Precisely @glasshalffull, they were given a mandate to continue dialogue with potential investors. The members did not "agree in principle that the Club should seek external investment." Now they've borrowed an as yet undisclosed sum of money from one of them, on as yet undisclosed terms, and presented their majority investment as the only option other than a supposedly inevitable slump into non-league. And this all seems perfectly reasonable to you?
No non disclosure known to man, @marlowchair , would stop an individual attending a public meeting and asking a question such as "Mr Chairman, as you know I was interested in bidding for the club. Could you advise what criteria were used in your selection of the preferred bidder."
Your story changes from post to post. Do you have any evidence to share with us, rather than simply hope or conjecture, that would lead us to believe that if this offer was rejected, a better one would be found within a reasonable timescale? if so please tell us what it is.
I for one would also appreciate your vision of what you would like to happen next from the day after the American bid was rejected.
Dev - how much money have you contributed towards wwfc in, let's say the last 3 seasons?
I feel it would be useful context given that you are by a million miles the poster who is most vocal in their concerns about the club's finances under the current set up
@Wendoverman said:
It sounds like the proposed new owners have made a decent case so though it is clear they are short-termers, I don't believe necessarily that they are chancer carpet-baggers, but by the same token I don't buy the idea that we're necessarily doomed to park football by a No vote. @DevC can you provide proof that everyone involved from the club acted in good faith, that all bids were considered equally and that personal animosity did not play a part in a viable bid being ignored?
Pretty much agree with this I think, although a shade more optimistic about the long-term involvement of the owners and a shade more pessimistic about doom. The problem we have, if @marlowchair is right and other investors have been rebuffed or ignored due to incompetence or spite, is perhaps a moral one. If I believe that it is better to go with tbe US owners as remaining supporter owned means doom but I also believe the legacy members have been denied the chance to vote for even better owners, should I vote yes or no?
Which leads me to this. If @marlowchair’s allegations are proven can the board be quickly removed, new board put in place and new investors put to the members? If the board could be removed on these grounds but the ensuing chaos wrecked the club would it be the right call?
I’m aware I’m posting hypotheticals a la @DevC but this situation has got me thinking and I wonder now if some ends justifying means work has been done by the board? The loan from the Americans, can it be used as leverage to force a yes vote? Have the board accepted it knowing that? If so, is that duplicity acceptable to us. If not, what are we going to do?
There are times I wish I didn’t have a vote, never read the gasroom and just turned up on a Saturday blissfully ignorant.
@Manboobs I have a vote, read the gasroom and yet am still blissfully ignorant. At least your post shows me I am not alone in wondering how best to wield my enormous voting power.
These guys did a brilliant job at Derby. Went it, looked at the infrastructure, improved things. Didn’t leave the club in any strife. They’ll come in at AP probably install a new screen straightaway as that will start earning money straightaway. £109-£209 in minute.
These guys honestly I believe are not here to screw the club over but will infact help make it a success. Let’s get behind this
It's a shame that those legacy members that don't exercise their vote are automatically deemed to be against the proposal. If you are totally unsure of which way to turn, it would be less stressful to just abstain.
@TrueBlu said:
These guys did a brilliant job at Derby. Went it, looked at the infrastructure, improved things. Didn’t leave the club in any strife. They’ll come in at AP probably install a new screen straightaway as that will start earning money straightaway. £109-£209 in minute.
These guys honestly I believe are not here to screw the club over but will infact help make it a success. Let’s get behind this
@Manboobs I genuinely don’t understand your thinking. The only people suggesting that better bids have been rejected out of spite are Marlow and carrots. They have provided no evidence whatsoever and their posts clearly show they are carrying a huge grudge against the Board due to a past unrelated matter.
Why are you believing them over ten or so people you elected to act on your behalf, who all support the club passionately, who all give huge amounts of their time to further the best interests of the club and yet we are told are now at a time of great need have uniformly decided to act against the best interests of the club for no apparent reason.
Why would they do that. What reason is there to suggest that they have. Is it really credible to suggest that they would?
@TrueBlu said:
These guys did a brilliant job at Derby. Went it, looked at the infrastructure, improved things. Didn’t leave the club in any strife. They’ll come in at AP probably install a new screen straightaway as that will start earning money straightaway. £109-£209 in minute.
These guys honestly I believe are not here to screw the club over but will infact help make it a success. Let’s get behind this
Get your tin hat on TrueBlu, the usual suspects will be after you for being so positive.
