@bookertease said:
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)
It sounds like a tough life, @bookertease! Hope you are having fun (which sounds like a redundant sentiment!)
This night owl has arisen unhealthily early.
What a great place to be @bookertease. I hope you are still sleeping soundly!
Silly me (SM again) for not realising that you were referring to social media. I never really think of the Gasroom as social media but of course it is. I share your frustration with the apparent unwillingness of a lot of people to listen to and consider different views without (in some cases) resorting to puerile abuse.
Good to hear from @HCblue again. With reference to the post from @Fit2drop, i too have found it hard to understand the motivation of people (particularly those living thousands of miles away) to be prepared to sink hundreds of thousands of pounds into a level three football club. (It will require a yes vote from 75 percent of Legacy Members in fact for them to acquire a majority shareholding, not 70%.) Motivating factors appear to include a genuine interest in, and enjoyment of, the English game plus of course the challenge to make a success of something where arguably less energetic and dynamic individuals appear to be struggling.
Rob Couhig clearly thinks it entirely feasible to get Wycombe into the Championship and only if successful in that ambition would he and his colleagues be likely to profit financially from their efforts. They talked in terms of a minimum of three years to achieve that. Mark Palmer also hopes to introduce an initially modest U23 set-up which, inter alia, would aim to develop talented young players with a view to profiting from their sale in due course.
Meanwhile, if we want the club to survive in the Football League and assuming that our new partners make a reasonable fist of it over the next 6-9 months, I think the only sensible course for Legacy Members will be to vote yes.
Championship ambitions seem unrealistic and an U23 set-up is unlikely to generate much income given EPPP. We are far more likely to be relegated than promoted - what will Rob do if that happens?
By the time of the vote it’s likely that the only sensible course will be to vote yes, as the alternative will be Rob wanting his money back and WWFC being unable to pay.
@Chris My understanding of EPPP is pretty hazy, but my guess is it only affects the sale of youth team players who are not on pro contracts (U-17's?). I assume any U-23 team would consists mostly, possibly entirely, of players aged 18 or over, who we could then tie down to pro contracts if they showed suitable promise. (They could, of course, refuse said contract offer, but that's just a risk we'd have to take).
@bookertease said:
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)
Totally agree with your post @bookertease. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinions, but when it gets personal-and there are a couple of posters on here that this applies to-I find it unacceptable.
Enjoy your rum and you paint a wonderful picture of tranquility.
If a player is between 18 and 23 is good enough they are likely to be part of our first team squad. A development squad of 18-23 year olds is just a reserve team under another name - and we’ve been doing so well without a reserve team that it seems an unnecessary drain on limited resources.
Why is it that people can be so very often sceptical of others intentions and think there must be some ulterior motive?
I was thinking how I might react if someone from the gasroon won the lottery and wanted to invest £2-3M in WWFC. I think I'd be fairly okay with that, take the money, say thanks and enjoy the ride for a couple of seasons and see what happened.
Now when someone from the other side of the pond comes in with the same offer, I'm immediately asking myself "What's his motive?".
Sure he wants to take 75% ownership of the club and that is an issue, but is that really what motives him.
I actually felt much more comfortable watching the presentation on Thursday than with Luby & Collis. It seemed like there was a more honest answering of questions - eg I'm sure he would be p***ed off, if after investing, we didn't approve the deal so why shouldn't he say that.
It did appear they have the confidence and self belief to deliver what they have said they would. It remains to be seen if the Wycombe public respond.
My point?
Is it so hard to think that their motives could be about the challenge turning WWFC around presents and that any financial gain is coincidental?
The idea behind the development team is indeed a reserve team as discussed at the meeting. Bringing people back to fitness, giving games to people currently out of the first team. I think that they mentioned around £200k to set up and maintain. I think it is sound investment if they can get the games in.
Legacy members voting, @Chris. To change the voting rules it would require a general meeting Rule 49 and the 75% voting conditions remain as per rule 50.2 ( 75% of all Legacy members). The Trust Board members can call the general meeting if they fear that the present Rules may not assist their current plans for the future of the Club.
The key to the success or failure of this bid is the 75% legacy member vote requirement. Is it time to reflect on the reasons behind the introduction of this ruling?
@Twizz said:
Why is it that people can be so very often sceptical of others intentions and think there must be some ulterior motive?Sure he wants to take 75% ownership of the club and that is an issue, but is it so hard to think that their motives could be about the challenge of turning WWFC around presents and that any financial gain is coincidental?
