Skip to content

Potential new owners

1356738

Comments

  • Yes I can do the maths. I am just not clear what happens in a scenario where a large percentage voted and overwhelmingly voted for the deal but the magic 75% of all was not reached. Is it really the case that we just shrug and carry on regardless in that scenario?

  • Goodness me there’s a lot of crystal ball gazing going on...artificial pitch at Adams Park (not permitted in the FL incidentally), promotion followed by relegation...,but the only certainty is that the Trust board has made it clear that we cannot survive under our present circumstances. Marlowchair’s view that we can is not supported by any of the available facts. We all recognise that the club could be more efficient and effective in many areas, but is that going to bridge a gap of £600k per year?
    A club owned by its own supporters is a lovely, romantic idea but in practical terms it has severe limitations. The best we can hope for is to tread water until the cash runs out. The threat of that happening is far more worrying than being taken over by an organisation that we know little about.
    If we’re ambitious and want to make progress rather than going in the opposite direction, surely outside investment is the only solution as long as we put the right safeguards in place.
    I’m not saying that the guys addressing the meeting tonight are necessarily the right people to have onboard, but I am saying that we need to do something. Doing nothing can only lead to failure.

  • "A club owned by its own supporters is a lovely, romantic idea but in practical terms it has severe limitations. The best we can hope for is to tread water until the cash runs out. The threat of that happening is far more worrying than being taken over by an organisation that we know little about."

    The trouble is, that at the last meeting a report was quoted which stated that with a couple of exceptions ALL football league clubs are struggling financially, with no distinction between those that are fan owned and those that rely on outside investment.

    Why would Wycombe be any different to every other club in the league?

  • At many other clubs where finances are stretched, the directors put their hands in their own pockets to bail them out. That has happened in the past at Wycombe, but it’s not an option under our current set up.

  • I cannot make the meeting but I suspect They will have an answer ready for 'why invest' which we may or may not believe...so have many others ready for 'em! also fear that cutting wages and selling more crisps might not be tenable moving forwards depressing as that is. Given their track record I think we can safely assume if they do take over marlow's dead wood will be removed. They are going to say they respect the traditions of the club and want to take it where it deserves to be (again believe or not!) and have no interest in running the club down. They will be charming as they are yanks and it's their business to be. We all know the drill...the thing is do we take the risk? That is the question now...

  • We aren’t .

    Available facts , something glasshalffull is keen to use as a term , are that all but 2 or 3 clubs are unsustainable regardless of ownership model , according to our own board on 12th September .

    So surely under their logic we are better off keeping in keeping on doing our best proudly ?

    Available facts also tell us that glasshalffull took exactly the same line and blind support for selling to Steve Hayes , correct ?

    Another strong reason to be cautious

  • edited November 2018

    @glasshalffull - Your mate Sharky dipped his hand in his pocket and then wanted it all back. That did us a lot of good and nearly finished the club off!

  • There are risks associated with remaining supporter owned and with moving to a model where rich individuals write off the losses. Neither perfect, but at some point Trust members will decide which poses the greatest threat to the future of the club, and which gives the greatest chance of a successful future.

    It's an incredibly difficult decision for Legacy Members which will be impacted greatly by what is said tonight.

  • Steve Hayes was the only available option when the old board reached the same conclusion that the current board has reached now, ie that outside investment was the only way forward. Safeguards were put in place when he became the owner and those safeguards enabled the club to survive when he left.

  • @peterparrotface I agree completely.

  • I think some credit should go to Steve Hayes as well - from the outside looking in he could have threatened the survival further had he taken a different attitude?

  • The pluses are that this company seem to be only interested in turning us around for sale...the minus is who then comes in when they've done it. I'm not sure how representative the gasroom is of legacy members in general. It may all come down, as glasshalffull would have it the safeguards we can put in place.

  • Agree with both posts @peterparrotface has made this morning.

    @mooneyman , the lessons of the Hayes era were not quite as you describe them. Loans don't finish off organisations unless their immediate repayment is demanded. In hayes case they were not. What did nearly finish the club off was that the club had got used to spending more than it was earning with Hayes cash making up the difference. When Hayes suddenly didn't want/couldn't fund the difference and hence the gap between income and expenditure was no longer bridged by hayes making up the difference, it was very hard to quickly reduce expenditure to meet income.