@YorkExile said:
Precisely @glasshalffull, they were given a mandate to continue dialogue with potential investors. The members did not "agree in principle that the Club should seek external investment." Now they've borrowed an as yet undisclosed sum of money from one of them, on as yet undisclosed terms, and presented their majority investment as the only option other than a supposedly inevitable slump into non-league. And this all seems perfectly reasonable to you?
The Trust board made it clear on September 12 that, in their opinion, continuing with the status quo was unsustainable and not a viable alternative. The next step was to decide what they thought was the best offer of external investment and this is what they revealed on Wednesday night.
The members can decide if they want to reject this offer of investment when they are asked to vote after the final proposals are presented. Until then, nothing has changed.That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Regarding the loan, no details of the terms have been revealed so I’m not in a position to comment.
I hope I win the euros tonight, I'll chuck my hat into the ring !!
The club will still own what they do now, I'll buy the training ground and give back, start up academy again, have a couple years of "fun" and then hand all back to the club before I spend it all.. how does that sound ?
@DevC said: @Manboobs I genuinely don’t understand your thinking. The only people suggesting that better bids have been rejected out of spite are Marlow and carrots. They have provided no evidence whatsoever and their posts clearly show they are carrying a huge grudge against the Board due to a past unrelated matter.
Why are you believing them over ten or so people you elected to act on your behalf, who all support the club passionately, who all give huge amounts of their time to further the best interests of the club and yet we are told are now at a time of great need have uniformly decided to act against the best interests of the club for no apparent reason.
Why would they do that. What reason is there to suggest that they have. Is it really credible to suggest that they would?
Wrong .
The onus is on the elected board to demonstrate a thorough and robust exploration of all available options when presenting to members . That is their job .
Not to make decisions on their preferred option, go into debt with them , and present them as the only option.
They are actually doing the Americans a disservice by butchering the process so badly .
If they are the best option of all the market options they deserve to be tabled as the preferred option .
The board failing to demonstrate this reslly hinders their chances by creating doubt and uncertainty of process
The onus on the board is to conduct a thorough and robust exploration of all available options. It is not to show all there workings.
I was uneasy about the 'no plan b' comment at the meeting so I can follow your view it was presented as the only option. Better presentation skills would surely have presented it as the best option because the status quo is currently option b.
One thing is for sure though. The pool of Trust members and Wycombe fans interested and n and able to sit on boards is being used up. Calling for more heads won't lead to anyone better coming in. Maybe your rejection would help you see that @marlowchair
So, question: does everyone have to vote on a certain day, or could they at least draw it out over a short period of time, to try and collect votes from anyone who misses the initial ballot? Again, not trying to advocate a position, it just seems a shame that not every legacy member will be heard from, when the future of the club is on the line. I can just imagine it being decided by one vote either way, when Old Bill Sproggins missed the bus to vote because he stubbed his toe on the side of his garden shed when hoeing his potatoes...
I don't have a vote, and I almost feel fortunate, as the only way I can imagine feeling good about it is if I could see into the future. Both options (as currently presented) could end up working, both could end up failing, or one could be better than the other. The worst scenario is that either will end in tears, as in both cases it would leave the fan base (erroneously) spending the rest of their lives wishing they had chosen the other door.
When a board has a demonstrable lack of transparency and willingness address glaring conflict of interest issues their “ workings l are all an intelligent membership have to make judgement on, because their word must be questioned on measurement against their actions and history .
They have kind of gone into debt with the option they are asking us to vote objectively on you do realise that right ....?
Forgive us for being cynical and wanting to see the “ workings “ that got us this position but frankly we’d be crazy not to !
@DevC said: @Manboobs I genuinely don’t understand your thinking. The only people suggesting that better bids have been rejected out of spite are Marlow and carrots. They have provided no evidence whatsoever and their posts clearly show they are carrying a huge grudge against the Board due to a past unrelated matter.
Why are you believing them over ten or so people you elected to act on your behalf, who all support the club passionately, who all give huge amounts of their time to further the best interests of the club and yet we are told are now at a time of great need have uniformly decided to act against the best interests of the club for no apparent reason.
Why would they do that. What reason is there to suggest that they have. Is it really credible to suggest that they would?
I didn’t say I believed the allegations. I asked what the morality of voting for the board’s option would be if said option had been foisted on us through sharp practice or incompetence yet to vote no meant one was voting for the collapse of the club. In such a case would I throw baby out with bath water? I am not sure I know what I would do or want to find out.
For the record I don’t think the board has entered into a coordinated conspiracy. I am concerned about the loan made by the favoured party and would like to know how much it is and what happens if we vote “no”. I think @marlowchair has raised some interesting questions at times and also has an axe to grind. I agree that if there were other serious bids rejected before reaching us that we would have heard more than we have about them.
