@DJWYC14 It could be a cashflow thing. A comment above said that Michael Davies said we didn't have money to pay bills. Banks won't lend to us so until the revenue comes in from August we have no brass and so need to borrow from someone
In all seriousness it seems odd to need that much cash when we are making little or no capital or player investments and our annual loss is around the level of the loans being discussed. That's without season ticket money and access to the 500 club fund.
@eric_plant said:
It'll be worth the value of the loans he's put in + the 500K he'll be paying Dollar Bill and Hacksaw Jim, won't it?
So 300K already, plus another 300k in the next few weeks, plus that 500K.......that's 1.1M. I'd imagine there will be more loans between now and the new year.
That's all fine but why is that worth 75% as opposed to 50% or 90%?
Surely the more they loan will make any repayment of loan plus interest impossible.
@DJWYC14 said:
It astounds me how we can need £600k in 8 weeks to keep ourselves going. How can we be losing this much money, with ST money coming in, and an anticipated windfall from the Hause sell-on. How is this amount of debt being allowed to build-up without any challenge or justification?
I am aware that we are losing significant amounts of money each year under our current arrangements but nothing close to this level. A cynic would probably say debt is being deliberately racked up to push members towards voting to sell the club, with the regularity and size of the loans being taken are happening.
@DJWYC14 said:
A cynic would probably say debt is being deliberately racked up to push members towards voting to sell the club, with the regularity and size of the loans being taken are happening.
This rings some bells.... haven't we seen this behaviour before?? We obviously didn't learn anything from that at all.
@JohnnyAllAlone said: @DJWYC14 It could be a cashflow thing. A comment above said that Michael Davies said we didn't have money to pay bills. Banks won't lend to us so until the revenue comes in from August we have no brass and so need to borrow from someone
Cashflow maybe but there have been constant revenue streams throughout the summer. Season ticket renewals, merchandise sales, conferences etc. Please do not think that income is only generated when the turnstiles click.
Wow @floyd, so after all we have fought to achieve since we entered the football league, including a FA Cup semi-final, a League Cup semi final and various promotions, you would still be happier watching Wycombe play Beaconsfield or Chesham as opposed to taking the investment proposed. Amazing!
Let’s not play at running a football club and pretend we all own a slice and thus have a say, when in actual fact we have a say in nothing. Much better have professionals at the helm who are willing and able to put their money where their mouths are.
Mark Palmer and Mr Couhig seem to be pretty focussed on the business in hand and for me are much more professional and business minded than the people who have got us into this mess with their so called five year plan.
Be positive and give them a fair crack at the whip.
I’m not sure where I’ve said any of that @Blue_since_1990 but feel free to misrepresent views that disagree with yours if you can’t engage with them.
What I want is for us to be fan-owned at the highest sustainable level. For whatever reason it seems like L1 is too high a level for us to sustain. The Trust board, deliberately or not, have allowed us to get into a situation that means this offer is a fait accompli if we want to pay our bills in the football league. Like others, I’d love to know how we arrived at this point. It’s a great shame that what appears possible at AFCW and Exeter isn’t possible here.
One way or another, in 12 months things will look very different.
Apologies @floyd my points were actually aimed at @Cambridge_Blue and the comments made earlier this morning in an exchange with @glasshalffull. I certainly didn’t intend to misrepresent you, although I did a pretty good job of doing so. ???
@Blue_since_1990 said:
Apologies @floyd my points were actually aimed at @Cambridge_Blue and the comments made earlier this morning in an exchange with @glasshalffull. I certainly didn’t intend to misrepresent you, although I did a pretty good job of doing so. ???
Well done on the apology front @Blue. Please also note that some of us do actually 'have a say'. Me and another 900 or so legacy members.
@LordMandeville, well I partially disagree on that one. We, the Legacy members, never had a say on the current minority share decision. I appreciate that the Trust Board didn’t need to get our input for anything less than a majority stake but shows that things can be done without any say that can dramatically impact our club.
I am also a Legacy member and I certainly don’t expect to be consulted on all decisions but when something of this magnitude can be passed without even pre-consultation, then it somewhat devalues the existence of the Legacy Members.
I am all for this investment but the context in which I stated ‘ have no say’ is still is partly true LordMandeville.
@Blue_since_1990 there is no minority share decision. Couhig does not have, nor does he appear to desire to have, a minority shareholding. All we are doing right now is borrowing
@Blue_since_1990 there is no minority share decision - Couhig doesn't have a minority share, or any share at all. All we are doing at the moment is borrowing
I should add, by the way, that once again the evening was very well hosted by Matt Cecil. He is very good at his job, and it's especially good that it is a lifelong Wycombe supporter doing it.
