you would have done?
Personally I'd ask for assistance publicly, at least from trust members, and would have favoured a share scheme of many levels that encouraged people to invest up to their capacity with real equity on offer and enhanced club related perks. If it is cash flow we are talking about then the likes of multi year season tickets could help to some extent. I'd also take a look at our commercial side to see if there was anything we could do better, make greater use of the vere, car park, hospitality, vending etc longer term. People regularly ask on here what a plan b might be and then ignore all responses or dismiss them out of hand. If i knew for example that a former player was keen to invest but didn't like them much I might also swallow my pride and ask for help or ask someone else to engage with them.
I could also come back at you to ask what we would have done if the Americans had not offered the loan. Immediate administration probably wouldn't have been the answer.
The other two charges were at least in favour of people who have supported Wycombe as a fan and financially for many years.
The Luby loan is more onorous, in that in the event of a no vote, it has to be repaid in 10 months time. This charge adds extra leverage (even if unintentional) to being able to reach the 75% target, as a no vote could leave us with a huge debt we are unlikely to be able to repay, with the consequent nightmare scenario.
As @Twizz pointed out earlier when I made the mortgage analogy - relax - we would simply have to sell Adams Park and pay them out of the profits. Oh...
Thank you for your constructive response @StrongestTeam .
I understand the trust board did look at a number of options for a loan and that this was the best proposal they could find. I have no reason to disbelieve them. I don't know if that process involved seeing if an explayer would loan them money and on what terms. Given that I learn that they have apparently approached him before and he has, I would assume they did on this occasion.
while commercial opportunities should always be reviewed (and you could always do things differently and better with hindsight) I don't see any evidence that that would have helped in the short term.
I genuinely don't know what we would have done if Luby did not offer his loan. there may have been other less attractive ways of raising cash or maybe we would have had to make very severe cuts or maybe worse. I am grateful we are not in the ,latter situation at least.
if you are interested @Wendoverman , ask the Board not me. it could have been interest demanded, repayment terms, security required etc etc. They have told you that this was the best option they could find. Do you disbelieve them? If they had a better option, why would they not have taken it?
@DevC said:
I'd agree with that Strongest. you could probably say the same about the other two charges that exist.
Faced with a cash flow hole, could I ask what else you would have done?
You've asked that question a few times Dev. It's still utterly ridiculous. No one on here has any knowledge of the extent of the problem or sufficient understanding of the options that were available. However, I struggle to believe that the option taken (I won't repeat it all here, I think you get the idea now), was the only way this football club could have possibly survived until Christmas.
I don't think the board have said it was the only option, they have said it was the best option. If people are going to criticise them so vociferously for taking that option, surely it is a reasonable question to ask what else should they have done?
I genuinely don't know what we would have done if Luby did not offer his loan. there may have been other less attractive ways of raising cash or maybe we would have had to make very severe cuts or maybe worse. I am grateful we are not in the latter situation at least.
As I understand it the academy would be a separate entity to any of the football club related companies.
I’m sure a question to Mr Harman would answer the extent of the ambitions, for what it’s worth in the Q&A I recall talk of a ‘level two hybrid’ or suchlike. I’m sure one of our note taking Gasroomians will provide clarity.
It’s good we have some with academy experience on the forum.
Does anyone else actually feel more positive about the meeting Monday now that it seems we do have an alternative other than a huge struggle to pay off the debt?
I now really hope that the American's bid is good enough to be able to get 75%, as to get to that threshold now would mean the bid is exceptional and far beyond AHs proposal, whereas before it simply had to be not another Hayes for a lot of people.
@Username No I don't. Investment companies, let's not kid ourselves, only want a return on that investment. They will pump money in at the start then you are stuck with them. I've worked in the food industry for years I know how it all plays out in the end. But it's everyone's choice to see it as it is.
@M3G I think @Username was just more positive because we have something to measure the club proposed bid against rather than just having the choice of rubber stamping something we are unhappy with because unless we've been told unless we do we will be swallowed by the sulphurous pit.
@Wendoverman said: @M3G I think @Username was just more positive because we have something to measure the club proposed bid against rather than just having the choice of rubber stamping something we are unhappy with because unless we've been told unless we do we will be swallowed by the sulphurous pit.
You've got it.
Essentially the bar has been raised, personally anyway, as there's a brighter alternative. The alternative bid now being out in the open could even force the Americans to improve their offer? Or am I being far too naive and optimistic?
@M3G said:
I suppose for me and I expect others the charge on the ground has already ruled out my support regardless. I feel a bit betrayed
I completely agree with your second sentence, but the betrayal is by the trust, not the Americans.
This should not cloud your view of the Americans (IMO of course) and their bid should be judged on its own merits. The main difference to me with the lack of confidence in the trust, is that I will judge the American bid solely on the information I receive, and the trust's recommendation is worthless.
Really disappointed that there has been no official explanation on the stadium charge. It just adds to the mess.
Interesting comments about 'the guys' upping their offer based on last night. How will we ever know as the offer hasn't been released to us yet. Getting quite close to the meeting to get the pre meeting pack too.
'The guys' offer must be better than the Harman proposal as it's the one the Trust has put forward. I know that might be a naive assumption but without all the doubts about honesty that is what it is.
Agreed Righty. I'd say the best chance they have of getting enough votes is to come over the top of the Harman proposal with the promise of bundles of cash over the next 5 years
Comments
Not sure I understand your point Mooney or Strongest. As I said the other two are very longstanding charges. They are charges against the stadium as far as I can see, just like the Luby one.
Simply wondered @DevC wether the statement is correct that the loan was taken out by the football club rather than the trust (or Fall), how the charge could be against a Fall asset that the club doesn't own, and wether the phrasing in the email does anything to reassure the concerns it mentions, although that is for individuals to decide.