I am hoping now for as much transparency as possible on the proposals and more opportunities to ask questions.
Particularly the quote " Here's a "moneyball" formula: Buy a minor league baseball team; move it to a bigger market; convince the city (council) to finance a new ballpark with taxpayers' money; reap the profits".
So, maybe the plan is to convince the Council to build a multi purpose sports complex in a suitable location, perhaps close to Booker. Maybe they could include housing in the proposal. Maybe they might get another Sports franchise to share the Stadium. Actually, that said I don't dislike baseball. Maybe they might do a MK Dons and move us somewhere else to another part of the Country. Maybe they can turn things round and increase attendances. Maybe they will spend big and try and get us into the Championship. The truth is only Bill and Jim know.
Both came across as nice genuine guys but they are Businessmen and not some form of modern day philanthropists who have travelled over the water to allow you and I to watch football at our leisure. They will be quite entitled to seek out a business opportunity and use it to their advantage before taking a profit and selling on to the highest bidder.
Neither you or I can have any quibble when that happens.
For me the main board of WWFC are totally culpable for the mess that we are currently in. In any Business, big or small, budgetary forecasting is an essential part of what should be correct and proper financial management. We must have known back in May what our financial position would be for the coming 12 months so how do we get to November and the pot is empty. Current main board and ex main board Directors reading this should hang their head in shame.
@manboobs wrote asking "...what the morality of voting for the board’s option would be if said option had been foisted on us through sharp practice or incompetence yet to vote no meant one was voting for the collapse of the club. In such a case would I throw baby out with bath water?" and commented "I am not sure I know what I would do or want to find out."
I recall having the same internal conflict... a few years ago prior to the vote to give full control of the club to Steve Hayes. I am extremely disappointed now to find that the exact same situation has been allowed to recur and the likelihood is that ultimately we will again be presented with a vote that is pushed as a choice between voting to cede control of the club to another party or imminent liquidation.
I am more than happy to wait and see what formal proposal is put forward before coming to any firm opinion. There seems to be a very vociferous few on this board who have lost all respect for our board based, as far as I can see, as their opinions being stated as facts. Whatever the reality why are not @marlowchair, @NiceCarrots and like minded members not calling for a vote of confidence?
@Its_Cold_Up_North said:
For me the main board of WWFC are totally culpable for the mess that we are currently in. In any Business, big or small, budgetary forecasting is an essential part of what should be correct and proper financial management. We must have known back in May what our financial position would be for the coming 12 months so how do we get to November and the pot is empty. Current main board and ex main board Directors reading this should hang their head in shame.
My question is that IF this is so, and the board really are making a complete hash of things, or worse deceiving the trust in some way, (I have seen no evidence that this is the case) but if it is proven, is there not something in the constitution that allows a vote of no confidence in the current main board to oust them ?
@Uncle_T that's the gist isn't it. We've just rebuilt after the last disastrous ownership episode and now we're very close to signing over again. However, if it is truly unsustainable as we are, is there any other option?
To me it's simple if we want to improve or remain league 1/2 we have to get outside investment. Alternatively without investment we will be heading back down to non league. Take your pick.
Comments
Precisely @glasshalffull, they were given a mandate to continue dialogue with potential investors. The members did not "agree in principle that the Club should seek external investment." Now they've borrowed an as yet undisclosed sum of money from one of them, on as yet undisclosed terms, and presented their majority investment as the only option other than a supposedly inevitable slump into non-league. And this all seems perfectly reasonable to you?
No non disclosure known to man, @marlowchair , would stop an individual attending a public meeting and asking a question such as "Mr Chairman, as you know I was interested in bidding for the club. Could you advise what criteria were used in your selection of the preferred bidder."
Your story changes from post to post. Do you have any evidence to share with us, rather than simply hope or conjecture, that would lead us to believe that if this offer was rejected, a better one would be found within a reasonable timescale? if so please tell us what it is.
I for one would also appreciate your vision of what you would like to happen next from the day after the American bid was rejected.
Dev - how much money have you contributed towards wwfc in, let's say the last 3 seasons?
I feel it would be useful context given that you are by a million miles the poster who is most vocal in their concerns about the club's finances under the current set up
Pretty much agree with this I think, although a shade more optimistic about the long-term involvement of the owners and a shade more pessimistic about doom. The problem we have, if @marlowchair is right and other investors have been rebuffed or ignored due to incompetence or spite, is perhaps a moral one. If I believe that it is better to go with tbe US owners as remaining supporter owned means doom but I also believe the legacy members have been denied the chance to vote for even better owners, should I vote yes or no?
