No you are spot on . It’s a tiny amount to anyone who claims to have the means and intention to underwrite us for 5 years and would certainly improve the businesses ability to evolve .
The other big issue was the fact our board , in their wisdom , have already gone into debt with these two potential owners .
They are railroading us by doing this .
“Vote yes , or....well, the rolling credit facility we have agreed with them to pop £35k - £85k into our bank before pay day between now and February ( including last pay days loan) is going to be due .... right away , which we can’t pay , soooo we’re in trouble .... vote yes !”
Marlow makes an important part re the entering into a loan arrangement with the two Americans before any deal is agreed. It does rather give them the whip hand here - I can't see any scenario where it makes sense to willingly become beholden to people you're negotiating a sale to before you've obtained permission of the shareholders to effect said sale. Unless, of course, you want to be able to threaten legacy members with an imminent bankruptcy unless they agree to the sale on the Americans' terms.
I also agree with others that our terms for the sale seem somewhat limp. At a minimum I'd expect a guarantee to take on and wipe existing debt. I'd also be looking for a generous gift from these two - a commitment to either buying back the training ground or creating a new one AND reopening the academy seem realistic asks to me. I'd also want some more specifics from them about their new five-year plan (are they being advised by Andrew Howard?!), how they would structure the board and how many existing members would remain on it, and what restrictions they will agree to on disposing of the club when the time comes.
Also worrying that the intention > @johnthehair said:
Having listened to the US guys last night and also read veiws on the Gasroom with interest not once has anyone offered any alternative to moving our club forward.
What does moving forward look like to you? Maybe one day getting the Championship for a season or two? Is that worth the enormous risk of giving up our controlling share in the club?
At this stage I feel I’d rather remain under trust ownership, live within our means, and accept that might mean finding our level in league 2 or the Conference.
I thought Matt Cecil did very well last night incidentally. Asked a lot of questions that would have been on most of our lists. Good to have someone in that role that is also a fan, and I think that comes across well.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
Maybe the existing debtors are bothered about being paid off yet? It was mentioned last night that they had been part of discussions.
That would only raise more questions
Will they leave their money in the club but charge interest ?
Will they leave the loans in interest free ?
How is it a good deal for private businessmen to come in as major shareholders and have “fun” on
Free or low interest loans that were provided to the club through goodwill in times of need?
It’s also a slap in the face for any and all player fund contributors (500 club ) , donars, chairboy funders, share scheme contributers etc etc .
It seems these guys are happy to continue having their fun whilst volunteers continue to donate thousands pounds worth of labour hours annually , whilst sitting pretty as majority owners ...
I’m sorry but the incredibly volunteer ethic and contribution at our club is only not exploitive whilst we own the club as majority shares. Once these guys take it on they must pay down all debt and invest adequate capital on top to maintain abd resource our club and facilities as part of a fair and reasonable buy price.
If they don’t and still expect now minor shareholding volunteers to keep up their hours and working, it’s exploitive And not how you treat a partner .
@eric_plant said:
I thought Matt Cecil did very well last night incidentally. Asked a lot of questions that would have been on most of our lists. Good to have someone in that role that is also a fan, and I think that comes across well.
I very much agree with this. I wasn't expecting the questions to be so direct, especially so quickly into the meeting.
Sorry but I’m angry. When you see something being planned and unfolding that will have dire consequences for the club you love ,and highlight it , and it still happens in slow motion like an impending train wreck , it makes you angry
Sorry still not buying it. You need to understand the spin that was put on it back then against the spin put on it now. Why, if we were being run so well back then had the board decided years ago (as you have previously stated) that it was not possible to run the club sustainably under the fan owned structure?
And yet again you make incorrect comments. “... will have dire consequences.” It MIGHT have dire consequences but then again it might not. Unless you can see into the future you can’t possibly know.
But then you do seem (to me) to use a certain degree of fantasy to support your position, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
I was at the meeting last night and I have read through this thread this morning.
My feeling, last night, was that Bill and Jim seem like a nice couple of guys.
