Howdy, Stranger!

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

Trust agree deal (in principle) with Major new Shareholder Rob Couhig

1457910

Comments

  • I’m with you on most of what you say in the first of your last two posts @OakwoodExile, especially the motivational aspect - I had the impression with Jim and Bill that their motivation was the belief that our club had Championship potential - but I do not like the way you use “Premiership” for the Premier League.

    👍 👎 ( 2 )
  • @Croider said:

    @OxfordBlue said:

    @OldEchoMan said:
    Hello everyone. I'm new to this forum but hope to have the chance to meet a lot of you as the season progresses. I'm going to be involved in a project with Wycombe I hope you'll find exciting. All will be revealed in the fullness of time.

    What a curious post.

    I can only find one other person online under the username OldEchoMan, and that is former Times tennis correspondent Neil Harman, who was most notably apparently sacked for plagiarism and lives in Berkshire.

    Seems to be the correct identification going by his twitter account (@Neil_Harman57)

    Recently followed the whole squad plus a certain Pete Couhig. I wonder what brings a former tennis journalist to start featuring Wycombe?

    Great detective work guys, does sound likely. The post from Neil seemed a bit annoying in that it was unnecessarily mysterious and not at all on topic. Love that you outed him straight away 😂

  • I don't have anything in particular against Mr Couhig but I thought the trust said they would give a vote on a minority shareholding deal? It seemslike it is already wrapped up and we have no information as to terms of the deal to decide if it provides adequate protection and values the club to what we consider is an appropriate amount. Agreeing a minority deal is preferable to me compared to a majority deal but is highly likely to lead to a majority whether we like it or not.

  • The motivation of any investor is a key factor but it's the hardest thing to actually find out. Some have already decided what it is and others will wait until they here from the man. Problem is then some will believe him and others won't.

    That is why the 75% threshold is an impossible task to obtain and minority ownership is the only path. This then reduces the value of any investment to the investor as they don't have overall say.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • @Right_in_the_Middle said:
    The motivation of any investor is a key factor but it's the hardest thing to actually find out. Some have already decided what it is and others will wait until they here from the man. Problem is then some will believe him and others won't.

    That is why the 75% threshold is an impossible task to obtain and minority ownership is the only path. This then reduces the value of any investment to the investor as they don't have overall say.

    Agree about motivation, often you are evaluating how polished they and their team are rather than their intentions but that doesn't mean you give everyone a free pass.

    I don't agree with, possibly don't quite understand the second paragraph. I don't believe 75% is that difficult to be honest, lay it on thick about how skint we are and a majority would probably sell to anyone offering a few quid.

    Minority investment gives them a chance to prove themselves a bit...or to get in then announce how its much harder and worse than they expected so they really need full ownership.

  • I think, club charter permitting, a separate vote should probably be taken to change the threshold so that it is 75% of those who vote. Not 75% of all legacy members.

    As the numbers grow year on year, it’s going to be harder and harder to try and get everyone to vote.

    If you can’t be bothered to exercise it, it shouldn’t count.

  • @OxfordBlue, it would need the approval of 75% of all legacy members to change it, so very unlikely. It is currently set as it is for a very good reason, to make it much harder for a hostile group to gain control of the club and its assets

  • I wonder if the Trust have already accepted loans from Mr Couhig without informing members ? As they did with Bill and Jim, that in turn would weaken our position further.

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • @colonel_splaffy said:
    I don't have anything in particular against Mr Couhig but I thought the trust said they would give a vote on a minority shareholding deal? It seemslike it is already wrapped up and we have no information as to terms of the deal to decide if it provides adequate protection and values the club to what we consider is an appropriate amount. Agreeing a minority deal is preferable to me compared to a majority deal but is highly likely to lead to a majority whether we like it or not.

    As I understand the statement the legacy members would only be asked regarding Mr Couhig taking majority shareholding at some future date. From memory his minority share is within the remit of the board to give and it does read like a done deal.

  • Reading certain members posts, you would think they really don’t want any deal of any sort to happen, it does seem like a new members wording sounds just like Marlow C! Myself I was all in favour of the Previous Yankee offer but this new one, I am sceptical about, I don’t know why. It’s just a gut feeling

    👍 👎 ( -1 )
  • 'Tis true some people don't want a deal to happen @TrueBlu because they believe whole-heartedly that we can survive in the fan-owned model and fear an outside owner.