Which leads me to this. If @marlowchair’s allegations are proven can the board be quickly removed, new board put in place and new investors put to the members? If the board could be removed on these grounds but the ensuing chaos wrecked the club would it be the right call?
I’m aware I’m posting hypotheticals a la @DevC but this situation has got me thinking and I wonder now if some ends justifying means work has been done by the board? The loan from the Americans, can it be used as leverage to force a yes vote? Have the board accepted it knowing that? If so, is that duplicity acceptable to us. If not, what are we going to do?
There are times I wish I didn’t have a vote, never read the gasroom and just turned up on a Saturday blissfully ignorant.
@Manboobs I have a vote, read the gasroom and yet am still blissfully ignorant. At least your post shows me I am not alone in wondering how best to wield my enormous voting power.
These guys did a brilliant job at Derby. Went it, looked at the infrastructure, improved things. Didn’t leave the club in any strife. They’ll come in at AP probably install a new screen straightaway as that will start earning money straightaway. £109-£209 in minute.
These guys honestly I believe are not here to screw the club over but will infact help make it a success. Let’s get behind this
It's a shame that those legacy members that don't exercise their vote are automatically deemed to be against the proposal. If you are totally unsure of which way to turn, it would be less stressful to just abstain.
Well said @TrueBlu.
@Manboobs I genuinely don’t understand your thinking. The only people suggesting that better bids have been rejected out of spite are Marlow and carrots. They have provided no evidence whatsoever and their posts clearly show they are carrying a huge grudge against the Board due to a past unrelated matter.
Why are you believing them over ten or so people you elected to act on your behalf, who all support the club passionately, who all give huge amounts of their time to further the best interests of the club and yet we are told are now at a time of great need have uniformly decided to act against the best interests of the club for no apparent reason.
Why would they do that. What reason is there to suggest that they have. Is it really credible to suggest that they would?
I'm not sure I'd go with "well said" personally...
Get your tin hat on TrueBlu, the usual suspects will be after you for being so positive.
The Trust board made it clear on September 12 that, in their opinion, continuing with the status quo was unsustainable and not a viable alternative. The next step was to decide what they thought was the best offer of external investment and this is what they revealed on Wednesday night.
The members can decide if they want to reject this offer of investment when they are asked to vote after the final proposals are presented. Until then, nothing has changed.That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Regarding the loan, no details of the terms have been revealed so I’m not in a position to comment.
Stuff me that was a lot to catch up on !!
I hope I win the euros tonight, I'll chuck my hat into the ring !!
The club will still own what they do now, I'll buy the training ground and give back, start up academy again, have a couple years of "fun" and then hand all back to the club before I spend it all.. how does that sound ?
Then all this talk can end
I’ve done the lottery as well HolmerBlue so perhaps we can form a consortium if we both win!
Wrong .
The onus is on the elected board to demonstrate a thorough and robust exploration of all available options when presenting to members . That is their job .
Not to make decisions on their preferred option, go into debt with them , and present them as the only option.
They are actually doing the Americans a disservice by butchering the process so badly .
If they are the best option of all the market options they deserve to be tabled as the preferred option .
The board failing to demonstrate this reslly hinders their chances by creating doubt and uncertainty of process
The onus on the board is to conduct a thorough and robust exploration of all available options. It is not to show all there workings.
I was uneasy about the 'no plan b' comment at the meeting so I can follow your view it was presented as the only option. Better presentation skills would surely have presented it as the best option because the status quo is currently option b.
One thing is for sure though. The pool of Trust members and Wycombe fans interested and n and able to sit on boards is being used up. Calling for more heads won't lead to anyone better coming in. Maybe your rejection would help you see that @marlowchair
So, question: does everyone have to vote on a certain day, or could they at least draw it out over a short period of time, to try and collect votes from anyone who misses the initial ballot? Again, not trying to advocate a position, it just seems a shame that not every legacy member will be heard from, when the future of the club is on the line. I can just imagine it being decided by one vote either way, when Old Bill Sproggins missed the bus to vote because he stubbed his toe on the side of his garden shed when hoeing his potatoes...
I don't have a vote, and I almost feel fortunate, as the only way I can imagine feeling good about it is if I could see into the future. Both options (as currently presented) could end up working, both could end up failing, or one could be better than the other. The worst scenario is that either will end in tears, as in both cases it would leave the fan base (erroneously) spending the rest of their lives wishing they had chosen the other door.