They have vast experience (verifiable online) in American minor league baseball where the customer experience is the important thing. Having lived over there (briefly) I know that minor league baseball has no promotion/relegation and a team can have a losing/mediocre season but can still attract large audiences if the fan experience is fun and entertaining.
They also have some experience in English Football - 7 years with Derby County (also verifiable online). They say that this 'taste' was fun and they want to do it again.
Anyone worrying about their motives should research what they did in Baseball and at Derby. The best predictor of future performance is past performance.
Yes, it would put them in a position where they are in control of who they sell on to when the time comes for them to exit. I am sure they will agree to involve Founder Shareholders when the time comes but I doubt if they would agree to a veto. It did sound as if they are planning to stick around for longer than the 7 years they did with Derby.
One thing I found worrying was some of the language used when talking about alternatives: "There is no plan B"; "We'll be staring down the barrel...". I remember going to a meeting (2004, i think) and being told almost exactly the same thing and we all know how that ended. There will be some people who, on hearing that sort of rhetoric, will automatically put defenses up.
At the end of the day, though, I see the 75% requirement for the vote as a very high hurdle. The Trust will need to work very hard to get the necessary turnout.
I do have a vote and I will use it. I haven’t decided which way.
I cringed at the no Plan B stuff too. I suppose having Plan A next to you is a bit intimidating and arranging this meeting will have changed the views of other investors. Meeting 'the guys' hasn't really answered any of the key points any Legacy member would like an answer too.
I don't buy the fear factor tried by the outgoing finance person and it was tried again yesterday. I have had enough of vote pitches being about fear over substance. We are better than that.
One poster seems to be forcing his own ideas as the facts but we don't know anything about the actual deal on the table. Hopefully that will be presented two along with the five year plan discussed so much last night as the basis for the investment.
Interesting to hear William Luby and James Collis are making this deal as individual investors rather than through their company. I believe investments in loss-making companies are tax deductible - do any accountants/gas roomers know if this is true?
I assume the short term loan until the end of the season is their personal money too, quite a departure from the 4 options presented at the September 12th meeting to hear there isn't a Plan B and a short term loan is already in place with their preferred (only) bidder. It would be useful to know whether this was this put in place before September 12th and whether it is conditional on us agreeing to their majority bid.
Last night Trevor Stroud has finally admitted in a public forum, several years and AGMs later, that he does work as a consultant for Beechdean. He was at pains to point out he was not an employee of Andrew Howard.
Given Mr Howard attended lunch with the Americans in Skirmett earlier in the day it would appear he is still driving negotiations.
Mr Stroud said he would be seeking outside advice to make sure things are done properly. We need an independent company to monitor the voting given the above. And any attempts to tamper with the hurdle rate would be counter-productive.
However nice William, James and Steve are, who do they sell it to?
@peterparrotface I take your point but supporting a football club for the vast majority is very often not a lot of fun a lot of the time but we still do it!! I can see the attraction for very rich men to look at a club (even one as humble as our good selves) and think we can turn this around and do something exciting here and it will be a great experience. I might even think it if I had a great aunt who left me 40 million or so quid. The cynic in me suspects everything and everyone but as as @bookertease points out, we cannot see into the future so I am like @AlanB I'm not sure where I will vote yet. More details required. A five year commitment is a good thing with caveats and safeguards, but what sort of safeguards we would actually be able to demand or enforce is something else. Not getting rid of debt - even if the loanees are possibly being generous about it - worries me. Having said all that I do not envy anyone who tries to run a football club no matter what you achieve you're only as good as your last crisp delivery!
Thanks @NiceCarrots. A helpful post. Not quite sure I understand what you mean by "any attempts to tamper with the hurdle rate would be counter-productive," but a couple of good questions in there.
@Wendoverman said: @peterparrotface I take your point but supporting a football club for the vast majority is very often not a lot of fun a lot of the time but we still do it!! I can see the attraction for very rich men to look at a club (even one as humble as our good selves) and think we can turn this around and do something exciting here and it will be a great experience. I might even think it if I had a great aunt who left me 40 million or so quid. The cynic in me suspects everything and everyone but as as @bookertease points out, we cannot see into the future so I am like @AlanB I'm not sure where I will vote yet. More details required. A five year commitment is a good thing with caveats and safeguards, but what sort of safeguards we would actually be able to demand or enforce is something else. Not getting rid of debt - even if the loanees are possibly being generous about it - worries me. Having said all that I do not envy anyone who tries to run a football club no matter what you achieve you're only as good as your last crisp delivery!
