@Right_in_the_Middle said:
Your motives are changing the question again @marlowchair.
'Their argument' is not really an issue now Harmania has happened is it? The proposal on the table is from 'the guys' and not the Trust board. It can be judged against the refused option on its merits.
The Trust board issue is independent in my view. It could be serious but as I have said before you can't judge the proposal based on those backing it, just on those giving it
That’s absurd. What if Steve Hayes was backing it and persuading them to get the charge against the stadium? I don’t think he is, but the men who stole the training ground are and that really should give you pause.
In the light of recent events I hope The Americans are re-drafting the top secret Buying Wendoverman's vote section of the bid. I feel it's worth has rocketed.
@Vital, he said he was undecided whether it would be debt or equity, but be did say that he was not expecting to get his money back.
He seemed to be unsure whether he wanted a majority stake after two years, 49% or 51%, did it matter? It depended on the fans view of that. When asked if the fans didn't want it, he seemed happy to accept that.
There are a lot of question marks about Harman's bid, most pressingly to do with whether £400k is enough to turn around the £500k deficit along with calling in favours from people he knows who own other businesses in the area. The questions over how much of the money would be equity or loans would need to be addressed further down the line, but are just as important.
The proposed academy also throws up questions about how independent it is from WWFC. If it's arms length from the club or just affiliated, will a slice of the money recouped in transfer fees from selling players recruited by the academy have to be paid to the academy? The merits of having such an arrangement in return for reduced running costs will have to be evaluated.
There's a lot to be said for the consortium being from the area and having the club's best interests at heart, though that doesn't necessarily make them the best bet for the club's future.
@Vital, yes, that ambiguity surprised me a little. We don't want a repeat of the Hayes 'they were loans' episode. But trying to judge the character of the next owner of your beloved club is a pointless exercise in the long run. There will always be the risk of some basket case or criminal taking over at some point in the future. You can never trust anyone completely but Andy Harman has a clear sincerity about him.
I have read these reams with interest and without comment thus far. The keys for me as a long time supporter and small but proud part owner is that the Harman offer leaves Adams Park in the hands of the Trust and is at the outset a minority holding.
It is a bonus that the man is a local resident, ex-player and has the support of others close to the club whose characters I respect. He came across very well in the interview with @bluntphil and it is refreshing not to be held over a barrel with regards investment fir a change.
We really do need more openness and grass roots involvement in the financial affairs of the Trust; does anyone know how feasable that is? Other questions on the bigger picture include whether Supporters Direct would get involved to find out more about the legality of the AP mortgage and what we supporters (especially the Legacy Members) really want from a sale of the club.
IMHO, as far as keeping control of our heritage and our one major asset the Harman bid is clearly superior thus far, even with the obvious lack of details from either offer to date. This appears to be a defining time in the future of WWFC and Trust and it is heartening to see the engagement of fans at such a juncture.
@ReadingMarginalista said:
The proposed academy also throws up questions about how independent it is from WWFC. If it's arms length from the club or just affiliated, will a slice of the money recouped in transfer fees from selling players recruited by the academy have to be paid to the academy?
Not 100% sure, but I have a feeling that would break third party ownership rules
I'm not sure how this could work. Assume the 'academy' unearths a talented youngster. The player isn't registered with a club and can't be registered to WWFC since the 'academy' isn't actually an academy, at best it's a Development Centre. Surely another club can just come along and persuade the youngster to train with them in their shinier facilities and then register them as a player. No compensation, no sell-on fee. Unless we are talking about a bona-fide Category 3 academy the earliest we could actually register a player to us would be on their 17th birthday as a professional player. Unless we are planning to run the 'academy' in addition to the club registering as Category 4, in which case we could sign the player on apprenticeship terms aged 16. I still think a talented youngster would have been persuaded to move to Reading/QPR etc long before then.
Sell on fees are pie in the sky without the investment in a proper academy structure so that players are actually registered to WWFC.
Didn't Harman state that he would own the academy? If so it would run independently, I guess with us getting first refusal (and first look) at players going through it.
I should add that I would favour a 'late development' model as a category 4 academy where we pick up players who have been released by Reading/QPR etc aged 17+ We would still require additional staff, facilities and a games programme but the costs would be significantly lower and it would be more in line with what we already do.
@Username said:
Didn't Harman state that he would own the academy? If so it would run independently, I guess with us getting first refusal (and first look) at players going through it.