@bookertease The "pissed off" comment indeed part of his honest answers and I would feel the same in that situation. It was also said in a jovial manner and got the biggest laugh of the night.
And yes some of the £300k has been invested in Gareth's playing budget to bring it back to the pre-cutting exercise a few weeks ago, as requested by Gareth.
I fear that an annointed Saint could offer to donate a few million quid with the offer to walk away immediately and his motives would still be viewed with scepticism!
@EwanHoosaami said:
I fear that an annointed Saint could offer to donate a few million quid with the offer to walk away immediately and his motives would still be viewed with scepticism!
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Motivation enough? Any Saints seen at Cressex service station recently?
@North_of_the_Border said:
The idea behind the development team is indeed a reserve team as discussed at the meeting. Bringing people back to fitness, giving games to people currently out of the first team. I think that they mentioned around £200k to set up and maintain. I think it is sound investment if they can get the games in.
That sounds reasonable, but to be clear it would be an additional cost rather than a potential source of income as some have suggested.
Surely the point is that they're not considered good enough for the first team so under current arrangements we wouldn't sign them as we need League One ready players; but with coaching and other development in a reserve squad they may one day blossom into first teamers with significant sell-on value. In addition they would be called upon during injury crises and be available to play against the first squad in training. It seems an eminently sensible idea to me - it saves on the costs of building a youth team and all the problems EPPP entails but gives us the benefit of honing players who would otherwise drop out of professional football in their late teens and early twenties with all the benefits that entails.
A youth system I can understand - bringing through teenagers and developing them into professional footballers. However, EPPP has meant this has high costs and a limited pay-off.
By 18 (which seems to be the start of this development squad) players are good enough to be in a first team somewhere, whether that’s League 1, or higher or lower. We can currently attract a high standard of young players because we offer them a place in the first team squad. But would the likes of O’Nien, Freeman and Samuel have signed as part of a U23 development squad, when they could have been playing first team football elsewhere? It seems unlikely.
You’d be surprised by the number of players considered good enough to sign for pro clubs at a very young age but then rejected at 18 because they weren’t rated good enough to progress. There are countless examples of players like that who’ve gone on to forge a successful career elsewhere. Also, with the small squad that we have, no player is far away from the first team and that would make us an attractive proposition.
Comments
It sounds like a tough life, @bookertease! Hope you are having fun (which sounds like a redundant sentiment!)
This night owl has arisen unhealthily early.
What a great place to be @bookertease. I hope you are still sleeping soundly!
Silly me (SM again) for not realising that you were referring to social media. I never really think of the Gasroom as social media but of course it is. I share your frustration with the apparent unwillingness of a lot of people to listen to and consider different views without (in some cases) resorting to puerile abuse.
Good to hear from @HCblue again. With reference to the post from @Fit2drop, i too have found it hard to understand the motivation of people (particularly those living thousands of miles away) to be prepared to sink hundreds of thousands of pounds into a level three football club. (It will require a yes vote from 75 percent of Legacy Members in fact for them to acquire a majority shareholding, not 70%.) Motivating factors appear to include a genuine interest in, and enjoyment of, the English game plus of course the challenge to make a success of something where arguably less energetic and dynamic individuals appear to be struggling.
Rob Couhig clearly thinks it entirely feasible to get Wycombe into the Championship and only if successful in that ambition would he and his colleagues be likely to profit financially from their efforts. They talked in terms of a minimum of three years to achieve that. Mark Palmer also hopes to introduce an initially modest U23 set-up which, inter alia, would aim to develop talented young players with a view to profiting from their sale in due course.
Meanwhile, if we want the club to survive in the Football League and assuming that our new partners make a reasonable fist of it over the next 6-9 months, I think the only sensible course for Legacy Members will be to vote yes.
Championship ambitions seem unrealistic and an U23 set-up is unlikely to generate much income given EPPP. We are far more likely to be relegated than promoted - what will Rob do if that happens?
By the time of the vote it’s likely that the only sensible course will be to vote yes, as the alternative will be Rob wanting his money back and WWFC being unable to pay.
Would it be sensible for the Legacy members to vote to reduce the current 75% to a simple 50%+1,prior to the vote for the change in ownership ?
That would seem sensible, but I don’t know how the change can be made. It might in itself require a 75% vote.
@Chris My understanding of EPPP is pretty hazy, but my guess is it only affects the sale of youth team players who are not on pro contracts (U-17's?). I assume any U-23 team would consists mostly, possibly entirely, of players aged 18 or over, who we could then tie down to pro contracts if they showed suitable promise. (They could, of course, refuse said contract offer, but that's just a risk we'd have to take).