When a board has a demonstrable lack of transparency and willingness address glaring conflict of interest issues their “ workings l are all an intelligent membership have to make judgement on, because their word must be questioned on measurement against their actions and history .
They have kind of gone into debt with the option they are asking us to vote objectively on you do realise that right ....?
Forgive us for being cynical and wanting to see the “ workings “ that got us this position but frankly we’d be crazy not to !
Is it me or is that a trifle convoluted?
I didn’t say I believed the allegations. I asked what the morality of voting for the board’s option would be if said option had been foisted on us through sharp practice or incompetence yet to vote no meant one was voting for the collapse of the club. In such a case would I throw baby out with bath water? I am not sure I know what I would do or want to find out.
For the record I don’t think the board has entered into a coordinated conspiracy. I am concerned about the loan made by the favoured party and would like to know how much it is and what happens if we vote “no”. I think @marlowchair has raised some interesting questions at times and also has an axe to grind. I agree that if there were other serious bids rejected before reaching us that we would have heard more than we have about them.
I am hoping now for as much transparency as possible on the proposals and more opportunities to ask questions.
I did find this quite an interesting link.
Particularly the quote " Here's a "moneyball" formula: Buy a minor league baseball team; move it to a bigger market; convince the city (council) to finance a new ballpark with taxpayers' money; reap the profits".
So, maybe the plan is to convince the Council to build a multi purpose sports complex in a suitable location, perhaps close to Booker. Maybe they could include housing in the proposal. Maybe they might get another Sports franchise to share the Stadium. Actually, that said I don't dislike baseball. Maybe they might do a MK Dons and move us somewhere else to another part of the Country. Maybe they can turn things round and increase attendances. Maybe they will spend big and try and get us into the Championship. The truth is only Bill and Jim know.
Both came across as nice genuine guys but they are Businessmen and not some form of modern day philanthropists who have travelled over the water to allow you and I to watch football at our leisure. They will be quite entitled to seek out a business opportunity and use it to their advantage before taking a profit and selling on to the highest bidder.
Neither you or I can have any quibble when that happens.
For me the main board of WWFC are totally culpable for the mess that we are currently in. In any Business, big or small, budgetary forecasting is an essential part of what should be correct and proper financial management. We must have known back in May what our financial position would be for the coming 12 months so how do we get to November and the pot is empty. Current main board and ex main board Directors reading this should hang their head in shame.
@manboobs wrote asking "...what the morality of voting for the board’s option would be if said option had been foisted on us through sharp practice or incompetence yet to vote no meant one was voting for the collapse of the club. In such a case would I throw baby out with bath water?" and commented "I am not sure I know what I would do or want to find out."
I recall having the same internal conflict... a few years ago prior to the vote to give full control of the club to Steve Hayes. I am extremely disappointed now to find that the exact same situation has been allowed to recur and the likelihood is that ultimately we will again be presented with a vote that is pushed as a choice between voting to cede control of the club to another party or imminent liquidation.
I am more than happy to wait and see what formal proposal is put forward before coming to any firm opinion. There seems to be a very vociferous few on this board who have lost all respect for our board based, as far as I can see, as their opinions being stated as facts. Whatever the reality why are not @marlowchair, @NiceCarrots and like minded members not calling for a vote of confidence?
@Its_Cold_Up_North said:
For me the main board of WWFC are totally culpable for the mess that we are currently in. In any Business, big or small, budgetary forecasting is an essential part of what should be correct and proper financial management. We must have known back in May what our financial position would be for the coming 12 months so how do we get to November and the pot is empty. Current main board and ex main board Directors reading this should hang their head in shame.
My question is that IF this is so, and the board really are making a complete hash of things, or worse deceiving the trust in some way, (I have seen no evidence that this is the case) but if it is proven, is there not something in the constitution that allows a vote of no confidence in the current main board to oust them ?
It’s an easy one for me. I will apply the Piers Morgan test, substituting @marlowchair for Morgan (he seems similar to me).
@Uncle_T that's the gist isn't it. We've just rebuilt after the last disastrous ownership episode and now we're very close to signing over again. However, if it is truly unsustainable as we are, is there any other option?
@Malone and your solution is....?
@woodlands , that's why I ended with the question.
And i'll leave it very much to the experts on the thread to thrash it out in depth.
To me it's simple if we want to improve or remain league 1/2 we have to get outside investment. Alternatively without investment we will be heading back down to non league. Take your pick.
worrying times because I see an underlying consensus from those of us that don’t have an axe to grind.