So what happens to FALL if after 6-9 months Bob and team do not get 75% and ask for their money back? Just to be clear they will want all monies put in and interest on top?
I assume the club would not be able to pay in full and so via administration or by some other route the club would go under. Perhaps reborn but at a lower level?
If so how do FALL survive and operate Adams Park without a football club paying rent? For that matter if at some point in the future the Ground needed major work, how on earth is that funded. Can FALL demand any tenants pay the bill?
I think I may not understand how FALL works to protect Adams Park. An explanation from the cognoscenti would be much appreciated.
If we can’t afford to run Adams Park as a League One side, I can’t see a situation where we could afford the costs as a non-league Phoenix team way down the pyramid.
@floyd said:
I’m not sure where I’ve said any of that @Blue_since_1990 but feel free to misrepresent views that disagree with yours if you can’t engage with them.
What I want is for us to be fan-owned at the highest sustainable level. For whatever reason it seems like L1 is too high a level for us to sustain. The Trust board, deliberately or not, have allowed us to get into a situation that means this offer is a fait accompli if we want to pay our bills in the football league. Like others, I’d love to know how we arrived at this point.
I think this second paragraph is probably key. I personally doubt that this was a deliberate choice or that the poor practices evidenced (in the loosest sense) by @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots would have made the sort of difference required to keep us sustainable at this level on our existing income.
But from where we are now there do only appear two options: take the money and ultimately hand over control in 6-9 months or take the money and decide to keep on the fan-owned road and hope that Rob Couhig is happy to take his loan payments back in instalments (otherwise we are stuffed).
The latter as @glasshalffull (I think) pointed out will almost inevitably mean a significantly reduced playing budget likely to be below most National League clubs (at least until we’ve paid back RC) and if we accept that ultimately player budget correlated with league position it’s relatively easy to see where that will likely take us.
For some people (and I’m not too far removed from this view myself) this is a sacrifice worth making to ensure the long-term viability of WWFC. Someone on here did make a very good observation though about it being an easy stance for those of us who aren’t reliant on the club as their income, which i’d not really factored in.
I think condemning or disrespecting people who do maintain this position is inadvisable. To reach the 75% threshold I think we may need to engage in proper and reasonable debate* about the merits and risks of what majority shareholding means and convince enough to hold their noses and vote for it to succeed.
A few asides:
Has any of the additional money borrowed been used to increase the playing budget agreed at the end of last season?
The ‘pissed off’ comment worries me. If the position regarding the likely difficulties of achieving 75% have properly been explained to RC if he was to achieve say 90% of the vote but only 70% of the voters I’d like to think he might be quite pleased and hang around for a couple of months to try and get it over the line.
Exeter have had a good few windfalls in recent years (player sales, cup ties against Man Utd). I’m not quite sure how well they’ll cope long term.
AFC Wimbledon I’m more surprised at. Be interesting to see where their income does come from.
The Trust made a bad mis-step in over-selling our financial position in a positive way a year or two back. It only looked that way due to Ibe money etc with other outgoings well exceeding normal income.
If we think back a few weeks to how dejected GA looked and how bleak our finances appeared whatever the pros and cons of how we’ve got here we are entering the new season in a much healthier position than I expected (thanks Dominic - we owe you).
*this was something that used to happen pre-SM when people would talk, listen, respect people’s views and consider the evidence to help inform their own views.
I’ve nothing to offer regarding EFL payments @bookertease but what I do know the finances at Exeter received a mighty boost over recent seasons from the sale of two or three players, netting them several million pounds. They’ve also done well in the FA Cup and received healthy income from TV.
AFC Wimbledon also received well over a million pounds from gate receipts and TV rights last season. And I’ve heard it said that the Chairman and/or another board member chip in significant amounts. Also, the leasehold of Kingsmeadow was purchased from Wimbledon by Chelsea in 2015 for use by their Ladies and Youth teams.
It was @valleywanderer (fellow night owl) who mentioned staff losing jobs if the club folded or went into serious decline.
Forgive my ignorance of what, to quote the sadly missed @EddieMonsoon, is probably BWK but I don’t know what “pre-SM” means. I assume not Sadomasochism, although we’ve had our share at Adams Park in recent years.
Pre-Social Media @micra. Bit tongue-in-cheek but I do find it frustrating that we appear to have lost the will to listen and consider other viewpoints.
