The latest on the bid was communicated by Trevor Stroud.
The proposed date for Bill Luby and Jim Collis to present to the Trust legacy members is Monday 14th January. The venue will not be at Adams Park and is TBC as the board are keen to have as many of the legacy members to attend as possible and the capacity of the Vere Suite is 300.
Voting will open after this presentation and the window for voting will be three weeks.
I spoke with Trevor after the presentation and he informed me that details of the proposed bid will be available to Trust legacy members before Christmas, ahead of the presentation by Bill Luby and Jim Collis.
It was also stressed that the cut off date to become a Trust legacy member to be able to vote on the proposed investment is Saturday 8th December (Barnsley at home). To qualify you need to have been a season ticket holder for at least the last three seasons and be a member of the Trust (£10 per year).
Over 400 season ticket holders who will qualify for Legacy membership if they were to join the Trust have been sent communications to make them aware of this fact. Up to the date of the AGM, 40 have done so, taking the number of Legacy members to 674. However, it was revealed that approx 40 legacy members will lose their vote if they do not pay their £10 Trust membership for this year (due on 1/11/18) by the 8th December.
The chairmans update on the potential investment finished with a plea to not allow apathy to decide the future of Wycombe Wanderers. An abstention will count as a no vote.
Away from the proposed investment, it was revealed that we will have news about a brand new big screen for Adams Park very soon, but it is unlikely that we will see it installed before the end of the current season.
There was a very informative presentation by Paul Foley who runs the Wycombe Wanderers Sports & Education Trust. In my opinion, the amount of people they connect with in the community and the breadth of work they do is hugely impressive. For more info: http://www.wwset.co.uk
Excellent summary @bluntphil. I would add if I may that Michael Davis gave a very passionate presentation regarding the off-field WWFC team and the huge efforts they make to support the club. It was interesting to be given a peek behind the scenes of catering/kiosks and the complexities that led to the commercial decision to outsource recently. We have a wonderful club staffed and run by wonderful people in every area.
Thanks a lot, @bluntphil. And also to you, @ValleyWanderer, for your bit and, in particular, for putting into words in your last sentence my own perception of the situation.
You’re even more of a night owl than I am @HCblue ! Agree with you re @ValleyWanderer’s post. I did wonder if I should be on whatever Michael Davies was on but, to be fair, I think he expressed very powerfully his justifiable anger with the tiny minority who seem hellbent on undermining the efforts of the people who give up so much of their own time to keep our wonderful club afloat. Well, that’s how I saw it and I can only add “more power to your elbow, Michael.”
Only 10% of the 400 or so eligible season ticket holders but not trust members have been bothered to sign up despite being chased in advance of an absolutely key vote.
8% of existing members haven't bothered to pay their £10 subs
Fine if the proposition is voted down as members don't think it is right for the club. Would be really sad if there is overwhelming support but vote lost by apathy and a dumb voting system. Worrying times.
And that’s got to be odds on the most likely outcome - significant majority of voters yes, but failing to reach the required threshold of the total eligible voter population. What is the plan for when it happens?
@Chris said:
And that’s got to be odds on the most likely outcome - significant majority of voters yes, but failing to reach the required threshold of the total eligible voter population. What is the plan for when it happens?
What you'll never know of course is if people who would have voted no anyway, simply don't vote as it's essentially the same thing. So it wouldn't be as straightforward as to simply say that non-voters prevented the proposal being voted through, if that were to happen.
I'd rather people voted no if that were the case of course, rather than just not vote. No room for ambiguity or misinterpretation of results then
@eric_plant said:
What you'll never know of course is if people who would have voted no anyway, simply don't vote as it's essentially the same thing. So it wouldn't be as straightforward as to simply say that non-voters prevented the proposal being voted through, if that were to happen.
I'd rather people voted no if that were the case of course, rather than just not vote. No room for ambiguity or misinterpretation of results then
That is the serious problem with the current voting system which unfortunately we are probably lumbered with for the foreseeable future.
If I was going to vote against the sale (a decision I won't make until the January presentation) as you say there would be no point in me bothering to vote at all.
2019 is marked "budget", which usually refers to a set of estimates defined before the start of the year (and before ONien left) rather than latest best guess.
Cup income for 18/9 will not be zero - I think we won a couple of LDV games which had prize money plus we get a share of luton gate.
Then again hard to believe that 17/8 cup and prize money revenue only £37k given a run to third round with two sunday "live highlights games". not sure if there is prize money for getting promoted too?
Even harder to believe that underlying losses (excl cup and transfers) suddenly ballooned to £1.5m in the year Ibe sell on was received but then dropped back next year to broadly consistent rate.
