Bottom line is that almost all league clubs are unsustainable compared to where their fans think they "should be" as a club...because so many clubs are run unsustainably or are propped up by a wealthy backer.
Without investment we are likely league 2 outfit, maybe conference ,and expectations would need to be dampened.
With investment the sky could be the limit, but it could also fall in. So long as concrete proof is shown that the Couhigs plan is safe and realistic, then it's the only way we can compete at league 1 level for any length of time, but that will involve investment - any talk of increasing macth day revenues etc is fairy talk.
The form of the inevitably required investment is the key.. Loans / gifts / equity etc
Surely in the end those who have to vote have to try to conclude in their own heads the two most likely scenarios for them to choose between.
The Couhig proposal is as far as I know the only realistic proposal for outside investment.
a) For me, the couhig proposal offers some short term financial security and a short term league future. it may be he can get the club to financial self sufficiency but unless something changes in the wider football landscape, that feels unlikely. So my conclusion for the couhig proposal would be that it buys us around say five years more in the league and a prospect/likelihood then of passing on to the next guy to repeat for the next five years.
b) Reject the couhig proposal, and even before the contracts we have recently taken on
it looked inevitable that the club would at best spiral down through several leagues as income in each league at least through the Conference National falls faster than cost. With the contracts we have now taken on, its hard to see how we would fund even that.
If I was voting, unless there was further information to the contrary, I would narrow the options down to being a choice between broadly a) or b). Given that choice I would vote a).
I don't have a vote of course as no doubt one or two of the regulars will remind me.
@LX1 said:
I would also suggest that how 'genuinely wealthy' someone is should not cloud anyone's view.
I was making a comparison between Mr.Couhig and the owner of Bury. Anyway, there wouldn’t be much point in handing 75% of shares to a pauper would there?
The way I look at it, we are (financially speaking), like someone hanging on for grim life on a precipice. Couhig is someone driving by who offers to rescue us. However, he may be a bad driver, on the icy roads above, and drive us off a cliff anyway, as there is a history of this happening with other precipice-hangers who are "rescued". It is therefore not unreasonable to assume there is at least a danger of plunging over another cliff owing to Couhig's bad driving. Indeed, it is simply a treacherous country.
My point is, that if we are loathe to trust Couhig's driving, the question would remain, how are we going to get ourselves to safety? We are still hanging off a precipice, after all.
I would just hang there blaming the precipice for getting me into the situation in the first place through bad management and think on how much better my hanging would be if only it had listened to me months ago.
@YorkExile said:
Dev's choice between "only realistic proposal for outside investment" vs "Conference South" sounds strangely familiar.
I'm afraid that whilst some may view that schoice as scaremongering honestly I suspect it is far closer to the truth than most fans know or could stomach
Yes its early days but so far I'm likeling what I have seen and heard from the Couhig's.
Please remember most clubs are 'owned' by individuals and equally most (yes I know its more than just the Bury's and Boltons of this world) are run by this people in a proper manner
For every Steve Dale there is an Andy Holt. Please don't tar all owners with hte same brush.
Remember in all of this the biggest asset the club has - the ground - will remain under the ownership of the trust
Remember in all of this the biggest asset the club has - the ground - will remain under the ownership of the trust
Can someone explain to me how the ground is an asset unless converted to cash and so lost. I appreciate that if ground and club were one then an owner could sell the ground and make the club homeless. I also understand that owning something means you don’t have to pay rent but buildings cost money to maintain if you intend to use them. So if WWFC runs out of money for whatever reason and cannot afford maintenance how does the trust/FALL owning the ground help WWFC unless FALL sells it to fund WWFC who are then solvent but homeless? Am I wrong or won’t a situation arise where WWFC, having rejected the Couhigs, are likely to enter that situation?
@LX1 said:
I would also suggest that how 'genuinely wealthy' someone is should not cloud anyone's view.
I was making a comparison between Mr.Couhig and the owner of Bury. Anyway, there wouldn’t be much point in handing 75% of shares to a pauper would there?
Stating the obvious there. I am attempting to highlight the dangerous path this could lead to. Nothing against Mr Couhig who, as I said, seems to genuinely want, and have the ability to make things work. Your track record of backing anything the club suggests does more than nothing to convince me.