Totally agree with your post @bookertease. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinions, but when it gets personal-and there are a couple of posters on here that this applies to-I find it unacceptable.
Enjoy your rum and you paint a wonderful picture of tranquility.
If a player is between 18 and 23 is good enough they are likely to be part of our first team squad. A development squad of 18-23 year olds is just a reserve team under another name - and we’ve been doing so well without a reserve team that it seems an unnecessary drain on limited resources.
If Gareth supports the setting up of a limited development squad that's good enough reason for me.
Why is it that people can be so very often sceptical of others intentions and think there must be some ulterior motive?
I was thinking how I might react if someone from the gasroon won the lottery and wanted to invest £2-3M in WWFC. I think I'd be fairly okay with that, take the money, say thanks and enjoy the ride for a couple of seasons and see what happened.
Now when someone from the other side of the pond comes in with the same offer, I'm immediately asking myself "What's his motive?".
Sure he wants to take 75% ownership of the club and that is an issue, but is that really what motives him.
I actually felt much more comfortable watching the presentation on Thursday than with Luby & Collis. It seemed like there was a more honest answering of questions - eg I'm sure he would be p***ed off, if after investing, we didn't approve the deal so why shouldn't he say that.
It did appear they have the confidence and self belief to deliver what they have said they would. It remains to be seen if the Wycombe public respond.
My point?
Is it so hard to think that their motives could be about the challenge turning WWFC around presents and that any financial gain is coincidental?
The idea behind the development team is indeed a reserve team as discussed at the meeting. Bringing people back to fitness, giving games to people currently out of the first team. I think that they mentioned around £200k to set up and maintain. I think it is sound investment if they can get the games in.
Oh ye of little faith @Chris !
Brilliant post from Twizz.
Legacy members voting, @Chris. To change the voting rules it would require a general meeting Rule 49 and the 75% voting conditions remain as per rule 50.2 ( 75% of all Legacy members). The Trust Board members can call the general meeting if they fear that the present Rules may not assist their current plans for the future of the Club.
The key to the success or failure of this bid is the 75% legacy member vote requirement. Is it time to reflect on the reasons behind the introduction of this ruling?
Extremely hard for most people, I fear @Twizz.
@bookertease The "pissed off" comment indeed part of his honest answers and I would feel the same in that situation. It was also said in a jovial manner and got the biggest laugh of the night.
And yes some of the £300k has been invested in Gareth's playing budget to bring it back to the pre-cutting exercise a few weeks ago, as requested by Gareth.
I fear that an annointed Saint could offer to donate a few million quid with the offer to walk away immediately and his motives would still be viewed with scepticism!
Thanks @JohnnyAllAlone
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Motivation enough? Any Saints seen at Cressex service station recently?
That sounds reasonable, but to be clear it would be an additional cost rather than a potential source of income as some have suggested.
It could be a potential source of income if we developed a player who attracted the interest of bigger clubs.
But if they were good enough they’d be in the first team - it’s just a reserve side. It doesn’t add any scope for development.
Exactly what I had in mind @glasshalffull when, with carefully chosen words, I said “...in due course.”
Surely the point is that they're not considered good enough for the first team so under current arrangements we wouldn't sign them as we need League One ready players; but with coaching and other development in a reserve squad they may one day blossom into first teamers with significant sell-on value. In addition they would be called upon during injury crises and be available to play against the first squad in training. It seems an eminently sensible idea to me - it saves on the costs of building a youth team and all the problems EPPP entails but gives us the benefit of honing players who would otherwise drop out of professional football in their late teens and early twenties with all the benefits that entails.
Jordan Ibe was not a first team regular when he was snapped up.
He was under 18.
Aloysius has explained the potential benefits perfectly and let’s not forget that there are many examples of players who were late developers.
A youth system I can understand - bringing through teenagers and developing them into professional footballers. However, EPPP has meant this has high costs and a limited pay-off.
By 18 (which seems to be the start of this development squad) players are good enough to be in a first team somewhere, whether that’s League 1, or higher or lower. We can currently attract a high standard of young players because we offer them a place in the first team squad. But would the likes of O’Nien, Freeman and Samuel have signed as part of a U23 development squad, when they could have been playing first team football elsewhere? It seems unlikely.
You’d be surprised by the number of players considered good enough to sign for pro clubs at a very young age but then rejected at 18 because they weren’t rated good enough to progress. There are countless examples of players like that who’ve gone on to forge a successful career elsewhere. Also, with the small squad that we have, no player is far away from the first team and that would make us an attractive proposition.