Yeah I would just like to ask them the question and see what they say.
I guess they would sell up and we cross our fingers again for another set of benevolent owners, which to be fair is the cycle most clubs find themselves in.
@drcongo said:
Did anyone ask why the journey can only be fun if they own a majority stake?
I totally understand why they want a majority stake.
Imagine if you won the lottery, and decided to throw a load of money at Wycombe. You'd probably want to have the final say on where and how that money is spent.
Now imagine you didn't win that money, you earned it. You'd almost certainly want the final say wouldn't you?
Ignoring Nicecarrots and his alter ego marlowchair, who have both made their views known ad nauseum, I think most people have taken the perfectly reasonable view that more details are required before a decision of such magnitude can be taken. I understand the concerns expressed by posters with no axe to grind, but I am still more worried about continuing as we are having been warned in no uncertain terms that this option can only lead to financial meltdown.
@drcongo That's the question on my mind also. I would have thought they could get "fun" from their proposed involvement by becoming minority shareholders.
I know there are a lot of details of the deal not yet agreed or communicated, but, on the basis of what has been communicated thus far, I personally don't think that the offer apparently being tabled is enough to warrant handing over majority ownership of the club.
Whilst I accept that we all invest a lot of time, money and emotion into supporting this club and I well remember the Steve Hayes days. However, I do not understand the need of some people to have a say over who the potential investors eventually sell on to.
We all invest time, money and emotion into our houses, do we ask for a say over future buyers ?
When we get the detail, I will be considering whether it is the right deal for WWFC now and the future, not at what will the next buyers do
@JohnnyAllAlone When I sell my house I do it with absolutely no desire to go back and watch it for a few hours 50+ times a year until I die, or in the hope that my children and many other unrelated supporters of my house will be able to do the same.
The most worrying thing to me would be if there really was no plan B, because the vote is never going to pass the 75% threshold and everyone knows it. In reality they must have a plan for when the vote is a majority yes but not 75%, surely?
Comments
No you are spot on . It’s a tiny amount to anyone who claims to have the means and intention to underwrite us for 5 years and would certainly improve the businesses ability to evolve .
The other big issue was the fact our board , in their wisdom , have already gone into debt with these two potential owners .
They are railroading us by doing this .
“Vote yes , or....well, the rolling credit facility we have agreed with them to pop £35k - £85k into our bank before pay day between now and February ( including last pay days loan) is going to be due .... right away , which we can’t pay , soooo we’re in trouble .... vote yes !”
Shocking state of affairs
Sorry @marlowchair but you used the word judas.
I do agree with your point about the existing debt
Marlow makes an important part re the entering into a loan arrangement with the two Americans before any deal is agreed. It does rather give them the whip hand here - I can't see any scenario where it makes sense to willingly become beholden to people you're negotiating a sale to before you've obtained permission of the shareholders to effect said sale. Unless, of course, you want to be able to threaten legacy members with an imminent bankruptcy unless they agree to the sale on the Americans' terms.
I also agree with others that our terms for the sale seem somewhat limp. At a minimum I'd expect a guarantee to take on and wipe existing debt. I'd also be looking for a generous gift from these two - a commitment to either buying back the training ground or creating a new one AND reopening the academy seem realistic asks to me. I'd also want some more specifics from them about their new five-year plan (are they being advised by Andrew Howard?!), how they would structure the board and how many existing members would remain on it, and what restrictions they will agree to on disposing of the club when the time comes.
Also worrying that the intention > @johnthehair said:
What does moving forward look like to you? Maybe one day getting the Championship for a season or two? Is that worth the enormous risk of giving up our controlling share in the club?
At this stage I feel I’d rather remain under trust ownership, live within our means, and accept that might mean finding our level in league 2 or the Conference.
