Agree - he was a bit part sub last season. Good lad and all that & some truly great memories ... but clearly persistent Injuries are catching up with him.
@DJWYC14 said:
I'd ask the same question for Harriman. Heard he was on trial at Lincoln. Could still do a job in L1 IMO and a versatile player is what we need.
Ainsworth said he had to let a couple go he’d liked to have retained. My guess would be those were Harriman and PCH. I’d take the former back in heartbeat, versatile across the right hand side and LB.
Back to the questions, I saw wi-fi mentioned. If RC really does want to improve the match day experience this would be a good place to start. It’s such an important thing these days. Is this part of his plans?
Will vegetarian and/or vegan food options be introduced as part of the promised catering improvements?
What steps will be taken to reduce or eliminate the large amount of single use plastic items (drink cups and bottles) that are generated by the catering outlets every match?
Will recycling bins be introduced to allow for plastic bottles to be deposited for recycling instead of in general waste?
@Uncle_T said:
Will vegetarian and/or vegan food options be introduced as part of the promised catering improvements?
What steps will be taken to reduce or eliminate the large amount of single use plastic items (drink cups and bottles) that are generated by the catering outlets every match?
Will recycling bins be introduced to allow for plastic bottles to be deposited for recycling instead of in general waste?
@Last_Quarter said:
What a great post @Uncle_T. Respect to you sir. Forest Green are doing some fantastic work in this area - we'd do well to try and emulate them.
An increase in sustainability and some vegan options could increase the supporter base by at least one- my daughter. Who thinks my profile pick is appalling even though I swear it’s a Linda McArtny.
Something that I have seen mentioned on here in another thread: There has been talk of Women's Super League games being played directly before premier league/football league games next season to garner more support. Has any thought been given to whether the same is possible at AP for Wycombe Ladies?
What’s the plan for the ideal exit for you Rob?
Every smart investor has a pre-planned exit strategy before investment don’t they? What are the rough scenarios and trigger points? What would the return on your investment look like for you to consider it as a successful investment in our football club?
@OnOurWay said:
Something that I have seen mentioned on here in another thread: There has been talk of Women's Super League games being played directly before premier league/football league games next season to garner more support. Has any thought been given to whether the same is possible at AP for Wycombe Ladies?
I was thinking the same when I read an article in the telegraph I think.. Someone on here (Apologies as I cannot be arsed to scroll back tnrough threads) suggested the same weeks ago. Great idea.
@bluntphil asked a good question of the last lot to see if they were interested in any way of putting anything in to the deal to reassure people who are concerned we were losing the voting veto over future changes or sales, i may be misremembering or paraphrasing but something along the lines of allowing some voting rights or agreeing future rights of input in the case of a quick sale to someone else, maybe commercially unviable but worth asking, also what supporter input (via trust or wider) we could expect on the football club board. Maybe questions for the second stage of the process but by then it seems we'll be owing them a fortune and and it will all be a done deal.
To partly quote Mooneyman:-What happens if after Mr Couhig's honeymoon period, the trust members vote fails to reach the required 75% threshold. How does he think we will be able to repay the money he has advanced?
I did indeed ask that question to Bill & Jim, @StrongestTeam. No real substantial answer was made other than they sold Derby to a great custodian (Mel Morris)...
If and when Rob Couhig decides to sell, WW Trust have first option on buying the club back... This will obviously depend on their finances at that point.
I have a couple of questions relating to stadium maintenance and improvement if the deal goes ahead.
Since the Trust would still own the stadium who will be financially liable for any works. For instance, it's been said that the main stand roof needs replacing, also a number of seats have been removed/relocated as they are broken. I'm also told that some of the issues relating to the Caledonian Suite sound system are due to rodent damage to the cabling. I believe there are some issues too with the condition of some of the toilets. There must be more examples too ...
Can Rob also guarantee that in any event he would maintain a standing terrace area behind the home goal?
I’m not sure whether it has been asked yet but I’d like to know that if they don’t get the 75% or decide not to carry on in 9 months time, over how long a period would they expect their loan to be paid back?
