Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Update regarding investment

Wycombe Wanderers Trust can provide an update on the process of investment into the football club, following a meeting of the Trust board on Monday evening.

The board assessed in great detail two offers of investment, one from Bill Luby and Jim Collis seeking a majority shareholding, and one from Andrew Harman seeking an initial minority shareholding increasing to a majority holding in two years.

Trust directors voted overwhelmingly in favour of the offer made by Bill Luby and Jim Collis, and will call a meeting of Legacy Members in due course to present the details of the bid and initiate a voting period for Members to determine whether or not the offer should be accepted.

During the Trust’s discussions with both parties following the meeting on Monday, Mr Harman has decided to withdraw his bid from the process.

Members will be updated with details of the next steps once they are finalised.

«13

Comments

  • The only way this process could be worse is if it was being conducted in the House of Commons

  • Or the gasroom

    "well, Harman used to play for us, so he must be a good bidder"

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • 75% is unachievable after all the goings on IMHO.

    Will we get a meaningful vote 2, or 3?

    What happens if the loan is due before the issue is settled?

  • @Lloyd2084 said:
    75% is unachievable after all the goings on IMHO.

    Will we get a meaningful vote 2, or 3?

    What happens if the loan is due before the issue is settled?

    You and 10,000 of your mates best start buying a lot more teas and crisps is what.

  • @Malone said:
    Or the gasroom

    "well, Harman used to play for us, so he must be a good bidder"

    Has anyone ever said that on here? I saw someone suggest that at the last meeting but wasn't sure who he was quoting.

  • It's not an exact quote, but there was definitely a high amount of what I can only describe as Harman fanboy-ism on at least one thread.

  • Well at least it makes it a little more simple... accept the yanks bid... or......

  • Apologies if this has been asked elsewhere, and from what I've gathered probably not, but would relegation be a deal breaker for the Americans?

  • Apologies if this has been asked elsewhere, and from what I've gathered probably not, but would relegation be a deal breaker for the Americans?

  • @th100 Is that in 2 consecutive seasons?

  • @JohnnyAllAlone my phone seems to think so

  • I seem to remember them say relegation wasn't a deal breaker but that was before Harman stuck his awe in and delayed the process to a point where the transfer window was affected and relegation becoming a bigger threat.
    In trying to please everyone the Trust might just have left us with 'no deal'.

  • Oh god we're relegated and we've got no investment...board out!!!

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • I note that the communication says the Trust directors voted "overwhelmingly" for the US bid, from which we can infer that it was not a unanimous decision.

  • 52% - 48% I heard

  • @Uncle_T said:
    I note that the communication says the Trust directors voted "overwhelmingly" for the US bid, from which we can infer that it was not a unanimous decision.

    Did someone defy a three line whip?

  • Well.......?

  • May has got it easy, she doesn’t need to get 75% of the Commons to vote for her deal.

  • We would have remained under Trust Rules.

  • Both bids were for similar financial investment and percentage of share holding . £3mil for about 75% of the club ( Harmans not majorly initially but increasing over time )

    The Americans have always been the preferred option because, well no good reason other than Trevor likes them more. With two very similar financial bids on offer only personal differences and preference decides which one to go with. Trevor very very reluctantly had to table Harman as a bid having refused to entertain him for years only after Harman forced his hand by going public.

    Of course we, the owners of the club will never be given the chance to see how similar the bids were or why the USA bid was deemed better .

    Appalling process and it has hindered any chance of getting the 75% vote over the line .

    Our board has made Theresa May look positivity competent during this process.

    We cannot sell our club to two “guys” for £3million OR Andrew Harman , it’s an absolute steal and hugely undervalued at that. Being run into the ground by the current board and general manager is not a good enough reason to sell it off cheaply .

    Get out of our club , get some competence into the place for 12 months to sort out the mess you have created with your mismanagement over the last 2 years , and allow us to pick up the pieces and rebuild off pitch so we can properly go to market and properly obtain a thorough market test on ALL of our options.

