We will get a pretty fair idea soon, perhaps later today, whether this is currently a moot point or not when we find out whether the US guys and/or Harman are still interested.
@glasshalffull said:
Do you honestly believe that having a different set of people in charge would turn a substantial deficit into a profit or even a break even scenario?
That’s an interesting viewpoint Alan. So, you think if the Americans bid goes through and they replace the people at the top with their own people we still have no hope of turning around the deficit? And, of course, their people would be salaried and the club would have an extra £3m “investment” / debt that would need to be repaid. You make it sound like accepting the American bid would put us in a position we could never even hope to get out of. Thanks for your honesty.
I agree with much of this. It is possible that the club could briefly do a Yeovil or a Burton and have a couple of years in the championship but unlikely I think. Financially that is probably even worse anyway. It is possible that the finances can be turned round such that we break even in Lg1 or Lg2 but I think that is pretty unlikely too. So the honest future under private ownership is probably private owner comes in, runs it at a loss for say five years (funded by either debt or equity), sells to a new guy, any debt to previous owner gets written off at acquisition, he runs it at a loss for five years, he sells to a new guy etc etc. That's the way pretty much every other club in the lower divisions runs - probably 90% or so quite happily but it is absolutely true to say there is risk.
Effectively to borrow someone's analogy above, you are playing Russian roulette with perhaps ten chambers one of which has a bullet in it.
The other alternative is to stay as we are. If you believe that we can do with zero risk - playing Russian roulette with zero bullets in the ten chambers, then why wouldn't we do that? If on the other hand you see that option as playing Russian roulette with say nine of the chambers having a bullet in, taking that option when you have a choice would be pretty dumb.
an existing £600k cash loss each year, whether we play in lg1 or lg2 with no clear plan of how to eradicate the loss and no way of funding the loss feels to me like at least a nine bullet option. If you have a concrete plan to empty the gun chambers in a fan owned model, I would genuinely be delighted to hear it.
Stop lecturing people who contribute hundreds of pounds a year to the continued existence of the club they love about its finances when you contribute nothing, and haven't for years
Have to agree with @marlowchair, throwing money at a club in the belief that it will guarantee promotion has failed so many times before I don’t know why it still gets floated. Far better to invest in a youth academy, which means engagement with the local community (leading to increase attendance?) and any half decent players can break into the first team, any exceptional ones can be sold, as per Ibe . Building stability at a club which can never rely on a particularly large fan base may not sound as sexy as (endless) 5 year plans, in glossy pamphlets but it’s a lot more sustainable than having few years of living beyond our means, and falling badly at the end.
This debate clearly hinges on the level of investment and at this moment we don’t know what that could be. Obviously, if it’s a modest amount then it has to be spent on clearing our debts first and more ambitious plans would have to be put on ice.
If, however, the investment is more substantial it could enable us to recruit better players. You’d be surprised by how many players in the lower leagues would be prepared to move clubs for a fairly modest increase in wages.
Having better players gives you a greater chance of success and success on the field would surely lead to increased income through gate receipts.
I didn’t say this could be achieved overnight but it’s obvious that a successful club will attract more revenue that can be used to improve its infrastructure.
People mention Notts County, Bolton etc but choose to ignore other examples where outside investment has worked.
Burton Albion, Rotherham, Bournemouth and Brentford are recent examples of clubs similar to Wycombe in terms of ground capacity and average attendances who achieved Championship status thanks to outside investment.
I would be as concerned as anyone else about gambling the club’s future, but what do people not understand about the Trust board’s warning that the present model is unsustainable?
In theory it is possible @drcongo. eg you invest £100k in refurbishing conference facilities and that pays back £50k per year in income for the next five years. But I agree I think it is unlikely that a loss of that size can easily be cleared whatever we do.
I think with respect you are asking yourself the wrong question. Forget jargon, forget accounting, forget how you would like the word to be, just look at good old-fashioned hard cash in the world as it is.
currently our revenue (A) in cash terms is less than our costs in cash terms (B).
We have four basic choices (although obviously in theory you can do a bit of more than one)
1) Increase A without affecting B
2) Reduce B without affecting A
3) Find someone to give you cash to cover the gap between A and B
4) Die
Obviously 1) or 2) are the best approach, but no one seems to know how. If you have a genuine suggestion of a solution, that would be great.
Failing that 3) , (which is what pretty much all league clubs do and what we have been doing), is better than 4).
But it seems that no one can think of a way of doing 3) either going forward as a fan owned club.
@glasshalffull - With respect, your example of Bournemouth is ridiculous. Since 2011 they have been bankrolled in huge sums by a Russian multimillionaire who is using the club as a plaything, not as an investor. They have been fined well over £4m for breaching FFP Rules in achieving Premiership status, in other words, cheating.
Certainly a difficult time. Let's hope we can avoid Wyexit this season and things will become clearer once the bid is on the table. It certainly needs to be sorted in time for summer planning.