And I’m not being a night-owl - i’m just over @Shev’s side of the Atlantic (sitting looking at the sun set over the Caribbean Sea drinking Appleton’s Special Reserve rum. Please feel free to feel sorry for me)
@Fit2drop said:
Ok fellow Wycombe Wanderers fans, having tried to get my head around all the interpretations and visions of the future with or without investment I am in turmoil.
1. I cannot get my head around how any financially knowledgeable person would invest in a 3rd tier football team that is un sustainable and unlikely to return a profit.
2. If we don't return a 70% positive vote for the takeover we will have an even larger un serviceable debt than we currently have.
3. If we return a 70% positive vote and the takeover is completed, how long will the investment last in its endevour to return a profit?
4. The takeover is completed. WW returns a profit and is sold to???
Apologies for the ramble but I am really struggling with this issue.
Comments
@DJWYC14 It could be a cashflow thing. A comment above said that Michael Davies said we didn't have money to pay bills. Banks won't lend to us so until the revenue comes in from August we have no brass and so need to borrow from someone
Yes. I was going to post exactly that. A positive in my book.
My thoughts too @DJWYC14, why are we having to borrow so much?
Members need a detailed statement from the Trust Board on the current financial situation.
What are we buying from Bill's?
In all seriousness it seems odd to need that much cash when we are making little or no capital or player investments and our annual loss is around the level of the loans being discussed. That's without season ticket money and access to the 500 club fund.
@Right_in_the_Middle autofill gone mad. It has been corrected
That's all fine but why is that worth 75% as opposed to 50% or 90%?
Surely the more they loan will make any repayment of loan plus interest impossible.
I am usually quite cynical.
This rings some bells.... haven't we seen this behaviour before?? We obviously didn't learn anything from that at all.
Cashflow maybe but there have been constant revenue streams throughout the summer. Season ticket renewals, merchandise sales, conferences etc. Please do not think that income is only generated when the turnstiles click.
Wow @floyd, so after all we have fought to achieve since we entered the football league, including a FA Cup semi-final, a League Cup semi final and various promotions, you would still be happier watching Wycombe play Beaconsfield or Chesham as opposed to taking the investment proposed. Amazing!
Let’s not play at running a football club and pretend we all own a slice and thus have a say, when in actual fact we have a say in nothing. Much better have professionals at the helm who are willing and able to put their money where their mouths are.
Mark Palmer and Mr Couhig seem to be pretty focussed on the business in hand and for me are much more professional and business minded than the people who have got us into this mess with their so called five year plan.
Be positive and give them a fair crack at the whip.
I’m not sure where I’ve said any of that @Blue_since_1990 but feel free to misrepresent views that disagree with yours if you can’t engage with them.
What I want is for us to be fan-owned at the highest sustainable level. For whatever reason it seems like L1 is too high a level for us to sustain. The Trust board, deliberately or not, have allowed us to get into a situation that means this offer is a fait accompli if we want to pay our bills in the football league. Like others, I’d love to know how we arrived at this point. It’s a great shame that what appears possible at AFCW and Exeter isn’t possible here.
One way or another, in 12 months things will look very different.
The trouble is Adams Park might not be sustainable with fan ownership at any level.
Apologies @floyd my points were actually aimed at @Cambridge_Blue and the comments made earlier this morning in an exchange with @glasshalffull. I certainly didn’t intend to misrepresent you, although I did a pretty good job of doing so. ???
No problem @Blue_since_1990
Well done on the apology front @Blue. Please also note that some of us do actually 'have a say'. Me and another 900 or so legacy members.
@LordMandeville, well I partially disagree on that one. We, the Legacy members, never had a say on the current minority share decision. I appreciate that the Trust Board didn’t need to get our input for anything less than a majority stake but shows that things can be done without any say that can dramatically impact our club.
I am also a Legacy member and I certainly don’t expect to be consulted on all decisions but when something of this magnitude can be passed without even pre-consultation, then it somewhat devalues the existence of the Legacy Members.
I am all for this investment but the context in which I stated ‘ have no say’ is still is partly true LordMandeville.
@Blue_since_1990 there is no minority share decision. Couhig does not have, nor does he appear to desire to have, a minority shareholding. All we are doing right now is borrowing
@Blue_since_1990 there is no minority share decision - Couhig doesn't have a minority share, or any share at all. All we are doing at the moment is borrowing
Ned Ryerson?
They seemed to have an idea to get their money back by making the club successful.