Mr Couhig came over as genuine and someone who will put his heart and soul into this venture.
He wants the finances to be open and transparent which is something we have not had from the people who have controlled our club over the past 3 or 4 years.
Things happen for a reason in this life and maybe the failure to come to a deal with the previous USA guys was a blessing in disguise.
I just hope that the anticipated apathy regarding Legacy members not voting does not result in us reaching a negative decision come Dec/Jan.
As I have said before, come Dec/Jan, maybe we should ask the question of the Legacy members in a different way. Simply ask for those who are not in favour of Mr Couhig taking a majority shareholding to cast a vote and then if 25% or less vote no, then we would have the 75% in favour of the deal and would have not changed the Trust voting rule. Is there any legal issue with with this proposal?
The 75% threshold is required to change the ownership set up, not keep it as it is
And, if I may be so bold, I think it is is very good thing indeed that it is there. It would be a wonderful privilege to own 75% of this great football club. The threshold to achieve that ought to be high
@eric_plant said:
And, if I may be so bold, I think it is is very good thing indeed that it is there. It would be a wonderful privilege to own 75% of this great football club. The threshold to achieve that ought to be high
Even if just missing out on the 75% requirement due to apathy of some legacy members, led to the club not being able to pay its debts and ending up in administration?
@Blue_since_1990 I am not a legal expert, and the board have history for ignoring or misrepresenting the Trust rules any way (ref. taking a loan secured against the ground without the approval of the Trust in general meeting), but I don't think what you propose would be in accordance with the rules.
According to the Trust rules "any decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of shares in the Club that would result in the Trust’s shareholding being less than 50% +1" must be made by Legacy Member resolution and "A Legacy Member resolution is one passed by not less than 75% of the Trust’s total number of Legacy Members."
By my interpretation, this means that any resolution to be voted on must be a positive resolution to sell. Voting on a resolution stating words to the effect that "we do not want to sell", which is what you proposal would entail, and having less than 25% vote in favour, would not IMO qualify as being a positive resolution to sell passed by not less than 75% of all Legacy Members.
Comments
Can he lend me £1.5 mill for six months or so?
It wasn't a question for you, unless The Wanderer has got you lined up for an interview as well
I'd ask the same question for Harriman. Heard he was on trial at Lincoln. Could still do a job in L1 IMO and a versatile player is what we need.
Are you going to upgrade the quality of crisps sold at Adams Park?
Agree - he was a bit part sub last season. Good lad and all that & some truly great memories ... but clearly persistent Injuries are catching up with him.
Ainsworth said he had to let a couple go he’d liked to have retained. My guess would be those were Harriman and PCH. I’d take the former back in heartbeat, versatile across the right hand side and LB.
Back to the questions, I saw wi-fi mentioned. If RC really does want to improve the match day experience this would be a good place to start. It’s such an important thing these days. Is this part of his plans?
Will vegetarian and/or vegan food options be introduced as part of the promised catering improvements?
What steps will be taken to reduce or eliminate the large amount of single use plastic items (drink cups and bottles) that are generated by the catering outlets every match?
Will recycling bins be introduced to allow for plastic bottles to be deposited for recycling instead of in general waste?
Uncle_T
Please don’t introduce a £1 deposit for a plastic pint pot
Amen to all of this.
What a great post @Uncle_T. Respect to you sir. Forest Green are doing some fantastic work in this area - we'd do well to try and emulate them.
Unfortunately American's don't do recycling @Uncle_T. I fully agree with your sentiments though.
An increase in sustainability and some vegan options could increase the supporter base by at least one- my daughter. Who thinks my profile pick is appalling even though I swear it’s a Linda McArtny.
Something that I have seen mentioned on here in another thread: There has been talk of Women's Super League games being played directly before premier league/football league games next season to garner more support. Has any thought been given to whether the same is possible at AP for Wycombe Ladies?
What’s the plan for the ideal exit for you Rob?
Every smart investor has a pre-planned exit strategy before investment don’t they? What are the rough scenarios and trigger points? What would the return on your investment look like for you to consider it as a successful investment in our football club?