    That potentially is a lesson in any future external ownership. Spending more than you earn is fine as long as an owner is happy to fund the difference. but what happens if he suddenly stops.

  • @mooneyman said:
    @glasshalffull - Your mate Sharky dipped his hand in his pocket and then wanted it all back. That did us a lot of good and nearly finished the club off!

    That’s a very flippant and shallow way of looking at it.
    I think Peter parrot face is much closer to the truth.

  • Whatever happens I don't think it can be underestimated how much the club owes to the numerous fans who have worked so hard to keep the club going through the Trust, often criticised and rarely praised.

    I saw this on the Trust website the other day, and while maybe it has run its course, I thought it was a good summary of what is at stake and what's been achieved.

    Why the Trust Matters

    "Trust ownership has given the Club a level of stability that had been lacking previously. The Trust passionately believes in the preservation of the heritage and history of our Club and seeks to share it with the wider community. The Trust is a volunteer led, democratic organisation which seeks to foster a real sense of ownership amongst the Club’s supporters. The Trust is an ever-changing entity, not constrained by the whims of individual Directors or owners.
    All Trust members are equal and anyone of them can be elected or co-opted onto the Trust Board and, from there, onto the Club Board. The Trust’s annual subscription of £10 per annum makes Trust membership accessible to all."

  • @peterparrotface said:
    I think some credit should go to Steve Hayes as well - from the outside looking in he could have threatened the survival further had he taken a different attitude?

    Not at all . He went into severe financial stress didn’t he ? He could have called the club debt and seen us die, getting nothing ..,

    Or be “nice” and not call the debt and let others including fans donating time and money , clean up mess over time and take his full dues claim in cash over a few years . Charitable eh?

  • If he had let the club go completely bust he never would have got his money. The payment terms suited him too because it meant he might actually see the debt repaid instead.

  • @marlowchair said:

    @peterparrotface said:
    I think some credit should go to Steve Hayes as well - from the outside looking in he could have threatened the survival further had he taken a different attitude?

    Not at all . He went into severe financial stress didn’t he ? He could have called the club debt and seen us die, getting nothing ..,

    Or be “nice” and not call the debt and let others including fans donating time and money , clean up mess over time and take his full dues claim in cash over a few years . Charitable eh?

    So he could have killed the club and didn't?

  • @glasshalffull said:
    Steve Hayes was the only available option... Safeguards were put in place when he became the owner and those safeguards enabled the club to survive when he left.

    I'm not sure this is exactly reassuring! Can't disagree that we did survive, but the scenario if we had got relegated may have been very different, so I'm not quite as convinced as you that the safeguards were robust enough. I'm sure you are astute enough to realise that there are many people, several who post on here, who remain scarred by the way we were sold last time and see the perpetrators of that deed still pulling the strings in the background.

    But @peterparrotface has got it absolutely spot on. We have appeared to reach a crossroads where one way leads to the unknown and risks of new majority ownership and the other leads to a probable drop down to a level of the pyramid where we can afford to run the club and remain supporter owned.

    I think our problem is however that the 75% of all members required is unachievable, which basically means that we are likely to be stuck with the latter option, regardless of how good any offers are, unless something changes.

  • Fan ownership is totally possible, you only have to look to the Germans to see how well it can work. If we do sell and we find ourselves nearly bankrupt, as pointed out that few clubs make money, will the fans be asked again for a bail out? After seeing others make a profit from our donations, I can't see fans doing that again. The decision made needs to be final, either sell or stay fan owned, not every couple of years bring it up again.

  • @peterparrotface said:
    So he could have killed the club and didn't?

    Presumably. But it wouldn't have been in his interests to do so.

  • @chairgirl said:
    Fan ownership is totally possible, you only have to look to the Germans to see how well it can work. If we do sell and we find ourselves nearly bankrupt, as pointed out that few clubs make money, will the fans be asked again for a bail out? After seeing others make a profit from our donations, I can't see fans doing that again. The decision made needs to be final, either sell or stay fan owned, not every couple of years bring it up again.