If this was the case and the player hadn't or wasn't able to sign for the Club, then wouldn't it be Harman who would benefit from the sell-on?
If the vote is rejected and we go forward under trust ownership - albeit open to other offers (including from AH) - then I suggest we may benefit from some revision to the existing constitution.
It seems to me that in any future decision legacy members should first be voting to select a preferred offer. Thereafter a vote could be conducted on whether to accept that proposal.
Under the existing arrangement many people will decline to vote in favour of the American offer simply as a means of indicating they'd rather hear about other alternatives first, rather than to accept/reject the American offer altogether. That will make the 75% near impossible to achieve whenever a bid is put forward.
The alternative approach would allow all members to give input on which offer they think is most favourable (or least worst!), regardless of whether or not they would then vote in favour of a sale. That at least gives comfort that we've made a clear effort to scrutinise and eliminate other less attractive proposals. A simple yes/no vote (I won't go into whether or not the 75% threshold is suitable) can the be held without the dilemma we currently face.
The Trust board would have to conduct some level of pre-screening so we'd need to review what level of detail an offer must go into in order to be voted on by members, and what scrutiny the Trust board should first carry out. And there would probably need to be some sort of constitutional set up whereby the issue be voted on with a maximum frequency (say, every 3 years?) and any offer must be tabled formally before date X in order to make such a system work.
I realise it would be complex and no system is perfect. But I can't see how we move forward in any direction with the current approach.
The result we are left with is that I, like many others, feel somewhat uncomfortable that we reached the point where it seems the Trust board took the decision to present one offer as their favoured option and that we're being asked to vote on that alone. We've been left with too many unanswered questions about why AH's offer wasn't put forward (there may be good reasons but the current approach means we've not had an opportunity for those to be explained). And it seems we will never know about the other alternative that was mentioned at the beginning.
I sympathise with the Trust greatly as I think their efforts are probably always likely to land them significant criticism and they simply cannot please everyone all the time. The current system (or the lack of one) puts them in an impossible position in my view and it now becomes hard for them to now back another offer if the Americans are rejected.
One final point - if the above sounds lengthy and complex then that is as it should be. Any potential bidders that aren't willing to go through several months of presentations and voting should not be considered. As such it would act as a barrier to screen offers that lack the required commitment.
I could go on but I'll stop there. Hopefully the above makes some sense. I'm sure someone with better knowledge of these matters may have a better way of explaining the issue above.
It is besides the point of this post really, but my current view is that I see little merit in relinquishing ownership and handing it to anyone else. A few million quid in exchange for a great deal of uncertainty and vague carrot-dangling that we might reach the Championship (does anyone really care about that anyway?) doesn't seem appealing. I'd rather cut our cloth and accept probably being a lower league 2 outfit.
@Username said:
Didn't Harman state that he would own the academy? If so it would run independently, I guess with us getting first refusal (and first look) at players going through it.
If this was the case and the player hadn't or wasn't able to sign for the Club, then wouldn't it be Harman who would benefit from the sell-on?
Essentially yes, but then that money could also be used to fund the academy for years when there isn't a sale.
Also means that any losses are funded by Harman as well, not the club.
Would be something that we'd need to ask AH should the American bid be unsuccessful and his is on the table. I'm not sure on the rules, but sat we made a 2 million pound sale, maybe he could put 1 million back into the academy, and take 1 million as profit himself and then "invest" that into Wycombe? Or maybe he could keep some profit himself, and that's his reward for taking on the risk of funding a likely loss making academy for the good of the community?
There would be no sell on, that's my point. A player who isn't registered with a club can move to any other club at any time for nothing, and the earliest we could register them is aged 16 or 17. When a 'bigger' club come and knock on his door the player can just walk. No compensation, no sell on fee. I just don't see why we would do it that way, unless we're looking to produce players that any other club wouldn't be interested in taking for nothing.
Scouting of young players has completely changed in recent years. These days clubs are scouting players before age 8 so they have committed to that club by the time they can first be registered at Under 9. If a club with a full-time scouting team spot that Wycombe have a talented player at, say, Under 15 they will just come and get him.
It's why we closed our academy in the first place but at least if the player is registered to us we would receive compensation for every year that he had been in our system. Under the proposal that's being outlined we'd get nothing.
@Sherrinford said:
Scouting of young players has completely changed in recent years. These days clubs are scouting players before age 8 so they have committed to that club by the time they can first be registered at Under 9. If a club with a full-time scouting team spot that Wycombe have a talented player at, say, Under 15 they will just come and get him.
