@Wendoverman said:
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.
From Wikipedia:
The following season (01/02) promised much but results tailed off and the season after that was one of struggle.
Sanchez was eventually sacked in September 2003 and his successor Tony Adams failed to save the club from suffering only its second ever relegation.
At the time the Wanderers were English football's last members' club but at an EGM in July 2004 the members voted by a narrow margin to restructure the club as a Public Limited Company.
Chairman Ivor Beeks, Director Brian Kane and sponsor Steve Hayes all subsequently invested in the club, with an approximate total value of £750,000.
@moneyman. With respect you have missed the point.
Businesses don't fail because of historic loans (unless those loans need immediate repayment). They fail because of lack of cash to pay the next months bills. The problem Hayes left was not the historic loans (£4m of which - all that were incurred during his sole ownership - he wrote off either to keep his word or because he had no choice or something inbetween). The problem Hayes left were contracts and practises that meant that more money was required monthly to pay the bills that month than was coming in through the door. That is fine when there is an owner willing to write a cheque to fund the difference, it is a disaster when there is no one prepared to do so.
I think he also left the finances of the club in some ways intertwined with the finances of Wasps (perhaps through poor record keeping) which meant it was an hard job for the Trust to do the very basics and identify our financial position. I’m not sure of the specifics but I remember that being an issue at the time.
Hayes didn't suddenly stop funding the club as he arguably wasn't funding it at all. A loan is not an investment. No doubt he did put some money in at times. Its also fairly straightforward to believe that bank lending becomes much more difficult when you have large existing debt which reduces your assets to debt ratio.
@glasshalffull said:
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.
Ah, now, is it so, that the current "potential investor" is the ONLY one, or the only one put forward by the current board. A little birdie tells me that one "possible" avenue hasn't even been asked, possibly due to personality clashes?
If that is the case, then that raises a serious furrow on my brow and no doubt would raise more than that with many others, as to the reasons why, as surely regardless of anything else, this is about what is best for the long term future of WWFC?
@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?
Well not really.
If he insisted on taking everything he put in, he'd have bankrupted us and not got as much as he did.
So it wasn't just some sort of kind gesture alone.
It shouldn't be forgotten the summer we got promoted with his infamous ultimatum, that absolutely derailed the season before it started, and gave us no option.
@glasshalffull said:
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.
Let's hope we don't have only one available option next time out!
The irony is that it was the fact we owed Hayes so much money that kept us afloat, as instead of insisting on it back in one go - which would have ruined us, he had to set it to a level we could realistically pay back over years.
When anyone gets a chance, can they post a little summary? I am stuck at work in the US of A. Uncle Sam does not have the requisite appreciation for the blue quarters.
I'm very concerned that people listening to that might buy the charm offensive and vote in favour of a future proposal based on nice words and vague promises alone.
Perhaps these guys are genuine, decent chaps who really do want be involved for 'fun' and see a profit as a bonus. Equally, they could be manipulative, dishonest speculators looking to bleed the club for everything they can get. I really don't know. But I am sure that in either case, they would seek to present themselves as friendly, approachable people just as we saw this evening.
Really important to bear in mind that a dishonest, unscrupulous buyer will not come in with a loudspeaker and announce themselves to be bad owners. They will come in and do a Q+A and proclaim to be good guys.
Based on that view of the world, why on earth would you possibly have wanted to even attend, Glen?
Your post reminds me of that part in the Life of Brian, when trying to get rid of his unwanted followers, one of them says: “Only the true Messiah denies his divinity”, to which Brian replies: “Well what chance does that give me...?”
@LeedsBlue said:
Based on that view of the world, why on earth would you possibly have wanted to even attend, Glen?
Your post reminds me of that part in the Life of Brian, when trying to get rid of his unwanted followers, one of them says: “Only the true Messiah denies his divinity”, to which Brian replies: “Well what chance does that give me...?”
Do you think we learnt anything from tonight? You could have lined up ten potential buyers tonight, five of them good and five bad. Each one would have said exactly the same things we heard tonight and been indistinguishable from one another.
I’ll be judging the proposal on the business plan and legal guarantees provided protect the club, not tonight’s pointless charm offensive.
These guys are no mugs, so whatever their true motives you would be surprised if they didn't come across as very charming. Maybe I was being naïve in expecting more substance tonight, but did we really learn very much at all? Precious little I felt.
However, there were some statements that I was not expecting. Feel free to point out if I misheard any of these.
Firstly they will not be putting in enough funds to clear the existing Trust debts to S.Kane and The Chairboys Funders.
Secondly, they are really only going to underwrite the five year plan plus a bit of extra for some additional personnel. So probably something like £3M - £5M maximum.