I don't see how any sensible person can vote yes until they've seen and scrutinised both detailed plans and financial commitments from the Cohigs and had access to the club's financial records. Legacy members have a fiduciary responsibility to the club and must excise that with care and integrity, not 'hit and hope' based on a few powerpoint presentations and a short-term PR blitz.
Having said that, it would be helpful to all parties to have the vote early. That way, the Cohigs can improve their offer if they fall short the first time, before getting to the Dec 31 deadline when our loan to the first set of Americans needs to be repaid (this will be the real crisis point for the club if the Cohigs don't stump up that cash). If they choose to bow out rather than making a second offer it will give the club a couple of months to try and find a third prospective owner before that end of year deadline, or look for alternative arrangements.
I know I am probably being thick here, so I need educating.
Sure at the last legacy meeting Mr Stroud stated that the club, (WWFC), effectively was worth about a photocopier, or words to that effect. On the basis, that the original statement is true/correct that no ownership of Adams Park is involved, nor can any loan be secured against it. Any current encumbrances shall be cleared, as such it is the "Holy Temple" that we all seek to protect and shall be for the foreseeable future.
Is this not the perfect scenario or am I not seeing the elephant in the room?
And you’ve just destroyed any credibility you might have had with that ridiculous comment. I take it that you’re referring to Sky’s relationship with the PL (I am freelance by the way and have worked for several different companies). You do realise that the PL was formed before Sky won the right to broadcast their games?
You do realise that it’s the PL, not Sky, that decide how to distribute the money they earn from TV rights?
If you’re going to blame anyone for what you call ‘this mess’ it should be those clubs who chose to break away from the FL and form the PL.
@EwanHoosaami said:
I know I am probably being thick here, so I need educating.
Sure at the last legacy meeting Mr Stroud stated that the club, (WWFC), effectively was worth about a photocopier, or words to that effect. On the basis, that the original statement is true/correct that no ownership of Adams Park is involved, nor can any loan be secured against it. Any current encumbrances shall be cleared, as such it is the "Holy Temple" that we all seek to protect and shall be for the foreseeable future.
Is this not the perfect scenario or am I not seeing the elephant in the room?
That’s my understanding. Are some people holding out till he throws in a new photocopier
Ah, @BuckinghamBlue, now I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps the problem being finding a photocopier that's a scanner as well! The club fax machine just doesn't cut the mustard these days!
The ground being ring fenced was a red line that would need to be kept to to have any chance of getting 75% of the vote, and it's by far the biggest reason that's tipping me on the yes side right now
The club could still disappear if an unrealistic debt is built up and then needed paying back though...
@glasshalffull said:
And you’ve just destroyed any credibility you might have had with that ridiculous comment. I take it that you’re referring to Sky’s relationship with the PL (I am freelance by the way and have worked for several different companies). You do realise that the PL was formed before Sky won the right to broadcast their games?
You do realise that it’s the PL, not Sky, that decide how to distribute the money they earn from TV rights?
If you’re going to blame anyone for what you call ‘this mess’ it should be those clubs who chose to break away from the FL and form the PL.
My credibility is not for you to decide. I 'realise' quite a lot lmao.
The Premier League, funded by Rupert Murdoch has resulted in Bury FC being liquidated. There is flourescent blood on your hands Alan.
LX1, Owners who spent more money than they had resulted in Bury being liquidated, not Rupert Murdoch and certainly not me. 91 other clubs have managed to survive in the PL era and as an aside, attendances in the FL have grown year on year since the PL was formed and are currently at a 60 year high.
That’s a fact, not an arrogant opinion.
Trying to think of potential risks...could our American friends build a nice fancy stadium/retail/residential development somewhere (making some money for themselvea along the way) and move the club into their new stadium, leaving the Trust holding a stadium with no team to play in it?
Just worth making the point that as yet at least, Bury FC have not been put into liquidation or even administration.
Probably also worth making the point, albeit it will not be well received I suspect, that WWFC currently receive roughly £1.1m in subsidy from higher leagues (roughly half direct from the premier league and roughly half from allocated EFL TV money for which the lower leagues would not be likely to justify anything like that amount in their own right). To put that into context rough estimate of gate money net of VAT inclusive of season ticket money would be £250k either side of £1.7m.
Problem seems to me that lower league clubs do not live within their means and that this in turn forces other lower league teams to also overspend in order to remain competitive. Addressing this rather than whining about the PL seems a better way towards long term sustainability.
