All - please note that I will not be providing direct individual responses to questions posed.
Is it just me (probably) but I haven’t a clue what that means. If you are the mysterious Tony who is going to ask the questions posed via email by members unable to attend the meeting, I’d begin to understand (and would at least note what you have said).
@micra no mystery: I have previously said I am Tony Hector. Sorry if I haven't been clear. To clarify, I will ask any questions emailed to me (and not asked in the room on the night) on behalf of the questioner. However, I will not be providing direct answers to any questions posed - just saying so that questioners are not left waiting for individual responses to their emails.
I understand its adding further to workload, but a subsequent report of the meeting with key questions and answers published on the website would I am sure be much appreciated by all. I guess you would have to be careful re confidentiality but realistically anything said at the meeting is by definition in the public domain anyway.
I will be at the meeting but the trust should be congratulated for making the live stream available.there has been genuine effort to inform as many supporters as possible about the meeting so no complaints are valid in that regards
'Hats off' to the Trust for making this available. And it wouldn't be the Gasroom if someone didn't complain about them using an online platform that merely one third of the world's population has signed up for.
Facebook live videos are available once the broadcast has finished as long as the broadcaster chooses to 'share,' them when the event is over.
I get where @robin is coming from, given everything we now know about Facebook, but in this case it makes sense for the trust to use Cambridge Analytica Facebook for the streaming because only Emerdata Ltd Facebook can offer the privacy required to restrict viewing to trust members, so Firecrest Technologies Facebook it has to be.
Fairly sure Vladimir Putin isn't that interested in the meeting anyway. Unless of course the consortium is a shadowy bunch of Putin puppets on a mission to steal the club and move it to Vladivostok. Marlow Chair?
Besides being a possible conduit for World War Three does the Trust also realise it's account will be inundated with targetted adverts for pies, chocolate, catering services, Cypriot dog sanctuaries and pictures of Tommies fighting bravely for Brexit? It's a risk.
@Wendoverman said:
Besides being a possible conduit for World War Three does the Trust also realise it's account will be inundated with targetted adverts for pies, chocolate, catering services, Cypriot dog sanctuaries and pictures of Tommies fighting bravely for Brexit? It's a risk.
They should sign up for the first three immediately
@drcongo said:
I get where @robin is coming from, given everything we now know about Facebook, but in this case it makes sense for the trust to use Cambridge Analytica Facebook for the streaming because only Emerdata Ltd Facebook can offer the privacy required to restrict viewing to trust members, so Firecrest Technologies Facebook it has to be.
Fairly sure Vladimir Putin isn't that interested in the meeting anyway. Unless of course the consortium is a shadowy bunch of Putin puppets on a mission to steal the club and move it to Vladivostok. Marlow Chair?
I can confirm that none of the consortiums are Russian! None British either it must be said.
The Trust have advised everyone coming tomorrow to read a report, seemingly raising doubts about finance as a whole in football. They have bolded two parts....
No FL1 responding clubs will be profitable before player trading and less than a third will be profitable after player trading, most likely at the expense of strengthening their squads for the future
And...
Outside the EPL, over two-thirds of Football League clubs remain dependent on their principal shareholder to finance annual revenue shortfalls or operating losses.
Which, in my mind, clearly shows they back some form of takeover and the abandonment of a trust ownership model
It appears the linking of this report to proceedings tomorrow is rather deliberate by our finance director and board and we should not be at all surprised therefore when they recommend us selling up, essentially admitting they have been unable to run the club on a sustainable basis.
Of concern however is the “error” our finance director has made in transcribing a rather critical paragraph . The report does not say....
“No FL1 responding clubs will be profitable before player trading and less than a third will be profitable after player trading, most likely at the expense of strengthening their squads for the future”
As our director wrote on the summary notes on our trust website
It said
“No FL2 responding clubs will be profitable before player trading and less than a third will be profitable after player trading, most likely at the expense of strengthening their squads for the future”
Let us hope our finance reports and representations around these matters are more accurate than this generally, and that this was an innocent error and not a deliberate attempt to portray our future prospects under supporter ownership as less positive as they are .
Whilst it is certainly true that it is a difficult task to be sustainable in the Lower Leagues, that news will hardly be a shock to trust members.we have done very well to date on our meagre means.
The Highlighted points Tom refers to that our FD and board have cherry picked to point out to us prior to the meeting certainly show their hand in terms of being pro-sale. They have declined to highlight the statistic that says 23% of League 1 clubs ARE expecting to profit before player sales et al , an increase on the 18% in 2017. Championship clubs also show an increasing trend in that area .