Maybe the existing debtors are bothered about being paid off yet? It was mentioned last night that they had been part of discussions.
re Glenactico should have put "continuing as a football club" instead of moving forward.
Who picks up the losses year on year?
I thought Matt Cecil did very well last night incidentally. Asked a lot of questions that would have been on most of our lists. Good to have someone in that role that is also a fan, and I think that comes across well.
That would only raise more questions
Will they leave their money in the club but charge interest ?
Will they leave the loans in interest free ?
How is it a good deal for private businessmen to come in as major shareholders and have “fun” on
Free or low interest loans that were provided to the club through goodwill in times of need?
It’s also a slap in the face for any and all player fund contributors (500 club ) , donars, chairboy funders, share scheme contributers etc etc .
It seems these guys are happy to continue having their fun whilst volunteers continue to donate thousands pounds worth of labour hours annually , whilst sitting pretty as majority owners ...
I’m sorry but the incredibly volunteer ethic and contribution at our club is only not exploitive whilst we own the club as majority shares. Once these guys take it on they must pay down all debt and invest adequate capital on top to maintain abd resource our club and facilities as part of a fair and reasonable buy price.
If they don’t and still expect now minor shareholding volunteers to keep up their hours and working, it’s exploitive And not how you treat a partner .
Talk about all reward no risk ...
I very much agree with this. I wasn't expecting the questions to be so direct, especially so quickly into the meeting.
Sorry still not buying it. You need to understand the spin that was put on it back then against the spin put on it now. Why, if we were being run so well back then had the board decided years ago (as you have previously stated) that it was not possible to run the club sustainably under the fan owned structure?
And yet again you make incorrect comments. “... will have dire consequences.” It MIGHT have dire consequences but then again it might not. Unless you can see into the future you can’t possibly know.
But then you do seem (to me) to use a certain degree of fantasy to support your position, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
I was at the meeting last night and I have read through this thread this morning.
My feeling, last night, was that Bill and Jim seem like a nice couple of guys.
They have vast experience (verifiable online) in American minor league baseball where the customer experience is the important thing. Having lived over there (briefly) I know that minor league baseball has no promotion/relegation and a team can have a losing/mediocre season but can still attract large audiences if the fan experience is fun and entertaining.
They also have some experience in English Football - 7 years with Derby County (also verifiable online). They say that this 'taste' was fun and they want to do it again.
Anyone worrying about their motives should research what they did in Baseball and at Derby. The best predictor of future performance is past performance.
Yes, it would put them in a position where they are in control of who they sell on to when the time comes for them to exit. I am sure they will agree to involve Founder Shareholders when the time comes but I doubt if they would agree to a veto. It did sound as if they are planning to stick around for longer than the 7 years they did with Derby.
One thing I found worrying was some of the language used when talking about alternatives: "There is no plan B"; "We'll be staring down the barrel...". I remember going to a meeting (2004, i think) and being told almost exactly the same thing and we all know how that ended. There will be some people who, on hearing that sort of rhetoric, will automatically put defenses up.
At the end of the day, though, I see the 75% requirement for the vote as a very high hurdle. The Trust will need to work very hard to get the necessary turnout.
I do have a vote and I will use it. I haven’t decided which way.
@AlanB I think that is fair comment about the "no plan B" etc stuff.
Main question for me is what happens if they don't find it much fun?
Excellent summary of where we are thanks @AlanB
I cringed at the no Plan B stuff too. I suppose having Plan A next to you is a bit intimidating and arranging this meeting will have changed the views of other investors. Meeting 'the guys' hasn't really answered any of the key points any Legacy member would like an answer too.
I don't buy the fear factor tried by the outgoing finance person and it was tried again yesterday. I have had enough of vote pitches being about fear over substance. We are better than that.
One poster seems to be forcing his own ideas as the facts but we don't know anything about the actual deal on the table. Hopefully that will be presented two along with the five year plan discussed so much last night as the basis for the investment.
Fascinating meeting last night.
Interesting to hear William Luby and James Collis are making this deal as individual investors rather than through their company. I believe investments in loss-making companies are tax deductible - do any accountants/gas roomers know if this is true?