I understand now Strongest. the charge document makes it clear that the loan is between Luby and WWFC but that loan has been guaranteed by FALL.
Ok, so maybe gets round the rule but probably not the spirit of the rule or the spirit of the creation / purpose of FALL .
I'd agree with that Strongest. you could probably say the same about the other two charges that exist.
Faced with a cash flow hole, could I ask what else you would have done?
Personally I'd ask for assistance publicly, at least from trust members, and would have favoured a share scheme of many levels that encouraged people to invest up to their capacity with real equity on offer and enhanced club related perks. If it is cash flow we are talking about then the likes of multi year season tickets could help to some extent. I'd also take a look at our commercial side to see if there was anything we could do better, make greater use of the vere, car park, hospitality, vending etc longer term. People regularly ask on here what a plan b might be and then ignore all responses or dismiss them out of hand. If i knew for example that a former player was keen to invest but didn't like them much I might also swallow my pride and ask for help or ask someone else to engage with them.
I could also come back at you to ask what we would have done if the Americans had not offered the loan. Immediate administration probably wouldn't have been the answer.
The other two charges were at least in favour of people who have supported Wycombe as a fan and financially for many years.
The Luby loan is more onorous, in that in the event of a no vote, it has to be repaid in 10 months time. This charge adds extra leverage (even if unintentional) to being able to reach the 75% target, as a no vote could leave us with a huge debt we are unlikely to be able to repay, with the consequent nightmare scenario.
As @Twizz pointed out earlier when I made the mortgage analogy - relax - we would simply have to sell Adams Park and pay them out of the profits. Oh...
Thank you for your constructive response @StrongestTeam .
I understand the trust board did look at a number of options for a loan and that this was the best proposal they could find. I have no reason to disbelieve them. I don't know if that process involved seeing if an explayer would loan them money and on what terms. Given that I learn that they have apparently approached him before and he has, I would assume they did on this occasion.
while commercial opportunities should always be reviewed (and you could always do things differently and better with hindsight) I don't see any evidence that that would have helped in the short term.
I genuinely don't know what we would have done if Luby did not offer his loan. there may have been other less attractive ways of raising cash or maybe we would have had to make very severe cuts or maybe worse. I am grateful we are not in the ,latter situation at least.
I'm still wondering what you meant by less attractive ways of raising cash...
if you are interested @Wendoverman , ask the Board not me. it could have been interest demanded, repayment terms, security required etc etc. They have told you that this was the best option they could find. Do you disbelieve them? If they had a better option, why would they not have taken it?
nope...mind still on less attractive ways of raising cash.
You've asked that question a few times Dev. It's still utterly ridiculous. No one on here has any knowledge of the extent of the problem or sufficient understanding of the options that were available. However, I struggle to believe that the option taken (I won't repeat it all here, I think you get the idea now), was the only way this football club could have possibly survived until Christmas.
I don't think the board have said it was the only option, they have said it was the best option. If people are going to criticise them so vociferously for taking that option, surely it is a reasonable question to ask what else should they have done?
OK then, let me put it to you: what would you have done, in the absence of any interest from Bill Luby and Jim Collis?
@YorkExile noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
see post at 2pm above. > @DevC said:
To be fair I've seen the Board and the chances of them making anything from the less attractive ways of raising cash were slim.
OK, thanks Dev.
@mooneyman & @DevC The early charges were not covered by Rule 102 as this only came into being when the Trust changed its name in 2014
As I understand it the academy would be a separate entity to any of the football club related companies.
I’m sure a question to Mr Harman would answer the extent of the ambitions, for what it’s worth in the Q&A I recall talk of a ‘level two hybrid’ or suchlike. I’m sure one of our note taking Gasroomians will provide clarity.
It’s good we have some with academy experience on the forum.
Sorry, wrong thread.
Does anyone else actually feel more positive about the meeting Monday now that it seems we do have an alternative other than a huge struggle to pay off the debt?
I now really hope that the American's bid is good enough to be able to get 75%, as to get to that threshold now would mean the bid is exceptional and far beyond AHs proposal, whereas before it simply had to be not another Hayes for a lot of people.
@Username No I don't. Investment companies, let's not kid ourselves, only want a return on that investment. They will pump money in at the start then you are stuck with them. I've worked in the food industry for years I know how it all plays out in the end. But it's everyone's choice to see it as it is.
@M3G I think @Username was just more positive because we have something to measure the club proposed bid against rather than just having the choice of rubber stamping something we are unhappy with because unless we've been told unless we do we will be swallowed by the sulphurous pit.
You've got it.
Essentially the bar has been raised, personally anyway, as there's a brighter alternative. The alternative bid now being out in the open could even force the Americans to improve their offer? Or am I being far too naive and optimistic?
I suppose for me and I expect others the charge on the ground has already ruled out my support regardless. I feel a bit betrayed
I completely agree with your second sentence, but the betrayal is by the trust, not the Americans.
This should not cloud your view of the Americans (IMO of course) and their bid should be judged on its own merits. The main difference to me with the lack of confidence in the trust, is that I will judge the American bid solely on the information I receive, and the trust's recommendation is worthless.
Really disappointed that there has been no official explanation on the stadium charge. It just adds to the mess.
Interesting comments about 'the guys' upping their offer based on last night. How will we ever know as the offer hasn't been released to us yet. Getting quite close to the meeting to get the pre meeting pack too.
'The guys' offer must be better than the Harman proposal as it's the one the Trust has put forward. I know that might be a naive assumption but without all the doubts about honesty that is what it is.
Agreed Righty. I'd say the best chance they have of getting enough votes is to come over the top of the Harman proposal with the promise of bundles of cash over the next 5 years