Thirdly, their plan would seem to be to use their experience of marketing etc to grow the crowds from 4000-5000 to 7000-8000.
Finally, the Trust are at least working on adding some safeguards into the deal - such as re-introducing the enshrined rights.
You can do all the marketing you like, but you'll never get 7000-8000 on a regular basis unless you charge no more than £10 a ticket or we get promoted.
@whizz referring to your first point. They are investing for equity, not to pay down existing loans. Your point that the funds they will put in aren't sufficient to cover repayment of loans is misleading. It's not what their investment would be for.
What's this 5 year plan that was spoken of? Was it harking back to the plan put together when the share scheme was launched or is this a new 5 year plan?
I do have a niggling concern that if these guys take a majority shareholding they can in theory sell the club on to anyone.
I can understand them wanting a majority stake for control in return for their investment. But I'd feel much more comfortable if any future sale had to be ratified by legacy members (Perhaps a happy medium would be 75% of the vote rather than 75% of total LMs). This was a point touched on by Phil Catchpole tonight.
Until we know the numbers in terms of investment and stake % no-one can really make an informed decision.
The 75% yes vote requirement will certainly need a lot of active recruitment and awareness campaigning so it was good to hear a project group is/was being put together for that. I absolutely agree that we ideally want all legacy members exercising their vote and not having the future of our club potentially decided by blissful ignorance or apathy.
@DJWYC14
Not sure how my first point is misleading? Trevor specifically said their investment wasn't to repay existing debt. It could have been but isn't, what's misleading?
They also stated they had seen the five year plan so there must be one. Any five year plan, to be effective, must be a rolling plan. What would be the point in looking at the five year plan for the last five years and agreeing to underwrite that!
I feel the comment is misleading because you've said they aren't putting in enough funds to clear the debt. Technically not necessarily true, it's just now how they are allocating their investment.
I'm confident they would be investing enough to cover debts but they want to spend their money in other areas. Sorry if it appears pedantic but I think it's an important distinction.
As is mine. Without the Trust clearing these debts then if and when these investors disappear the Trust still has to make the repayments.
Why don't they put in the additional monies to clear these debts,as well? I fully appreciate its their choice but don't try and pretend these debts will somehow disappear, because they won't.
Comments
From Wikipedia:
The following season (01/02) promised much but results tailed off and the season after that was one of struggle.
Sanchez was eventually sacked in September 2003 and his successor Tony Adams failed to save the club from suffering only its second ever relegation.
At the time the Wanderers were English football's last members' club but at an EGM in July 2004 the members voted by a narrow margin to restructure the club as a Public Limited Company.
Chairman Ivor Beeks, Director Brian Kane and sponsor Steve Hayes all subsequently invested in the club, with an approximate total value of £750,000.
That’s correct.
@moneyman. With respect you have missed the point.
Businesses don't fail because of historic loans (unless those loans need immediate repayment). They fail because of lack of cash to pay the next months bills. The problem Hayes left was not the historic loans (£4m of which - all that were incurred during his sole ownership - he wrote off either to keep his word or because he had no choice or something inbetween). The problem Hayes left were contracts and practises that meant that more money was required monthly to pay the bills that month than was coming in through the door. That is fine when there is an owner willing to write a cheque to fund the difference, it is a disaster when there is no one prepared to do so.
I think he also left the finances of the club in some ways intertwined with the finances of Wasps (perhaps through poor record keeping) which meant it was an hard job for the Trust to do the very basics and identify our financial position. I’m not sure of the specifics but I remember that being an issue at the time.
thanks @OxfordBlue gawd...even in 2004 £750,000 seems a paltry amount.
Hayes didn't suddenly stop funding the club as he arguably wasn't funding it at all. A loan is not an investment. No doubt he did put some money in at times. Its also fairly straightforward to believe that bank lending becomes much more difficult when you have large existing debt which reduces your assets to debt ratio.
It does, particularly as compared to fan generated cash, gate receipts etc.
Ah, now, is it so, that the current "potential investor" is the ONLY one, or the only one put forward by the current board. A little birdie tells me that one "possible" avenue hasn't even been asked, possibly due to personality clashes?
If that is the case, then that raises a serious furrow on my brow and no doubt would raise more than that with many others, as to the reasons why, as surely regardless of anything else, this is about what is best for the long term future of WWFC?
Well not really.
If he insisted on taking everything he put in, he'd have bankrupted us and not got as much as he did.
So it wasn't just some sort of kind gesture alone.
It shouldn't be forgotten the summer we got promoted with his infamous ultimatum, that absolutely derailed the season before it started, and gave us no option.
Let's hope we don't have only one available option next time out!
The irony is that it was the fact we owed Hayes so much money that kept us afloat, as instead of insisting on it back in one go - which would have ruined us, he had to set it to a level we could realistically pay back over years.