Dev, you’re correct. It was clumsy of me to repeat LX1’s word ‘liquidation’. You have also painted a more accurate picture of the financial realities of life in the FL.
Just out of interest, how much money does Rob Couhig have? You've described him as very wealthy.
He's described himself as not being wealthy enough to prop up the football club for any real length of time.
How long before we're back in the same boat?
ps. I know he's said that the plan is to increase the attendances. It's a good aim to have, but having supported Wycombe for decades now I know as well as you do that there is a ceiling on what can be achieved in that regard. Dreams of 8-10K every week are simply that, pipe dreams. Deep down you know it too
I don't think he really has a lot of money, maybe 12/15 million but that's not enough to run a football club at this level if your reckless, Andy Holt is worth less but also spends less than we are. If we got into the Championship then crowds of 9,000 every week would be easily possible as Yeovil found they sold out every week.
So judging from some of your recent posts @rmjlondon you've been saying we would be idiots who killed the club if we do not vote yes to someone who might not have enough money and is wreckless. I'm not sure who is more confused
I want to see details this time. This is very similar to Steve Hayes "don't worry about the money" - I think a number of people voted yes on that occasion, as the PR was good, on field was looking up and some money was being spent to help improve the club.
I believe Hayes genuinely had good intentions for the club in his first season or two. Then the financial crisis hit. He did what most people would do and had to look after #1. Under that stress and duress he made some spectacularly crap decisions to try and protect his investments and prop the club up, until such a point where he just tried to save himself through the whole Booker white elephant stadium project.
I see similarities here. Some businessmen want to speculate with money (loan/invest), eventually buy the club and then make it sustainable. Last time lots of people voted on emotion, this time it should be on fact and a business plan.
I'm disappointed the current board has agreed to spend beyond it's means without a credible way of paying it back should the 75% not be reached. I'd be a little less disappointed if the money was equity rather than loans regardless of how we voted.
I feel the Couhigs have good initial intentions, but what happens if they cannot grow attendances? What happens if they have other businesses that need propping up? What happens if they need to sell urgently as the financial climate is likely to go into recession again.
If the answers to these questions are shared through their business plan and vision and it looks plausible, then I'd be happy to consider voting yes. Until I see that plan, then I'm not getting carried away with emotions.
For those who will ask the obvious, what else would you do? I'd like to know this. What was our debt this Summer before Couhigs involvement and what is the debt going to be if they walk away. I get a feeling it would be far easier to deal with the debt this Summer than the debt we will find ourselves in if they walk away. As far as I can see we had 500k to pay back at end of December but we now have £1.5M+ to pay back if they walk away...
I'm looking forward to seeing the plan, having my questions answered, so I can hopefully vote yes but until then it's a no...
Comments
Bottom line is that almost all league clubs are unsustainable compared to where their fans think they "should be" as a club...because so many clubs are run unsustainably or are propped up by a wealthy backer.
Without investment we are likely league 2 outfit, maybe conference ,and expectations would need to be dampened.
With investment the sky could be the limit, but it could also fall in. So long as concrete proof is shown that the Couhigs plan is safe and realistic, then it's the only way we can compete at league 1 level for any length of time, but that will involve investment - any talk of increasing macth day revenues etc is fairy talk.
The form of the inevitably required investment is the key.. Loans / gifts / equity etc
Surely in the end those who have to vote have to try to conclude in their own heads the two most likely scenarios for them to choose between.
The Couhig proposal is as far as I know the only realistic proposal for outside investment.
a) For me, the couhig proposal offers some short term financial security and a short term league future. it may be he can get the club to financial self sufficiency but unless something changes in the wider football landscape, that feels unlikely. So my conclusion for the couhig proposal would be that it buys us around say five years more in the league and a prospect/likelihood then of passing on to the next guy to repeat for the next five years.
b) Reject the couhig proposal, and even before the contracts we have recently taken on
it looked inevitable that the club would at best spiral down through several leagues as income in each league at least through the Conference National falls faster than cost. With the contracts we have now taken on, its hard to see how we would fund even that.
If I was voting, unless there was further information to the contrary, I would narrow the options down to being a choice between broadly a) or b). Given that choice I would vote a).
I don't have a vote of course as no doubt one or two of the regulars will remind me.
@DevC I don't see how there is even a b) to consider
I was making a comparison between Mr.Couhig and the owner of Bury. Anyway, there wouldn’t be much point in handing 75% of shares to a pauper would there?