    👍 👎 ( -1 )
  • Fan-owned don’t work end of, innit

    👍 👎 ( -1 )
  • @micra you may be right but so far so good...

    👍 👎 ( -1 )
  • Fan ownership isn’t the problem it’s the environment it has to survive in

    👍 👎 ( 5 )
  • @BuckinghamBlue said:
    Fan ownership isn’t the problem it’s the environment it has to survive in

    This 100%. Maybe we can get it printed on our scarfs after the takeover.

  • Whilst I believe that outside investment is needed in order for us to survive and prosper and i also have no views either way on this proposed investment until i can see the detail, I would say this ;

    If indeed the trust board have committed us to a minority stake then going forward we must achieve a higher degree of transparency in the club particularly around the financial side of things.

    Who knows what losns or commitments that may or may not have been made on our behalf?

    I am probably at the naive /badly informed end of things, but I first learned of progress on the investment via the Bucks Free Press. That surely cant be right. Or am I missing something here?

  • @North_of_the_Border said:

    Whilst I believe that outside investment is needed in order for us to survive and prosper and i also have no views either way on this proposed investment until i can see the detail, I would say this ;

    If indeed the trust board have committed us to a minority stake then going forward we must achieve a higher degree of transparency in the club particularly around the financial side of things.

    Who knows what losns or commitments that may or may not have been made on our behalf?

    I am probably at the naive /badly informed end of things, but I first learned of progress on the investment via the Bucks Free Press. That surely cant be right. Or am I missing something here?

    If you’re a trust member or have social media you would have heard there first rather than BFP.

    You can only be so transparent with details of commercial agreements, and minority shareholders only have so much power.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • @micra said:
    Fan-owned don’t work end of, innit

    Quite remarkable how a silly throwaway comment borne of boredom with all the prejudgement flying around can induce four people to “disapprove”! Next Thursday’s meeting may provide sufficient insight into Mr Couhig’s motivation and the nature of his commitment to enable us to make more reasoned judgements.

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • I gave you a like for both comments now, @micra. Back to 3 under par (or should it be 3 over?) for the throwaway comment. We can fight this!

    👍 👎 ( -2 )
  • All will be revealed on the 11th at the trust members meeting. Then we can pick the bones afterwards?

  • @drcongo said:
    I thought your last sentence really synergised and going forward this will be my key takeaway.

    Goodness, this made me laugh.

  • @TrueBlu said:
    Reading certain members posts, you would think they really don’t want any deal of any sort to happen, it does seem like a new members wording sounds just like Marlow C! Myself I was all in favour of the Previous Yankee offer but this new one, I am sceptical about, I don’t know why. It’s just a gut feeling

    Surely there's no dual account shenanighans at play here!

  • http://www.wycombewandererstrust.com/2019/07/details-of-thursdays-trust-members-meeting

    Mark Palmer will be in attendance.

    I can't make the meeting but I would appreciate it if someone could (politely) drill him a little bit about comments made by Yeovil players, regarding him trying to intervene in first team affairs too much.

  • GA won't have him interfering here and I would expect that to cause problems should it happen.

  • @rmjlondon said:
    GA won't have him interfering here and I would expect that to cause problems should it happen.

    GA probably isn't going to be around forever though.

    Do you fancy a situation where, hypothetically, Mark Palmer is hovering around a first team managed by an inexperienced Bloomfield?

  • Maybe he needed to intervene in Yeovil team affairs, they weren’t exactly doing well we’re they.
    Just give these guys a chance and be positive. We could be in a position where no-one wanted to invest in our club and then we would probably fall out of the EFL within two or three seasons.
    Me I would much prefer the investment as opposed to changing ends in non league football.
    Be positive and wait until Thursday to listen what these guys have to say 😁😁⚽️⚽️😁😁

  • I am very positive about the investor and hope he can move the club forward with the support of the fans, players and board.

    However, Yeovil players have come out publicly saying Palmer's influence was not positive. I think it should be addressed in a public forum, its due diligence.

  • Ask the question then @OxfordBlue, I anticipate a positive answer.

  • As I said in my previous post, I would ask myself, but I am not able to make it. I am out the country on that date.

  • Members will also have the opportunity to send questions for the panel in advance to [email protected]

Sign In or Register to comment.