@mooneyman said: @glasshalffull - With respect, your example of Bournemouth is ridiculous. Since 2011 they have been bankrolled in huge sums by a Russian multimillionaire who is using the club as a plaything, not as an investor. They have been fined well over £4m for breaching FFP Rules in achieving Premiership status, in other words, cheating.
Ok, that’s a fair distinction but I was trying to give an example of how outside investment/wealthy benefactors don’t always have disastrous consequences. There are many more examples.
Comrade Harmanski and his Academy? WTO rules? I would like to express my sympathies for the large number of threads generated which are now totally redundant and the upset and total waste of posters' time that may have been caused.
Well this all just gets a bit more fun by the day doesn't it... Hope to hear of a right rollocking at the Fans Council tonight. Total and utter shambles.
So certain members on here were hell bent on AH being aloud to have a second chance. Well well done your actions have well and truly f****d the club up. Next time keep your bright ideas to your self. Now we possibly stand to lose players and a manager, as we potentially could have had more cash for bigger wages. So cheery bye Gape and co. Thanks for playing for us. But we now don’t have the cash to pay you what you deserve
Hard to feel to disappointed as we never ever found out much about the offer. It's a shame not to test the 75% threshold vote though.
I am not sure how it works constitutionally but can the Trust call a legacy vote on the more general idea of majority ownership and then vote on a wider Trust basis on a 50% threshold in a specific deal. Might make it an easier sell to potential investors.
@TrueBlu what on earth are you talking about?
You do realise Harman may be our only possible option moving forward for investment, now we have been left in the lurch by the Americans?
I'm sure this has been covered somewhere in the depths of these threads before, so sorry if I'm going over old ground, but apparently there are currently 3 charges against Adams Park?
Exactly. I know AH may come back. I hope he does now. I still stand by what I said, and still prefer the now dead plan A. But I would back AH should he now come back in. What a fricking mess. It really is like Brexit
Really badly handled by all involved. Messing about with another offer would have pissed the Americans off badly - these are big hitting private equity guys not used to being dicked about. That would have put them off to start with, and with us sliding rapidly towards D2 suddenly the whole prospect looks different.
So, taking the proposed sale in 2016 into account, this is the second time we've been told the Trust board has found the 'right people' to 'invest' only for the owners-elect to pull out at the last minute.
Maybe a fresh set of eyes should scrutinise the next potential bidders.
Comments
We will get a pretty fair idea soon, perhaps later today, whether this is currently a moot point or not when we find out whether the US guys and/or Harman are still interested.
In principle though
I agree with much of this. It is possible that the club could briefly do a Yeovil or a Burton and have a couple of years in the championship but unlikely I think. Financially that is probably even worse anyway. It is possible that the finances can be turned round such that we break even in Lg1 or Lg2 but I think that is pretty unlikely too. So the honest future under private ownership is probably private owner comes in, runs it at a loss for say five years (funded by either debt or equity), sells to a new guy, any debt to previous owner gets written off at acquisition, he runs it at a loss for five years, he sells to a new guy etc etc. That's the way pretty much every other club in the lower divisions runs - probably 90% or so quite happily but it is absolutely true to say there is risk.
Effectively to borrow someone's analogy above, you are playing Russian roulette with perhaps ten chambers one of which has a bullet in it.
The other alternative is to stay as we are. If you believe that we can do with zero risk - playing Russian roulette with zero bullets in the ten chambers, then why wouldn't we do that? If on the other hand you see that option as playing Russian roulette with say nine of the chambers having a bullet in, taking that option when you have a choice would be pretty dumb.
an existing £600k cash loss each year, whether we play in lg1 or lg2 with no clear plan of how to eradicate the loss and no way of funding the loss feels to me like at least a nine bullet option. If you have a concrete plan to empty the gun chambers in a fan owned model, I would genuinely be delighted to hear it.
Oh God, have we got to consider the Gun Laws now ?
Oh FFS
Stop lecturing people who contribute hundreds of pounds a year to the continued existence of the club they love about its finances when you contribute nothing, and haven't for years
Have to agree with @marlowchair, throwing money at a club in the belief that it will guarantee promotion has failed so many times before I don’t know why it still gets floated. Far better to invest in a youth academy, which means engagement with the local community (leading to increase attendance?) and any half decent players can break into the first team, any exceptional ones can be sold, as per Ibe . Building stability at a club which can never rely on a particularly large fan base may not sound as sexy as (endless) 5 year plans, in glossy pamphlets but it’s a lot more sustainable than having few years of living beyond our means, and falling badly at the end.
Exactly @Doob. I’m yet to see a convincing argument to explain how £600k pa in losses can be cleared by actually adding to the debt.
This debate clearly hinges on the level of investment and at this moment we don’t know what that could be. Obviously, if it’s a modest amount then it has to be spent on clearing our debts first and more ambitious plans would have to be put on ice.
If, however, the investment is more substantial it could enable us to recruit better players. You’d be surprised by how many players in the lower leagues would be prepared to move clubs for a fairly modest increase in wages.