The way I look at it, we are (financially speaking), like someone hanging on for grim life on a precipice. Couhig is someone driving by who offers to rescue us. However, he may be a bad driver, on the icy roads above, and drive us off a cliff anyway, as there is a history of this happening with other precipice-hangers who are "rescued". It is therefore not unreasonable to assume there is at least a danger of plunging over another cliff owing to Couhig's bad driving. Indeed, it is simply a treacherous country.
My point is, that if we are loathe to trust Couhig's driving, the question would remain, how are we going to get ourselves to safety? We are still hanging off a precipice, after all.
I would just hang there blaming the precipice for getting me into the situation in the first place through bad management and think on how much better my hanging would be if only it had listened to me months ago.
Dev's choice between "only realistic proposal for outside investment" vs "Conference South" sounds strangely familiar.
I'm afraid that whilst some may view that schoice as scaremongering honestly I suspect it is far closer to the truth than most fans know or could stomach
Yes its early days but so far I'm likeling what I have seen and heard from the Couhig's.
Please remember most clubs are 'owned' by individuals and equally most (yes I know its more than just the Bury's and Boltons of this world) are run by this people in a proper manner
For every Steve Dale there is an Andy Holt. Please don't tar all owners with hte same brush.
Remember in all of this the biggest asset the club has - the ground - will remain under the ownership of the trust
Can someone explain to me how the ground is an asset unless converted to cash and so lost. I appreciate that if ground and club were one then an owner could sell the ground and make the club homeless. I also understand that owning something means you don’t have to pay rent but buildings cost money to maintain if you intend to use them. So if WWFC runs out of money for whatever reason and cannot afford maintenance how does the trust/FALL owning the ground help WWFC unless FALL sells it to fund WWFC who are then solvent but homeless? Am I wrong or won’t a situation arise where WWFC, having rejected the Couhigs, are likely to enter that situation?
Stating the obvious there. I am attempting to highlight the dangerous path this could lead to. Nothing against Mr Couhig who, as I said, seems to genuinely want, and have the ability to make things work. Your track record of backing anything the club suggests does more than nothing to convince me.
I don't see how any sensible person can vote yes until they've seen and scrutinised both detailed plans and financial commitments from the Cohigs and had access to the club's financial records. Legacy members have a fiduciary responsibility to the club and must excise that with care and integrity, not 'hit and hope' based on a few powerpoint presentations and a short-term PR blitz.
Having said that, it would be helpful to all parties to have the vote early. That way, the Cohigs can improve their offer if they fall short the first time, before getting to the Dec 31 deadline when our loan to the first set of Americans needs to be repaid (this will be the real crisis point for the club if the Cohigs don't stump up that cash). If they choose to bow out rather than making a second offer it will give the club a couple of months to try and find a third prospective owner before that end of year deadline, or look for alternative arrangements.
After all it is your Australian employer who created this mess
I know I am probably being thick here, so I need educating.
Sure at the last legacy meeting Mr Stroud stated that the club, (WWFC), effectively was worth about a photocopier, or words to that effect. On the basis, that the original statement is true/correct that no ownership of Adams Park is involved, nor can any loan be secured against it. Any current encumbrances shall be cleared, as such it is the "Holy Temple" that we all seek to protect and shall be for the foreseeable future.
Is this not the perfect scenario or am I not seeing the elephant in the room?
And you’ve just destroyed any credibility you might have had with that ridiculous comment. I take it that you’re referring to Sky’s relationship with the PL (I am freelance by the way and have worked for several different companies). You do realise that the PL was formed before Sky won the right to broadcast their games?
You do realise that it’s the PL, not Sky, that decide how to distribute the money they earn from TV rights?
If you’re going to blame anyone for what you call ‘this mess’ it should be those clubs who chose to break away from the FL and form the PL.
That’s my understanding. Are some people holding out till he throws in a new photocopier
Ah, @BuckinghamBlue, now I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps the problem being finding a photocopier that's a scanner as well! The club fax machine just doesn't cut the mustard these days!
The ground being ring fenced was a red line that would need to be kept to to have any chance of getting 75% of the vote, and it's by far the biggest reason that's tipping me on the yes side right now
The club could still disappear if an unrealistic debt is built up and then needed paying back though...
My credibility is not for you to decide. I 'realise' quite a lot lmao.
The Premier League, funded by Rupert Murdoch has resulted in Bury FC being liquidated. There is flourescent blood on your hands Alan.