I assume the short term loan until the end of the season is their personal money too, quite a departure from the 4 options presented at the September 12th meeting to hear there isn't a Plan B and a short term loan is already in place with their preferred (only) bidder. It would be useful to know whether this was this put in place before September 12th and whether it is conditional on us agreeing to their majority bid.
Last night Trevor Stroud has finally admitted in a public forum, several years and AGMs later, that he does work as a consultant for Beechdean. He was at pains to point out he was not an employee of Andrew Howard.
Given Mr Howard attended lunch with the Americans in Skirmett earlier in the day it would appear he is still driving negotiations.
Mr Stroud said he would be seeking outside advice to make sure things are done properly. We need an independent company to monitor the voting given the above. And any attempts to tamper with the hurdle rate would be counter-productive.
However nice William, James and Steve are, who do they sell it to?
@peterparrotface I take your point but supporting a football club for the vast majority is very often not a lot of fun a lot of the time but we still do it!! I can see the attraction for very rich men to look at a club (even one as humble as our good selves) and think we can turn this around and do something exciting here and it will be a great experience. I might even think it if I had a great aunt who left me 40 million or so quid. The cynic in me suspects everything and everyone but as as @bookertease points out, we cannot see into the future so I am like @AlanB I'm not sure where I will vote yet. More details required. A five year commitment is a good thing with caveats and safeguards, but what sort of safeguards we would actually be able to demand or enforce is something else. Not getting rid of debt - even if the loanees are possibly being generous about it - worries me. Having said all that I do not envy anyone who tries to run a football club no matter what you achieve you're only as good as your last crisp delivery!
Thanks @NiceCarrots. A helpful post. Not quite sure I understand what you mean by "any attempts to tamper with the hurdle rate would be counter-productive," but a couple of good questions in there.
Yeah I would just like to ask them the question and see what they say.
I guess they would sell up and we cross our fingers again for another set of benevolent owners, which to be fair is the cycle most clubs find themselves in.
Who's Steve @NiceCarrots?
The kiosk in the Beechdean ran out of hurdle rates very early last weekend...
Did anyone ask why the journey can only be fun if they own a majority stake?
I totally understand why they want a majority stake.
Imagine if you won the lottery, and decided to throw a load of money at Wycombe. You'd probably want to have the final say on where and how that money is spent.
Now imagine you didn't win that money, you earned it. You'd almost certainly want the final say wouldn't you?
Ignoring Nicecarrots and his alter ego marlowchair, who have both made their views known ad nauseum, I think most people have taken the perfectly reasonable view that more details are required before a decision of such magnitude can be taken. I understand the concerns expressed by posters with no axe to grind, but I am still more worried about continuing as we are having been warned in no uncertain terms that this option can only lead to financial meltdown.
Completely understand why they want a majority stake.
@drcongo That's the question on my mind also. I would have thought they could get "fun" from their proposed involvement by becoming minority shareholders.
I know there are a lot of details of the deal not yet agreed or communicated, but, on the basis of what has been communicated thus far, I personally don't think that the offer apparently being tabled is enough to warrant handing over majority ownership of the club.
Whilst I accept that we all invest a lot of time, money and emotion into supporting this club and I well remember the Steve Hayes days. However, I do not understand the need of some people to have a say over who the potential investors eventually sell on to.
We all invest time, money and emotion into our houses, do we ask for a say over future buyers ?
When we get the detail, I will be considering whether it is the right deal for WWFC now and the future, not at what will the next buyers do
@JohnnyAllAlone When I sell my house I do it with absolutely no desire to go back and watch it for a few hours 50+ times a year until I die, or in the hope that my children and many other unrelated supporters of my house will be able to do the same.
@Uncle_T That depends on how far away you move and who you sell it to ?
The most worrying thing to me would be if there really was no plan B, because the vote is never going to pass the 75% threshold and everyone knows it. In reality they must have a plan for when the vote is a majority yes but not 75%, surely?
@JohnnyAllAlone - So you would be quite happy if these investors passed the club on to an Owen Oysten type character. Amazing!