    I’m not sure about the lower leagues in Germany but there are massive amounts of money swishing around in the top division, most of it provided by wealthy businessmen or through massive sponsorship deals.
    To whom do you refer when you say that others made a profit from our donations? I don’t agree that the decision needs to be final, circumstances change and you have to remain adaptable.

  • The profit will be made once the club is sold on, which no doubt will happen.

  • If you’ll forgive me, I think you’re leaping to a few conclusions there.

  • @marlowchair said:

    @peterparrotface said:
    I think some credit should go to Steve Hayes as well - from the outside looking in he could have threatened the survival further had he taken a different attitude?

    Not at all . He went into severe financial stress didn’t he ? He could have called the club debt and seen us die, getting nothing ..,

    Or be “nice” and not call the debt and let others including fans donating time and money , clean up mess over time and take his full dues claim in cash over a few years . Charitable eh?

    I think he did write off a substantial portion of the debts. I might be wrong though.

  • edited November 2018

    @Chris said:

    @marlowchair said:

    @peterparrotface said:
    I think some credit should go to Steve Hayes as well - from the outside looking in he could have threatened the survival further had he taken a different attitude?

    Not at all . He went into severe financial stress didn’t he ? He could have called the club debt and seen us die, getting nothing ..,

    Or be “nice” and not call the debt and let others including fans donating time and money , clean up mess over time and take his full dues claim in cash over a few years . Charitable eh?

    I think he did write off a substantial portion of the debts. I might be wrong though.

    He agreed to limit his amount owed so that the debt would be largely what it was when he took over. Some see this as a great gesture. Others see it as agreeing a deal that was just about possible with sell ons and ensuring he got a lot of money back out of a business he left on its knees. All after months of neglect as he concentrated on selling Wasps first.

    No need to re-referee other than to ask how much of this was by safeguard rather than by agreement after the fact and what clause could we possibly suggest that wouldn't be watered down later if we needed the money. On this point i find it very difficult to see the ground as totally separate as its an asset that would come in to play if needed.

  • @DevC said:
    Agree with both posts @peterparrotface has made this morning.

    @mooneyman , the lessons of the Hayes era were not quite as you describe them. Loans don't finish off organisations unless their immediate repayment is demanded. In hayes case they were not. What did nearly finish the club off was that the club had got used to spending more than it was earning with Hayes cash making up the difference. When Hayes suddenly didn't want/couldn't fund the difference and hence the gap between income and expenditure was no longer bridged by hayes making up the difference, it was very hard to quickly reduce expenditure to meet income.

    That potentially is a lesson in any future external ownership. Spending more than you earn is fine as long as an owner is happy to fund the difference. but what happens if he suddenly stops.

    With respect that is a load of bollocks.

    Hayes knew the club did not have the money to repay his loan/investment when he walked out. He could have put the club into receivership, but had he done so he would have lost most of his own money. As a financially astute chancer, he realised that the only way he could get ALL his money back was to burden the club with a longstanding debt whereunder he could recover a fixed sum each year.

    It needs to be remembered that he was essentially a rugby supporter.

  • I don't think that is correct. Was he not a Chelsea fan who became involved with Wasps through his friendship with Terry Evans?

  • Personally if a club is Fan owned. Then as a part owner. The Fan should keep putting there hand in there pocket and giving money just like a majority owner. To expect to be a co owner as a fan and pay no money is certainly not part of any good business model

  • As a recent (20 years) resident and (10 year) fan...what was the set-up before Hayes?
    (I was watching football and not taking much notice of the ownership in the early days)
    Was the club fan owned before the egg-chasers appeared?
    I think @TrueBlu has a point...fan ownership is a strange beast. I cannot afford to bankroll the club even if Mrs W would let me and I would imagine even IF everyone on the Gasroom could and did, how many of us opinionated blowhards are there and how much realistically would we be able to put in? The vast majority of fans would not be able to or perhaps want to. So however trimmed the fat is and however many volunteers we have or however low we are willing to go, I'm not sure 'fan ownership' is ever going to be truly viable long-term.

Sign In or Register to comment.