But we choose to falsely label the league 2 stat as league 1 and appear to very selectively pluck negative stats from that report...
@marlowchair I certainly agree that the difference between the erroneous "No FL1 responding clubs will be profitable..." statement on the Trust website and the actual data in the report, which indicates that 23% of FL1 responding clubs will be in this position, is significant and likely to result in Trust members who read the webpage but don't dig into the report being misinformed.
Hopefully, this is accidental and not a deliberate attempt to mislead, in which case someone from the Trust board really should correct the website and include a notice drawing the error to members' attention in advance of tonight's meeting.
Playing devil's advocate, it is possible that the club are highlighting the position if we drop back into FL2, hence the need to secure additional finance to ensure FL1 survival.
Whilst I think it is unlikely, what if the Board inform the members tonight that they have put in as much effort as they can to run the club as a supporter owned model, but have come to the conclusion that it is unsustainable? Consequently they intend to resign en bloc if their proposals are not accepted. Would there be other qualified people prepared and able to put in the effort and time to run the club without remuneration?
It is of course possible that Richie and/or Trevor could take over, but who would run the club shop then?
Surely this is accidental. I for one do not believe that the Trust Board would deliberately mislead the members.
I am going into this evenings meeting with an open mind. Should it transpire that we unable to support a league team with the current model, then I would be open to alternatives. I certainly do not want us to drop into non league football just because we are in denial.
If the Trust do indeed say that the club is currently unsustainable, then who authorised the purchase of McCarthy. Whilst he is a great signing, we need to cut our cloth accordingly - if we are unsustainable then who agreed to splash the cash (that we don't have)
All good points, as I said when I highlighted this error I too hope it is just that, an error . If.as you say Mooney , the FD intended to demonstrate the difficulties league 2 clubs are having then he should in fairness clearly state he has altered the published report when referring members to highlights of it.
I don’t believe it was deliberately altered , I am guessing that it was an error. I don’t believe our FD or any directors are of poor character or would deliberately alter a paragraph of a report they refer to as being important in the context of tonight’s meeting and our future model.
However it is a rather unfortunate and critical error when we are needing objectivity, accuracy and attention to detail. We will be asked to rely heavily on the work of our directors and the accuracy and reliability of their research and information tonight and in future when making decisions on the future of our club.
This matter undermines confidence as to the reliability of said information
Comments
You don’t hang around, do you @DevC ?!
Is it just me (probably) but I haven’t a clue what that means. If you are the mysterious Tony who is going to ask the questions posed via email by members unable to attend the meeting, I’d begin to understand (and would at least note what you have said).
Understood, Tony.
@micra no mystery: I have previously said I am Tony Hector. Sorry if I haven't been clear. To clarify, I will ask any questions emailed to me (and not asked in the room on the night) on behalf of the questioner. However, I will not be providing direct answers to any questions posed - just saying so that questioners are not left waiting for individual responses to their emails.
I understand its adding further to workload, but a subsequent report of the meeting with key questions and answers published on the website would I am sure be much appreciated by all. I guess you would have to be careful re confidentiality but realistically anything said at the meeting is by definition in the public domain anyway.
Thanks @ForeverBlue. I can place you now. And your response clarifies perfectly what you intend.
I will be at the meeting but the trust should be congratulated for making the live stream available.there has been genuine effort to inform as many supporters as possible about the meeting so no complaints are valid in that regards
Facebook live videos normally stay available afterwards.
'Hats off' to the Trust for making this available. And it wouldn't be the Gasroom if someone didn't complain about them using an online platform that merely one third of the world's population has signed up for.
Facebook live videos are available once the broadcast has finished as long as the broadcaster chooses to 'share,' them when the event is over.
I get where @robin is coming from, given everything we now know about Facebook, but in this case it makes sense for the trust to use Cambridge Analytica Facebook for the streaming because only Emerdata Ltd Facebook can offer the privacy required to restrict viewing to trust members, so Firecrest Technologies Facebook it has to be.
Fairly sure Vladimir Putin isn't that interested in the meeting anyway. Unless of course the consortium is a shadowy bunch of Putin puppets on a mission to steal the club and move it to Vladivostok. Marlow Chair?
Besides being a possible conduit for World War Three does the Trust also realise it's account will be inundated with targetted adverts for pies, chocolate, catering services, Cypriot dog sanctuaries and pictures of Tommies fighting bravely for Brexit? It's a risk.
They should sign up for the first three immediately
I can confirm that none of the consortiums are Russian! None British either it must be said.
I heard a rumour that the consortium is comprised of members of Kim Jong-un's family.