Could ask questions why turnover is budgeted to increase £600k this year (£400k down to TV payments in Lg1) but all that extra revenue is spent in additional cost.
I believe there is a finance forum shortly.
My guess is though that Onien sold for around £150k and McCarthy cost around £35k
@OxfordBlue said:
The playing trading profits is quite interesting.
If in 2019 we've only made 115k, and McCarthy was apparently a steal, it sounds like Luke's fee was pretty low...?
I guess the 09 fee was whatever we paid for McCarthy +115K?
Yes, I concur.
Which means we either paid £200k+ for McCarthy, which is a good deal but a lot considering our financial situation and the way the fee was downplayed, or we got a pretty crap deal for O'Nien?
@eric_plant , you are absolutely right to say "wait to see the details" before finally deciding.
I wonder if your expectation is different to mine. I am not expecting any sum of money to be paid to the trust, just that the investors subscribe for new shares in the company so that they own say 75%. football club pays for repairs to the stadium so FALL has no cost. football Club pays rent such that FALL can pay off debts when due but no more.
Is your expectation materially different, have I missed something?
@OxfordBlue said:
The playing trading profits is quite interesting.
If in 2019 we've only made 115k, and McCarthy was apparently a steal, it sounds like Luke's fee was pretty low...?
I guess the 09 fee was whatever we paid for McCarthy +115K?
Yes, I concur.
Which means we either paid £200k+ for McCarthy, which is a good deal but a lot considering our financial situation and the way the fee was downplayed, or we got a pretty crap deal for O'Nien?
I always thought we'd have got around 200-250K for Luke, which means we paid 100K or less for McCarthy.
I guess we can all make up our minds as to whether or not those were good deals.
@DevC said: @eric_plant , you are absolutely right to say "wait to see the details" before finally deciding.
I wonder if your expectation is different to mine. I am not expecting any sum of money to be paid to the trust, just that the investors subscribe for new shares in the company so that they own say 75%. football club pays for repairs to the stadium so FALL has no cost. football Club pays rent such that FALL can pay off debts when due but no more.
Is your expectation materially different, have I missed something?
I am expecting to be given a figure of how much money they will be putting into the club. If not, surely they're not getting anyone's vote?
Surely the figure has to be defined. 75% of the club is worth a value. What is that value? What value are the Trust putting on it? How many shares means 75%
Could you buy 75% for £1 or £1 million? As the investment is billed as capital rather than loan it is a major part of the proposal.
Comments
The latest on the bid was communicated by Trevor Stroud.
The proposed date for Bill Luby and Jim Collis to present to the Trust legacy members is Monday 14th January. The venue will not be at Adams Park and is TBC as the board are keen to have as many of the legacy members to attend as possible and the capacity of the Vere Suite is 300.
Voting will open after this presentation and the window for voting will be three weeks.
I spoke with Trevor after the presentation and he informed me that details of the proposed bid will be available to Trust legacy members before Christmas, ahead of the presentation by Bill Luby and Jim Collis.
It was also stressed that the cut off date to become a Trust legacy member to be able to vote on the proposed investment is Saturday 8th December (Barnsley at home). To qualify you need to have been a season ticket holder for at least the last three seasons and be a member of the Trust (£10 per year).
Over 400 season ticket holders who will qualify for Legacy membership if they were to join the Trust have been sent communications to make them aware of this fact. Up to the date of the AGM, 40 have done so, taking the number of Legacy members to 674. However, it was revealed that approx 40 legacy members will lose their vote if they do not pay their £10 Trust membership for this year (due on 1/11/18) by the 8th December.
The chairmans update on the potential investment finished with a plea to not allow apathy to decide the future of Wycombe Wanderers. An abstention will count as a no vote.
Away from the proposed investment, it was revealed that we will have news about a brand new big screen for Adams Park very soon, but it is unlikely that we will see it installed before the end of the current season.
There was a very informative presentation by Paul Foley who runs the Wycombe Wanderers Sports & Education Trust. In my opinion, the amount of people they connect with in the community and the breadth of work they do is hugely impressive. For more info: http://www.wwset.co.uk
Excellent summary @bluntphil. I would add if I may that Michael Davis gave a very passionate presentation regarding the off-field WWFC team and the huge efforts they make to support the club. It was interesting to be given a peek behind the scenes of catering/kiosks and the complexities that led to the commercial decision to outsource recently. We have a wonderful club staffed and run by wonderful people in every area.
Thanks a lot, @bluntphil. And also to you, @ValleyWanderer, for your bit and, in particular, for putting into words in your last sentence my own perception of the situation.