It's why we closed our academy in the first place but at least if the player is registered to us we would receive compensation for every year that he had been in our system. Under the proposal that's being outlined we'd get nothing.
Would have to get more details from AH.
If it ran like FAB academy, the players themselves would be paying to be there as the main source of income, and the academy itself would be the players agent/ club in effect, so the academy itself would be getting any fees from players moving on.
All guesswork without knowing AHs actual plans though.
@Sherrinford said:
There would be no fees from players moving on. That's my point.
Not directly to the club no, but the whole argument is that traditional club based academies are lots making, even with the player fees, otherwise we'd still have an academy if it was making us money.
So if the academy was a private academy owned by AH but affiliated to WWFC, then the overall losses would be on him, not the club - so it's only right they'd keep any fees as well.
What fees? Please tell me what fees a club would be paying to the academy.
I'll say again... the player will be free to sign for any club for nothing because they won't be a registered player. In exactly the same way as a Sunday league club receives nothing if one of their players signs for a professional club. There would be no fees.
@Sherrinford said:
What fees? Please tell me what fees a club would be paying to the academy.
I'll say again... the player will be free to sign for any club for nothing because they won't be a registered player. In exactly the same way as a Sunday league club receives nothing if one of their players signs for a professional club. There would be no fees.
The academy are essentially their agent I believe. I'm almost certain FAB academy received a sizeable fee when Matt Cash signed for forest. I'm not 100% on the details but if it works for them there's a way to do it.
I agree Sherrinford, The FAB model isn't particularly one that works for a professional club.
Firstly by sitting outside the EPPP structure we wouldn't be eligible for any funding. Love or loathe the EPPP, there are huge amounts of money available to clubs to support their academies.
And you're right secondly the inability to register players, by virtue of being outside 'the system' would be a massive problem down the line.
@TheatreOfChairs said:
I agree Sherrinford, The FAB model isn't particularly one that works for a professional club.
Firstly by sitting outside the EPPP structure we wouldn't be eligible for any funding. Love or loathe the EPPP, there are huge amounts of money available to clubs to support their academies.
And you're right secondly the inability to register players, by virtue of being outside 'the system' would be a massive problem down the line.
As much as I'd rather have a "traditional" academy, If it was financially viable (ie made money rather than lose money), we'd never have folded it in the first place, and nor would other clubs (or at least strongly considered it/ scaled back their academies in other cases).
If the American bid is rejected, the academy proposal is definitely something I'd have more questions on.
Surely though, if the academy is separate from WWFC, it's loss or profit & running cost issues are not the football clubs concern, any more than say a business down Hillbottom Road, or am I being a bit too simplistic on this?
Comments
To be fair, there was some ambiguity in last night's proposal when Andrew Harman was asked if the three million pounds investment was debt or equity.
Up until that point I had assumed it would be equity - ie in exchange for the minority interest of 49% - but his answer wasn't clear.
I can't see us handing anyone 49% equity in exchange for three million pounds worth of loan notes.
That’s absurd. What if Steve Hayes was backing it and persuading them to get the charge against the stadium? I don’t think he is, but the men who stole the training ground are and that really should give you pause.
@Vital - That could be the reason why the Board rejected Harman's bid/proposal.
In the light of recent events I hope The Americans are re-drafting the top secret Buying Wendoverman's vote section of the bid. I feel it's worth has rocketed.
Will Bill, Jim, Trevor and Andy all be at AP on Saturday? Should be a cracking atmosphere...
Break out those old Andy Harman songs.
@Vital, he said he was undecided whether it would be debt or equity, but be did say that he was not expecting to get his money back.
He seemed to be unsure whether he wanted a majority stake after two years, 49% or 51%, did it matter? It depended on the fans view of that. When asked if the fans didn't want it, he seemed happy to accept that.
@Steve_Peart That's a big thing to be undecided about and that's why I called it ambiguous.
I know he needs access for due diligence before firming anything up, but it would have to be equity for me. Debt is a non-starter.
Thats the big risk we have to take when selling, any owner can always load the club with debt afterwards, look at Man Utd for an extreme example.
There are a lot of question marks about Harman's bid, most pressingly to do with whether £400k is enough to turn around the £500k deficit along with calling in favours from people he knows who own other businesses in the area. The questions over how much of the money would be equity or loans would need to be addressed further down the line, but are just as important.