    Rank amateurs.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • It will be interesting to see if there were any cock-ups in how the information on both bidders was presented to the Trust board.

    I am sure the Trust board directors who post on here can tell us.

    My preference was for both bids to be presented to the Trust members given the Trust board previously recommended Harry Kerr and Gary Hooper's bid.

    The Trust board is controlled by the creditors' and their spokesman so members need to make up their own mind.

    The decision as to who will own the club will once again be taken by Beeks and Howard as was apparent at the first meeting back in September.

    Everything else is a charade.

  • edited March 15

    @MarlowChair Please confirm where you have got the value of the Americans bid from. This has not yet been made public.......or is it speculation again.
    Also please remember that Mr Harman's own statement says that "valuable information relating to his proposal was not made available" before the Trust Board made their decision (and after the agreed deadline for the proposal to be received).
    I am not going to speculate on what this could have been but just take on board that it would have been of value to the decision process, so maybe it would have been better if it had been delivered on time.
    Now let's see what is on the table and decide from there.

  • If the bids both massively undervalued the club i look forward to other parties now surging forward with bigger bids.

  • At the last meeting we were told the trust board would would examine both bids, pick the one they preferred and then explain to us exactly why they preferred it.

    They've now told us which one they prefer but not yet why. Hopefully that explanation is imminent, as are the long awaited details of the bid.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • @JohnnyAllAlone said:
    @MarlowChair Please confirm where you have got the value of the Americans bid from. This has not yet been made public.......or is it speculation again.
    Also please remember that Mr Harman's own statement says that "valuable information relating to his proposal was not made available" before the Trust Board made their decision (and after the agreed deadline for the proposal to be received).
    I am not going to speculate on what this could have been but just take on board that it would have been of value to the decision process, so maybe it would have been better if it had been delivered on time.
    Now let's see what is on the table and decide from there.

    Interesting.

    " It appeared that valuable information relating to my proposal had not been available to put before the Board"

    I have read, re read and re read that statement a number of times.

    I could be wrong but is he saying that the Board chose not to include or ignore certain financial information relevant to his bid ?

    Alan, I know you check the gasroom regularly, could you clarify ?

  • @Vital - There was only one formal bid as Harman withdrew his after failing to provide all the required documentation.

  • @mooneyman said:
    @Vital - There was only one formal bid as Harman withdrew his after failing to provide all the required documentation.

    That isn't what the trust statement says, they say they considered both and chose the American bid. Might have been helpful to understand if Harman either put his hands up and said he couldn't get it together, or openly claimed the board ignored information, refused extension requests, or ruled part of his bid inadmissible or incomplete. Its quite an odd statement from Harman that doesn't really help. Thats why we have to move on unless there is more info.

  • @mooneyman said:
    @Vital - There was only one formal bid as Harman withdrew his after failing to provide all the required documentation.

    It states on the Trust Website that there were two offers of Investment.

    My query was over the Andrew Harman statement.

    Either he:

    1. Failed to provide all the required information

    or

    1. The way I read it, the Trust chose to ignore certain financial information relevant to his bid.

    If it is 2. then no wonder he withdrew his offer.

    As per previous posting have asked Alan to clarify.

  • Sounds like a cop out anyway, why did his lawyers have to advise him this some time later? Was he not leading his own bid?

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • I read the Harman statement as he didn't provide certain information but that seemed out of context to the rest of the statement.

    Interesting to see the gasrooms Hale and Pace back on the board. If @marlowchair is giving true information he is a pretty untrustworthy 'guy' to have given it too. I think he is speculating but at this point I don't see him as being anything other than a Stroud hater.

    Harman has nothing more than delay the inevitable failure to get a 75% vote for the US bid. I guess the reasons for preffering this offer will be presented with the offer as it makes no sense to do it before seeing any detail.

Sign In or Register to comment.