Looking like a cunning way to fill up this edition of the Wanderer @Jonny_King
I was thinking the same when I read an article in the telegraph I think.. Someone on here (Apologies as I cannot be arsed to scroll back tnrough threads) suggested the same weeks ago. Great idea.
@bluntphil asked a good question of the last lot to see if they were interested in any way of putting anything in to the deal to reassure people who are concerned we were losing the voting veto over future changes or sales, i may be misremembering or paraphrasing but something along the lines of allowing some voting rights or agreeing future rights of input in the case of a quick sale to someone else, maybe commercially unviable but worth asking, also what supporter input (via trust or wider) we could expect on the football club board. Maybe questions for the second stage of the process but by then it seems we'll be owing them a fortune and and it will all be a done deal.
To partly quote Mooneyman:-What happens if after Mr Couhig's honeymoon period, the trust members vote fails to reach the required 75% threshold. How does he think we will be able to repay the money he has advanced?
I did indeed ask that question to Bill & Jim, @StrongestTeam. No real substantial answer was made other than they sold Derby to a great custodian (Mel Morris)...
If and when Rob Couhig decides to sell, WW Trust have first option on buying the club back... This will obviously depend on their finances at that point.
I have a couple of questions relating to stadium maintenance and improvement if the deal goes ahead.
Since the Trust would still own the stadium who will be financially liable for any works. For instance, it's been said that the main stand roof needs replacing, also a number of seats have been removed/relocated as they are broken. I'm also told that some of the issues relating to the Caledonian Suite sound system are due to rodent damage to the cabling. I believe there are some issues too with the condition of some of the toilets. There must be more examples too ...
Can Rob also guarantee that in any event he would maintain a standing terrace area behind the home goal?
I’m not sure whether it has been asked yet but I’d like to know that if they don’t get the 75% or decide not to carry on in 9 months time, over how long a period would they expect their loan to be paid back?
180 days
Thanks to everyone who asked questions (even @Chris). They've been passed on to Rob Couhig and he hopes to have them answered by the weekend.
Is it too late to ask if Rob intends to attract further investors onto the board, or is it going to be his baby only.
Mr Couhig came over as genuine and someone who will put his heart and soul into this venture.
He wants the finances to be open and transparent which is something we have not had from the people who have controlled our club over the past 3 or 4 years.
Things happen for a reason in this life and maybe the failure to come to a deal with the previous USA guys was a blessing in disguise.
I just hope that the anticipated apathy regarding Legacy members not voting does not result in us reaching a negative decision come Dec/Jan.
As I have said before, come Dec/Jan, maybe we should ask the question of the Legacy members in a different way. Simply ask for those who are not in favour of Mr Couhig taking a majority shareholding to cast a vote and then if 25% or less vote no, then we would have the 75% in favour of the deal and would have not changed the Trust voting rule. Is there any legal issue with with this proposal?
No, you can't do that
The 75% threshold is required to change the ownership set up, not keep it as it is
And, if I may be so bold, I think it is is very good thing indeed that it is there. It would be a wonderful privilege to own 75% of this great football club. The threshold to achieve that ought to be high
Why? You would still have 75%.
Even if just missing out on the 75% requirement due to apathy of some legacy members, led to the club not being able to pay its debts and ending up in administration?
@Blue_since_1990 I am not a legal expert, and the board have history for ignoring or misrepresenting the Trust rules any way (ref. taking a loan secured against the ground without the approval of the Trust in general meeting), but I don't think what you propose would be in accordance with the rules.
According to the Trust rules "any decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of shares in the Club that would result in the Trust’s shareholding being less than 50% +1" must be made by Legacy Member resolution and "A Legacy Member resolution is one passed by not less than 75% of the Trust’s total number of Legacy Members."
By my interpretation, this means that any resolution to be voted on must be a positive resolution to sell. Voting on a resolution stating words to the effect that "we do not want to sell", which is what you proposal would entail, and having less than 25% vote in favour, would not IMO qualify as being a positive resolution to sell passed by not less than 75% of all Legacy Members.
Presumably in that situation there’s nothing stopping Couhig buying 74.9% of the club?