Go back to Haikus, your words betray the people of wartorn nations throughout the world whilst we discuss the blood of Bury. Pathetic.
LX1, Owners who spent more money than they had resulted in Bury being liquidated, not Rupert Murdoch and certainly not me. 91 other clubs have managed to survive in the PL era and as an aside, attendances in the FL have grown year on year since the PL was formed and are currently at a 60 year high.
That’s a fact, not an arrogant opinion.
Trying to think of potential risks...could our American friends build a nice fancy stadium/retail/residential development somewhere (making some money for themselvea along the way) and move the club into their new stadium, leaving the Trust holding a stadium with no team to play in it?
Just worth making the point that as yet at least, Bury FC have not been put into liquidation or even administration.
Probably also worth making the point, albeit it will not be well received I suspect, that WWFC currently receive roughly £1.1m in subsidy from higher leagues (roughly half direct from the premier league and roughly half from allocated EFL TV money for which the lower leagues would not be likely to justify anything like that amount in their own right). To put that into context rough estimate of gate money net of VAT inclusive of season ticket money would be £250k either side of £1.7m.
Problem seems to me that lower league clubs do not live within their means and that this in turn forces other lower league teams to also overspend in order to remain competitive. Addressing this rather than whining about the PL seems a better way towards long term sustainability.
Dev, you’re correct. It was clumsy of me to repeat LX1’s word ‘liquidation’. You have also painted a more accurate picture of the financial realities of life in the FL.
Just out of interest, how much money does Rob Couhig have? You've described him as very wealthy.
He's described himself as not being wealthy enough to prop up the football club for any real length of time.
How long before we're back in the same boat?
ps. I know he's said that the plan is to increase the attendances. It's a good aim to have, but having supported Wycombe for decades now I know as well as you do that there is a ceiling on what can be achieved in that regard. Dreams of 8-10K every week are simply that, pipe dreams. Deep down you know it too
I spent a long time looking for any details about his net worth but couldn't find anything at all.
@DevC Over 40 British clubs have entered administration over the past 25 years, so your comment about clubs not living within their means looks right.
I don't think he really has a lot of money, maybe 12/15 million but that's not enough to run a football club at this level if your reckless, Andy Holt is worth less but also spends less than we are. If we got into the Championship then crowds of 9,000 every week would be easily possible as Yeovil found they sold out every week.
So judging from some of your recent posts @rmjlondon you've been saying we would be idiots who killed the club if we do not vote yes to someone who might not have enough money and is wreckless. I'm not sure who is more confused
Im saying the way they are going about this is wrong, not that they are wrong !!! a 5 year contract for Dom Gape I would agree with compeletly !!
I want to see details this time. This is very similar to Steve Hayes "don't worry about the money" - I think a number of people voted yes on that occasion, as the PR was good, on field was looking up and some money was being spent to help improve the club.
I believe Hayes genuinely had good intentions for the club in his first season or two. Then the financial crisis hit. He did what most people would do and had to look after #1. Under that stress and duress he made some spectacularly crap decisions to try and protect his investments and prop the club up, until such a point where he just tried to save himself through the whole Booker white elephant stadium project.
I see similarities here. Some businessmen want to speculate with money (loan/invest), eventually buy the club and then make it sustainable. Last time lots of people voted on emotion, this time it should be on fact and a business plan.
I'm disappointed the current board has agreed to spend beyond it's means without a credible way of paying it back should the 75% not be reached. I'd be a little less disappointed if the money was equity rather than loans regardless of how we voted.
I feel the Couhigs have good initial intentions, but what happens if they cannot grow attendances? What happens if they have other businesses that need propping up? What happens if they need to sell urgently as the financial climate is likely to go into recession again.
If the answers to these questions are shared through their business plan and vision and it looks plausible, then I'd be happy to consider voting yes. Until I see that plan, then I'm not getting carried away with emotions.
For those who will ask the obvious, what else would you do? I'd like to know this. What was our debt this Summer before Couhigs involvement and what is the debt going to be if they walk away. I get a feeling it would be far easier to deal with the debt this Summer than the debt we will find ourselves in if they walk away. As far as I can see we had 500k to pay back at end of December but we now have £1.5M+ to pay back if they walk away...
I'm looking forward to seeing the plan, having my questions answered, so I can hopefully vote yes but until then it's a no...