The proposed academy also throws up questions about how independent it is from WWFC. If it's arms length from the club or just affiliated, will a slice of the money recouped in transfer fees from selling players recruited by the academy have to be paid to the academy? The merits of having such an arrangement in return for reduced running costs will have to be evaluated.
There's a lot to be said for the consortium being from the area and having the club's best interests at heart, though that doesn't necessarily make them the best bet for the club's future.
@Vital, yes, that ambiguity surprised me a little. We don't want a repeat of the Hayes 'they were loans' episode. But trying to judge the character of the next owner of your beloved club is a pointless exercise in the long run. There will always be the risk of some basket case or criminal taking over at some point in the future. You can never trust anyone completely but Andy Harman has a clear sincerity about him.
I have read these reams with interest and without comment thus far. The keys for me as a long time supporter and small but proud part owner is that the Harman offer leaves Adams Park in the hands of the Trust and is at the outset a minority holding.
It is a bonus that the man is a local resident, ex-player and has the support of others close to the club whose characters I respect. He came across very well in the interview with @bluntphil and it is refreshing not to be held over a barrel with regards investment fir a change.
We really do need more openness and grass roots involvement in the financial affairs of the Trust; does anyone know how feasable that is? Other questions on the bigger picture include whether Supporters Direct would get involved to find out more about the legality of the AP mortgage and what we supporters (especially the Legacy Members) really want from a sale of the club.
IMHO, as far as keeping control of our heritage and our one major asset the Harman bid is clearly superior thus far, even with the obvious lack of details from either offer to date. This appears to be a defining time in the future of WWFC and Trust and it is heartening to see the engagement of fans at such a juncture.
Not 100% sure, but I have a feeling that would break third party ownership rules
I'm not sure how this could work. Assume the 'academy' unearths a talented youngster. The player isn't registered with a club and can't be registered to WWFC since the 'academy' isn't actually an academy, at best it's a Development Centre. Surely another club can just come along and persuade the youngster to train with them in their shinier facilities and then register them as a player. No compensation, no sell-on fee. Unless we are talking about a bona-fide Category 3 academy the earliest we could actually register a player to us would be on their 17th birthday as a professional player. Unless we are planning to run the 'academy' in addition to the club registering as Category 4, in which case we could sign the player on apprenticeship terms aged 16. I still think a talented youngster would have been persuaded to move to Reading/QPR etc long before then.
Sell on fees are pie in the sky without the investment in a proper academy structure so that players are actually registered to WWFC.
Didn't Harman state that he would own the academy? If so it would run independently, I guess with us getting first refusal (and first look) at players going through it.
I should add that I would favour a 'late development' model as a category 4 academy where we pick up players who have been released by Reading/QPR etc aged 17+ We would still require additional staff, facilities and a games programme but the costs would be significantly lower and it would be more in line with what we already do.
If this was the case and the player hadn't or wasn't able to sign for the Club, then wouldn't it be Harman who would benefit from the sell-on?
If the vote is rejected and we go forward under trust ownership - albeit open to other offers (including from AH) - then I suggest we may benefit from some revision to the existing constitution.
It seems to me that in any future decision legacy members should first be voting to select a preferred offer. Thereafter a vote could be conducted on whether to accept that proposal.
Under the existing arrangement many people will decline to vote in favour of the American offer simply as a means of indicating they'd rather hear about other alternatives first, rather than to accept/reject the American offer altogether. That will make the 75% near impossible to achieve whenever a bid is put forward.
The alternative approach would allow all members to give input on which offer they think is most favourable (or least worst!), regardless of whether or not they would then vote in favour of a sale. That at least gives comfort that we've made a clear effort to scrutinise and eliminate other less attractive proposals. A simple yes/no vote (I won't go into whether or not the 75% threshold is suitable) can the be held without the dilemma we currently face.
The Trust board would have to conduct some level of pre-screening so we'd need to review what level of detail an offer must go into in order to be voted on by members, and what scrutiny the Trust board should first carry out. And there would probably need to be some sort of constitutional set up whereby the issue be voted on with a maximum frequency (say, every 3 years?) and any offer must be tabled formally before date X in order to make such a system work.
I realise it would be complex and no system is perfect. But I can't see how we move forward in any direction with the current approach.