Having better players gives you a greater chance of success and success on the field would surely lead to increased income through gate receipts.
I didn’t say this could be achieved overnight but it’s obvious that a successful club will attract more revenue that can be used to improve its infrastructure.
People mention Notts County, Bolton etc but choose to ignore other examples where outside investment has worked.
Burton Albion, Rotherham, Bournemouth and Brentford are recent examples of clubs similar to Wycombe in terms of ground capacity and average attendances who achieved Championship status thanks to outside investment.
I would be as concerned as anyone else about gambling the club’s future, but what do people not understand about the Trust board’s warning that the present model is unsustainable?
In theory it is possible @drcongo. eg you invest £100k in refurbishing conference facilities and that pays back £50k per year in income for the next five years. But I agree I think it is unlikely that a loss of that size can easily be cleared whatever we do.
I think with respect you are asking yourself the wrong question. Forget jargon, forget accounting, forget how you would like the word to be, just look at good old-fashioned hard cash in the world as it is.
currently our revenue (A) in cash terms is less than our costs in cash terms (B).
We have four basic choices (although obviously in theory you can do a bit of more than one)
1) Increase A without affecting B
2) Reduce B without affecting A
3) Find someone to give you cash to cover the gap between A and B
4) Die
Obviously 1) or 2) are the best approach, but no one seems to know how. If you have a genuine suggestion of a solution, that would be great.
Failing that 3) , (which is what pretty much all league clubs do and what we have been doing), is better than 4).
But it seems that no one can think of a way of doing 3) either going forward as a fan owned club.
@glasshalffull - With respect, your example of Bournemouth is ridiculous. Since 2011 they have been bankrolled in huge sums by a Russian multimillionaire who is using the club as a plaything, not as an investor. They have been fined well over £4m for breaching FFP Rules in achieving Premiership status, in other words, cheating.
Certainly a difficult time. Let's hope we can avoid Wyexit this season and things will become clearer once the bid is on the table. It certainly needs to be sorted in time for summer planning.
Ok, that’s a fair distinction but I was trying to give an example of how outside investment/wealthy benefactors don’t always have disastrous consequences. There are many more examples.
Does anyone know any wealthy Russians who can use us as a plaything. Happy for the £4m fines if they will pay them ;-)
Onto the next chapter the Americans have pulled the plug on any deal.
https://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/2019/april/trust-ends-discussions-with-potential-investors/
I reiterate my earlier comment
Oh ##it
Comrade Harmanski and his Academy? WTO rules? I would like to express my sympathies for the large number of threads generated which are now totally redundant and the upset and total waste of posters' time that may have been caused.
Effectively it reads they are now too busy to carry on being interested in Wycombe.
Better now than in 6 months I guess but I think Mr Stroud should explain his preference in light of the US bid failing to materialise.
Not to mention the small matter of having to pay back their loan by the end of 2019.
So the club have 8 months to repay the American's loan after their "generous" offer to extend repayment for a further couple of months!
Well this all just gets a bit more fun by the day doesn't it... Hope to hear of a right rollocking at the Fans Council tonight. Total and utter shambles.
So certain members on here were hell bent on AH being aloud to have a second chance. Well well done your actions have well and truly f****d the club up. Next time keep your bright ideas to your self. Now we possibly stand to lose players and a manager, as we potentially could have had more cash for bigger wages. So cheery bye Gape and co. Thanks for playing for us. But we now don’t have the cash to pay you what you deserve
Hard to feel to disappointed as we never ever found out much about the offer. It's a shame not to test the 75% threshold vote though.
I am not sure how it works constitutionally but can the Trust call a legacy vote on the more general idea of majority ownership and then vote on a wider Trust basis on a 50% threshold in a specific deal. Might make it an easier sell to potential investors.
@TrueBlu what on earth are you talking about?
You do realise Harman may be our only possible option moving forward for investment, now we have been left in the lurch by the Americans?
I'm sure this has been covered somewhere in the depths of these threads before, so sorry if I'm going over old ground, but apparently there are currently 3 charges against Adams Park?
@true_blu - I think you overestimate the power of this forum to persuade the Board to allow Harman to bid.
Exactly. I know AH may come back. I hope he does now. I still stand by what I said, and still prefer the now dead plan A. But I would back AH should he now come back in. What a fricking mess. It really is like Brexit
Really badly handled by all involved. Messing about with another offer would have pissed the Americans off badly - these are big hitting private equity guys not used to being dicked about. That would have put them off to start with, and with us sliding rapidly towards D2 suddenly the whole prospect looks different.
What was plan A again?
So, taking the proposed sale in 2016 into account, this is the second time we've been told the Trust board has found the 'right people' to 'invest' only for the owners-elect to pull out at the last minute.
Maybe a fresh set of eyes should scrutinise the next potential bidders.
When they said "fun ride" they meant "create the longest thread in Gasroom history".
I am taking their statement at face value, so as long as the "other interests" do not refer to Colchester, it is just one of those things.
The sadness for me is that it looks like the club is broken, when it is actually football that is broken.