You’re even more of a night owl than I am @HCblue ! Agree with you re @ValleyWanderer’s post. I did wonder if I should be on whatever Michael Davies was on but, to be fair, I think he expressed very powerfully his justifiable anger with the tiny minority who seem hellbent on undermining the efforts of the people who give up so much of their own time to keep our wonderful club afloat. Well, that’s how I saw it and I can only add “more power to your elbow, Michael.”
Numbers in @bluntphil's summary are concerning.
Only 10% of the 400 or so eligible season ticket holders but not trust members have been bothered to sign up despite being chased in advance of an absolutely key vote.
8% of existing members haven't bothered to pay their £10 subs
Fine if the proposition is voted down as members don't think it is right for the club. Would be really sad if there is overwhelming support but vote lost by apathy and a dumb voting system. Worrying times.
And that’s got to be odds on the most likely outcome - significant majority of voters yes, but failing to reach the required threshold of the total eligible voter population. What is the plan for when it happens?
Couldn’t agree more @DevC.
No deal outcomes are a pain @Chris. But, seriously, if apathy atrophies the club it would Be desperately sad.
Perhaps lack of understanding of the situation on the part of abstainers/remainers would be a fairer way of putting it.
is that "odds on" or just what you think?
The playing trading profits is quite interesting.
If in 2019 we've only made 115k, and McCarthy was apparently a steal, it sounds like Luke's fee was pretty low...?
@eric_plant I mean, I'd be very, very surprised if that wasn't the outcome, and I'd put money on it given the opportunity.
What you'll never know of course is if people who would have voted no anyway, simply don't vote as it's essentially the same thing. So it wouldn't be as straightforward as to simply say that non-voters prevented the proposal being voted through, if that were to happen.
I'd rather people voted no if that were the case of course, rather than just not vote. No room for ambiguity or misinterpretation of results then
I guess the 09 fee was whatever we paid for McCarthy +115K?
That is the serious problem with the current voting system which unfortunately we are probably lumbered with for the foreseeable future.
If I was going to vote against the sale (a decision I won't make until the January presentation) as you say there would be no point in me bothering to vote at all.
few questions on that slide.
2019 is marked "budget", which usually refers to a set of estimates defined before the start of the year (and before ONien left) rather than latest best guess.
Cup income for 18/9 will not be zero - I think we won a couple of LDV games which had prize money plus we get a share of luton gate.
Then again hard to believe that 17/8 cup and prize money revenue only £37k given a run to third round with two sunday "live highlights games". not sure if there is prize money for getting promoted too?
Even harder to believe that underlying losses (excl cup and transfers) suddenly ballooned to £1.5m in the year Ibe sell on was received but then dropped back next year to broadly consistent rate.
Could ask questions why turnover is budgeted to increase £600k this year (£400k down to TV payments in Lg1) but all that extra revenue is spent in additional cost.
I believe there is a finance forum shortly.
My guess is though that Onien sold for around £150k and McCarthy cost around £35k
Yes, I concur.
Which means we either paid £200k+ for McCarthy, which is a good deal but a lot considering our financial situation and the way the fee was downplayed, or we got a pretty crap deal for O'Nien?
Those are the start of season budget figures rather than 'actuals to date'.
We probably got an initial crap fee for O'Nien but with a relatively large sell on percentage.
@AlanCecil Please can you remind me of who to email to check if I am a legacy member please?
Why would anyone possibly vote for it?!
Please email David Cook - [email protected]
you don't know how much money it is yet
@eric_plant , you are absolutely right to say "wait to see the details" before finally deciding.
I wonder if your expectation is different to mine. I am not expecting any sum of money to be paid to the trust, just that the investors subscribe for new shares in the company so that they own say 75%. football club pays for repairs to the stadium so FALL has no cost. football Club pays rent such that FALL can pay off debts when due but no more.
Is your expectation materially different, have I missed something?
I always thought we'd have got around 200-250K for Luke, which means we paid 100K or less for McCarthy.
I guess we can all make up our minds as to whether or not those were good deals.
I am expecting to be given a figure of how much money they will be putting into the club. If not, surely they're not getting anyone's vote?
agree @eric_plant if it's just a big screen and guaranteed in date McCoys crisps...I'm out!
Time will tell. I am not sure how "defined" it will or can be. devil in the detail I suppose.
Surely a minimum we should expect to be told is how much money they're putting in and how much equity they're getting out.
Surely the figure has to be defined. 75% of the club is worth a value. What is that value? What value are the Trust putting on it? How many shares means 75%
Could you buy 75% for £1 or £1 million? As the investment is billed as capital rather than loan it is a major part of the proposal.
if it can't or won't be defined, then people aren't going to vote for it