I should add, by the way, that once again the evening was very well hosted by Matt Cecil. He is very good at his job, and it's especially good that it is a lifelong Wycombe supporter doing it.
@Wendoverman - It could be argued that their idea is delusional!
So what happens to FALL if after 6-9 months Bob and team do not get 75% and ask for their money back? Just to be clear they will want all monies put in and interest on top?
I assume the club would not be able to pay in full and so via administration or by some other route the club would go under. Perhaps reborn but at a lower level?
If so how do FALL survive and operate Adams Park without a football club paying rent? For that matter if at some point in the future the Ground needed major work, how on earth is that funded. Can FALL demand any tenants pay the bill?
I think I may not understand how FALL works to protect Adams Park. An explanation from the cognoscenti would be much appreciated.
If we can’t afford to run Adams Park as a League One side, I can’t see a situation where we could afford the costs as a non-league Phoenix team way down the pyramid.
I think this second paragraph is probably key. I personally doubt that this was a deliberate choice or that the poor practices evidenced (in the loosest sense) by @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots would have made the sort of difference required to keep us sustainable at this level on our existing income.
But from where we are now there do only appear two options: take the money and ultimately hand over control in 6-9 months or take the money and decide to keep on the fan-owned road and hope that Rob Couhig is happy to take his loan payments back in instalments (otherwise we are stuffed).
The latter as @glasshalffull (I think) pointed out will almost inevitably mean a significantly reduced playing budget likely to be below most National League clubs (at least until we’ve paid back RC) and if we accept that ultimately player budget correlated with league position it’s relatively easy to see where that will likely take us.
For some people (and I’m not too far removed from this view myself) this is a sacrifice worth making to ensure the long-term viability of WWFC. Someone on here did make a very good observation though about it being an easy stance for those of us who aren’t reliant on the club as their income, which i’d not really factored in.
I think condemning or disrespecting people who do maintain this position is inadvisable. To reach the 75% threshold I think we may need to engage in proper and reasonable debate* about the merits and risks of what majority shareholding means and convince enough to hold their noses and vote for it to succeed.
A few asides:
Has any of the additional money borrowed been used to increase the playing budget agreed at the end of last season?
The ‘pissed off’ comment worries me. If the position regarding the likely difficulties of achieving 75% have properly been explained to RC if he was to achieve say 90% of the vote but only 70% of the voters I’d like to think he might be quite pleased and hang around for a couple of months to try and get it over the line.
Exeter have had a good few windfalls in recent years (player sales, cup ties against Man Utd). I’m not quite sure how well they’ll cope long term.
AFC Wimbledon I’m more surprised at. Be interesting to see where their income does come from.
The Trust made a bad mis-step in over-selling our financial position in a positive way a year or two back. It only looked that way due to Ibe money etc with other outgoings well exceeding normal income.
If we think back a few weeks to how dejected GA looked and how bleak our finances appeared whatever the pros and cons of how we’ve got here we are entering the new season in a much healthier position than I expected (thanks Dominic - we owe you).
*this was something that used to happen pre-SM when people would talk, listen, respect people’s views and consider the evidence to help inform their own views.
A further aside:
Anyone know how the EFL payment is made? Is it spread over the season? 12 months? A one-off? When there is a r in the month?
Great post, @bookertease!
I’ve nothing to offer regarding EFL payments @bookertease but what I do know the finances at Exeter received a mighty boost over recent seasons from the sale of two or three players, netting them several million pounds. They’ve also done well in the FA Cup and received healthy income from TV.
AFC Wimbledon also received well over a million pounds from gate receipts and TV rights last season. And I’ve heard it said that the Chairman and/or another board member chip in significant amounts. Also, the leasehold of Kingsmeadow was purchased from Wimbledon by Chelsea in 2015 for use by their Ladies and Youth teams.
It was @valleywanderer (fellow night owl) who mentioned staff losing jobs if the club folded or went into serious decline.
Forgive my ignorance of what, to quote the sadly missed @EddieMonsoon, is probably BWK but I don’t know what “pre-SM” means. I assume not Sadomasochism, although we’ve had our share at Adams Park in recent years.
Pre-Social Media @micra. Bit tongue-in-cheek but I do find it frustrating that we appear to have lost the will to listen and consider other viewpoints.
And I’m not being a night-owl - i’m just over @Shev’s side of the Atlantic (sitting looking at the sun set over the Caribbean Sea drinking Appleton’s Special Reserve rum. Please feel free to feel sorry for me)
I'm not sure I've yet seen a reply that addresses these points with which I am in great sympathy. Anyone able to offer an insight?