Is it just me or cananyone get the Facebook live stream to work?
I’m hoping for it to appear just like magic.
Love ‘em already!
Very impressive so far, keep up the questions as we got a great q and a based on that but to start with very impressive indeed.
Exciting times...spread betting on the vote I’d be a buyer in the low 80s of votes cast based on that
I'm waiting for Richie's take on it before I make my mind up.
When anyone gets a chance, can they post a little summary? I am stuck at work in the US of A. Uncle Sam does not have the requisite appreciation for the blue quarters.
So should I assume they're doing well against the fan power ranged against them?
I'm very concerned that people listening to that might buy the charm offensive and vote in favour of a future proposal based on nice words and vague promises alone.
Perhaps these guys are genuine, decent chaps who really do want be involved for 'fun' and see a profit as a bonus. Equally, they could be manipulative, dishonest speculators looking to bleed the club for everything they can get. I really don't know. But I am sure that in either case, they would seek to present themselves as friendly, approachable people just as we saw this evening.
Really important to bear in mind that a dishonest, unscrupulous buyer will not come in with a loudspeaker and announce themselves to be bad owners. They will come in and do a Q+A and proclaim to be good guys.
Fair point, although I can’t say I ever warmed to Steve Hayes
Based on that view of the world, why on earth would you possibly have wanted to even attend, Glen?
Your post reminds me of that part in the Life of Brian, when trying to get rid of his unwanted followers, one of them says: “Only the true Messiah denies his divinity”, to which Brian replies: “Well what chance does that give me...?”
Do you think we learnt anything from tonight? You could have lined up ten potential buyers tonight, five of them good and five bad. Each one would have said exactly the same things we heard tonight and been indistinguishable from one another.
I’ll be judging the proposal on the business plan and legal guarantees provided protect the club, not tonight’s pointless charm offensive.
@Shev recording available on Facebook
These guys are no mugs, so whatever their true motives you would be surprised if they didn't come across as very charming. Maybe I was being naïve in expecting more substance tonight, but did we really learn very much at all? Precious little I felt.
However, there were some statements that I was not expecting. Feel free to point out if I misheard any of these.
Firstly they will not be putting in enough funds to clear the existing Trust debts to S.Kane and The Chairboys Funders.
Secondly, they are really only going to underwrite the five year plan plus a bit of extra for some additional personnel. So probably something like £3M - £5M maximum.
Thirdly, their plan would seem to be to use their experience of marketing etc to grow the crowds from 4000-5000 to 7000-8000.
Finally, the Trust are at least working on adding some safeguards into the deal - such as re-introducing the enshrined rights.
Cheers @Onlooker!
You can do all the marketing you like, but you'll never get 7000-8000 on a regular basis unless you charge no more than £10 a ticket or we get promoted.
@whizz referring to your first point. They are investing for equity, not to pay down existing loans. Your point that the funds they will put in aren't sufficient to cover repayment of loans is misleading. It's not what their investment would be for.
What's this 5 year plan that was spoken of? Was it harking back to the plan put together when the share scheme was launched or is this a new 5 year plan?
I do have a niggling concern that if these guys take a majority shareholding they can in theory sell the club on to anyone.
I can understand them wanting a majority stake for control in return for their investment. But I'd feel much more comfortable if any future sale had to be ratified by legacy members (Perhaps a happy medium would be 75% of the vote rather than 75% of total LMs). This was a point touched on by Phil Catchpole tonight.
Until we know the numbers in terms of investment and stake % no-one can really make an informed decision.
The 75% yes vote requirement will certainly need a lot of active recruitment and awareness campaigning so it was good to hear a project group is/was being put together for that. I absolutely agree that we ideally want all legacy members exercising their vote and not having the future of our club potentially decided by blissful ignorance or apathy.
@DJWYC14
Not sure how my first point is misleading? Trevor specifically said their investment wasn't to repay existing debt. It could have been but isn't, what's misleading?
They also stated they had seen the five year plan so there must be one. Any five year plan, to be effective, must be a rolling plan. What would be the point in looking at the five year plan for the last five years and agreeing to underwrite that!
I feel the comment is misleading because you've said they aren't putting in enough funds to clear the debt. Technically not necessarily true, it's just now how they are allocating their investment.
I'm confident they would be investing enough to cover debts but they want to spend their money in other areas. Sorry if it appears pedantic but I think it's an important distinction.
As is mine. Without the Trust clearing these debts then if and when these investors disappear the Trust still has to make the repayments.
Why don't they put in the additional monies to clear these debts,as well? I fully appreciate its their choice but don't try and pretend these debts will somehow disappear, because they won't.