None British. You are teasing now @marlowchair. Any Americans or Arabs involved then?
Or is it just no consortiums at all?
Correction Consortia
Further correction, “no consortium at all”! If there are none, it can’t be plural.
There, @micra , see, you’re not the only pedant on here!
Pardon wiggly?
Bill Gates is definitely not British.
The Trust have advised everyone coming tomorrow to read a report, seemingly raising doubts about finance as a whole in football. They have bolded two parts....
No FL1 responding clubs will be profitable before player trading and less than a third will be profitable after player trading, most likely at the expense of strengthening their squads for the future
And...
Outside the EPL, over two-thirds of Football League clubs remain dependent on their principal shareholder to finance annual revenue shortfalls or operating losses.
Which, in my mind, clearly shows they back some form of takeover and the abandonment of a trust ownership model
http://www.wycombewandererstrust.com/2018/09/football-finance-directors-report-2018-from-bdo
Good information Tom and very important reading.
It appears the linking of this report to proceedings tomorrow is rather deliberate by our finance director and board and we should not be at all surprised therefore when they recommend us selling up, essentially admitting they have been unable to run the club on a sustainable basis.
Of concern however is the “error” our finance director has made in transcribing a rather critical paragraph . The report does not say....
“No FL1 responding clubs will be profitable before player trading and less than a third will be profitable after player trading, most likely at the expense of strengthening their squads for the future”
As our director wrote on the summary notes on our trust website
It said
“No FL2 responding clubs will be profitable before player trading and less than a third will be profitable after player trading, most likely at the expense of strengthening their squads for the future”
Let us hope our finance reports and representations around these matters are more accurate than this generally, and that this was an innocent error and not a deliberate attempt to portray our future prospects under supporter ownership as less positive as they are .
Whilst it is certainly true that it is a difficult task to be sustainable in the Lower Leagues, that news will hardly be a shock to trust members.we have done very well to date on our meagre means.
The Highlighted points Tom refers to that our FD and board have cherry picked to point out to us prior to the meeting certainly show their hand in terms of being pro-sale. They have declined to highlight the statistic that says 23% of League 1 clubs ARE expecting to profit before player sales et al , an increase on the 18% in 2017. Championship clubs also show an increasing trend in that area .
But we choose to falsely label the league 2 stat as league 1 and appear to very selectively pluck negative stats from that report...
@marlowchair I certainly agree that the difference between the erroneous "No FL1 responding clubs will be profitable..." statement on the Trust website and the actual data in the report, which indicates that 23% of FL1 responding clubs will be in this position, is significant and likely to result in Trust members who read the webpage but don't dig into the report being misinformed.
Hopefully, this is accidental and not a deliberate attempt to mislead, in which case someone from the Trust board really should correct the website and include a notice drawing the error to members' attention in advance of tonight's meeting.
Playing devil's advocate, it is possible that the club are highlighting the position if we drop back into FL2, hence the need to secure additional finance to ensure FL1 survival.
Whilst I think it is unlikely, what if the Board inform the members tonight that they have put in as much effort as they can to run the club as a supporter owned model, but have come to the conclusion that it is unsustainable? Consequently they intend to resign en bloc if their proposals are not accepted. Would there be other qualified people prepared and able to put in the effort and time to run the club without remuneration?
It is of course possible that Richie and/or Trevor could take over, but who would run the club shop then?
Surely this is accidental. I for one do not believe that the Trust Board would deliberately mislead the members.
I am going into this evenings meeting with an open mind. Should it transpire that we unable to support a league team with the current model, then I would be open to alternatives. I certainly do not want us to drop into non league football just because we are in denial.
If the Trust do indeed say that the club is currently unsustainable, then who authorised the purchase of McCarthy. Whilst he is a great signing, we need to cut our cloth accordingly - if we are unsustainable then who agreed to splash the cash (that we don't have)
Was the McCarthy deal yet another in the long line of, "undisclosed"?
All good points, as I said when I highlighted this error I too hope it is just that, an error . If.as you say Mooney , the FD intended to demonstrate the difficulties league 2 clubs are having then he should in fairness clearly state he has altered the published report when referring members to highlights of it.
I don’t believe it was deliberately altered , I am guessing that it was an error. I don’t believe our FD or any directors are of poor character or would deliberately alter a paragraph of a report they refer to as being important in the context of tonight’s meeting and our future model.
However it is a rather unfortunate and critical error when we are needing objectivity, accuracy and attention to detail. We will be asked to rely heavily on the work of our directors and the accuracy and reliability of their research and information tonight and in future when making decisions on the future of our club.
This matter undermines confidence as to the reliability of said information