The result we are left with is that I, like many others, feel somewhat uncomfortable that we reached the point where it seems the Trust board took the decision to present one offer as their favoured option and that we're being asked to vote on that alone. We've been left with too many unanswered questions about why AH's offer wasn't put forward (there may be good reasons but the current approach means we've not had an opportunity for those to be explained). And it seems we will never know about the other alternative that was mentioned at the beginning.
I sympathise with the Trust greatly as I think their efforts are probably always likely to land them significant criticism and they simply cannot please everyone all the time. The current system (or the lack of one) puts them in an impossible position in my view and it now becomes hard for them to now back another offer if the Americans are rejected.
One final point - if the above sounds lengthy and complex then that is as it should be. Any potential bidders that aren't willing to go through several months of presentations and voting should not be considered. As such it would act as a barrier to screen offers that lack the required commitment.
I could go on but I'll stop there. Hopefully the above makes some sense. I'm sure someone with better knowledge of these matters may have a better way of explaining the issue above.
It is besides the point of this post really, but my current view is that I see little merit in relinquishing ownership and handing it to anyone else. A few million quid in exchange for a great deal of uncertainty and vague carrot-dangling that we might reach the Championship (does anyone really care about that anyway?) doesn't seem appealing. I'd rather cut our cloth and accept probably being a lower league 2 outfit.
Essentially yes, but then that money could also be used to fund the academy for years when there isn't a sale.
Also means that any losses are funded by Harman as well, not the club.
Would be something that we'd need to ask AH should the American bid be unsuccessful and his is on the table. I'm not sure on the rules, but sat we made a 2 million pound sale, maybe he could put 1 million back into the academy, and take 1 million as profit himself and then "invest" that into Wycombe? Or maybe he could keep some profit himself, and that's his reward for taking on the risk of funding a likely loss making academy for the good of the community?
There would be no sell on, that's my point. A player who isn't registered with a club can move to any other club at any time for nothing, and the earliest we could register them is aged 16 or 17. When a 'bigger' club come and knock on his door the player can just walk. No compensation, no sell on fee. I just don't see why we would do it that way, unless we're looking to produce players that any other club wouldn't be interested in taking for nothing.
Scouting of young players has completely changed in recent years. These days clubs are scouting players before age 8 so they have committed to that club by the time they can first be registered at Under 9. If a club with a full-time scouting team spot that Wycombe have a talented player at, say, Under 15 they will just come and get him.
It's why we closed our academy in the first place but at least if the player is registered to us we would receive compensation for every year that he had been in our system. Under the proposal that's being outlined we'd get nothing.
Would have to get more details from AH.
If it ran like FAB academy, the players themselves would be paying to be there as the main source of income, and the academy itself would be the players agent/ club in effect, so the academy itself would be getting any fees from players moving on.
All guesswork without knowing AHs actual plans though.
There would be no fees from players moving on. That's my point.
Not directly to the club no, but the whole argument is that traditional club based academies are lots making, even with the player fees, otherwise we'd still have an academy if it was making us money.
So if the academy was a private academy owned by AH but affiliated to WWFC, then the overall losses would be on him, not the club - so it's only right they'd keep any fees as well.
What fees? Please tell me what fees a club would be paying to the academy.
I'll say again... the player will be free to sign for any club for nothing because they won't be a registered player. In exactly the same way as a Sunday league club receives nothing if one of their players signs for a professional club. There would be no fees.
The academy are essentially their agent I believe. I'm almost certain FAB academy received a sizeable fee when Matt Cash signed for forest. I'm not 100% on the details but if it works for them there's a way to do it.
But what if AH took over and then subsequently sold it to AH? Which AH would call the shots and how would we know?
I agree Sherrinford, The FAB model isn't particularly one that works for a professional club.
Firstly by sitting outside the EPPP structure we wouldn't be eligible for any funding. Love or loathe the EPPP, there are huge amounts of money available to clubs to support their academies.
And you're right secondly the inability to register players, by virtue of being outside 'the system' would be a massive problem down the line.
As much as I'd rather have a "traditional" academy, If it was financially viable (ie made money rather than lose money), we'd never have folded it in the first place, and nor would other clubs (or at least strongly considered it/ scaled back their academies in other cases).
If the American bid is rejected, the academy proposal is definitely something I'd have more questions on.
Surely though, if the academy is separate from WWFC, it's loss or profit & running cost issues are not the football clubs concern, any more than say a business down Hillbottom Road, or am I being a bit too simplistic on this?