I am a legacy member, I will continue to listen to those both for and against the investment and will study the presentation in full when the time comes but I have to say so far those arguing against it don’t have any suggestions about what to do if Rob fails in his bid apart from someone else may come along or we can have a squad fire sale as we tumble out of the league .
All this talk of do we want them, has anyone thought maybe the Americans won’t want us?
Aside from all the subjective scepticism, caution, negativity no doubt being closely monitored, they will be looking at the objective data: a top of the table clash on a fine late summer day with schools back, and yet way under 6,000 in the ground. Their business plan will need at least a 25% upturn in gate and concessions from this point. They may feel having put a toe in the water that is unachievable.
Just saying.
If it's going to work the way I think we all want it to, the Couhigs are going to have to find the magic formula that puts more bums on seats and/or gets more money out of each attending bum. Maybe the beer tents are bringing in more money but, as you say, the attendance yesterday, in all the circumstances, must have been a disappointment.
They're not in this to pump money into the club to keep it afloat and, frankly, I don't think any of us want that. The question is, is there a magic formula. I think the answer must be "yes" since life offers infinite possibilities. But that formula most likely looks very different to the one we are used to as football supporters. I am ready to see something radical but have no idea what it might look like.
The bringing forward of a proposed vote some 3-4 months ahead of what was originally proposed definitely has set alarm bells ringing as to whose benefit this is for.
As the outline of the terms of deal were extremely hazy and sketchy in the 'meet and greet' Trust meeting it is extremely foolhardy to commit to backing the 'deal' when at the moment it is literally a blank. All that could be gleaned was that the cost of purchase of the 75% stake would be a loan to share conversion. If that is still the case, then it make sense for the Couhigs to try to bounce through an early deal while things are going well on the ptich as there will be less time for WWFC to run up debt to them.
WWFC is at an incredibly important juncture in its history, it is the duty of all WWT members, not just the legacy members, to ask the awkward, difficult questions and not be afraid of questioning people's motives because the consequences of getting it wrong and waving a deal that sells the club massively short could be every bit as bad (and then some) as the apocalyptic scenarios predicted if a deal does not go through.
Interesting because as the loan from the Couhig's is presumably increasing week on week and as the investment does its job the value of the club also increases - I wouldn't know which worth the most out of JJ's left foot, Ainsworth's contact, or our passion is worth the most. My heart says I don't want to sell any of it. My head tells me that the investment is contributing to these most exciting times.
I have a vote which I know I should use, I will look forward to comprehending exactly what level of control is being sold and how much for.
We should have in our minds what sort of ownership structure the owners after next will gain, because the Couhig's are saying that there aim is to make the club sustainable and then sell, although it is true that they have shown us sincere enthusiasm and energy in their time with the club.
I do have a question, to which there may be a simple answer - Is it decided that we must sell 75%.
Err @rmjlondon how many of those on here do you actually know? I have met several in person & can assure you not one of whom have I come away from speaking to them and thought "what an idiot". Every one of them I have engaged with has left me with the opinion that I could have a good debate with and we could still part company on friendly terms to start another debate.
@rmjlondon said:
Thank god the few idiots on here who vote no won't affect the vote !
How you can make an informed decision based on heresay and gossip is beyond me.
At present the Couhigs have saddled us with increased debt as a loan. They’ve clearly stated they want the club to run within its means but are doing exactly the opposite. Spend, spend, spend!
At present they have not announced a business plan and we have not been told what debt they are running up on top of the existing debt. How anyone can make an informed decision without seeing a business plan is beyond me.
Many said we played our best ever football yesterday and had a Plan A, B and C. I would tend to agree it was up there as one of our finest ever League performances!
Incidentally nine of the players who played the majority of the game were here last season and not signed with Couhig loans.
A great time to be a Chairboy and we are top of the League. What’s not to like!
wwfcblue, I question your assertion that the Couhigs have ‘saddled us’ with increased debt. My understanding is that the Trust board requested the loan to pay off a previous loan that required more urgent attention. The Couhig loan also enabled us to improve the playing budget and we’ve seen the results of that on the field.
Yes, they did say they want the club to operate within its means, but obviously that can’t happen without an initial outlay. Their plan was to increase income by improving the squad and the match day experience and so far they’ve delivered on both counts.
Be cautious about the long term position by all means, but give them credit where credit is due.
I fully understand those who instinctively do not want to vote yes. Realistically though, whether making your decision now or later, if you are minded to vote no, you will need to come up with a realistic alternative. I’m struggling to see what that is.
I (rightly) don’t have a vote but if I did I’d vote yes, regardless of the fine details of the deal as long as they are in line with the noises so far.
We’ve passed the point where we can continue ‘as was’ - if it’s not this deal it will be the next one in a worse situation.
The last thing we need is name calling we all want the best for the club.
I’m minded to say yes but if a fellow supporter shows me a viable alternative I’ll take that on board, but it has to be thought out. I’d want a plan for no otherwise it’s not even an argument
With regard to the Couhig's increasing the playing budget, I thought it had only been set at last year's level. Admittedly we have got more players, but some of the "big earners" have left, namely El Abd, McCarthy, Tyson, Saunders and Cowan-Hall plus getting some of the CMS wage paid.
We may have got some money for McCarthy (in addition to getting Fred) plus we got the sell on fee for Hause. Other than paying off the existing loans, the financial position may not be as bad as some envisage.
@Malone said:
The use of the word "saddled" with debt was a bit strong for sure.
Labelling anyone who hasn't been immediately seduced by the huge upturn in squad quality and form is also dangerous.
It's nothing but plain sense to hear the overall situation before any vote.
Fingers crossed the "plan" looks robust and satisfies as many doubts as possible.
I’m not sure if you were referring to my post Malone, but I didn’t intend to ‘label’ wwfcblue. I merely questioned his use of the phrase ‘saddled us with more debt’ when the loan was actually requested by the club.I also agreed that we needed more information before making a decision as important as this one.
Increased spending / investment in the form of loans is providing if not saddling the club with debt, of course it is. Hopefully this will be converted to equity but a loan is a debt wether you welcome it or not.
Restoring the wage budget having previously decided we need to cut it is increasing spending, I'm not sure how you can argue that or why you'd feel the need.
Increasing spending via loans increases what we would need to pay back if for any reason we needed to do so.
People have submitted many pages of alternatives to this investment although many other people believe these aren't practical, aren't enough, or aren't preferable to the outline investment proposed.
The outlined proposals have been brief and many some fans will want to see more info before they vote, particularly around valuations and size of money pledged, any safeguards on resale and other factors.
Some will want to see if we can suggest any changes for mutual benefit to the club and the investors.
You can be broadly in favour of the investment and welcoming to the prospective owners whilst seeing some of this, without either making up things, calling other people names, or shouting fact a lot in a benitezesque manner, and you can do so without lessening at all the reflective glow from yesterday's wonderful match and matchday experience.
What a bizarre, over-the-top post. As you well know, the term ‘saddled with debts’ implies that Mr.Couhig somehow forced the club to accept his loan against its will, which is obviously not the case.
I didn’t say that we hadn’t increased spending, I said that their plan was to spend to. improve things on and off the field in the hope that would increase income and help us to be self sufficient.
The only alternatives to outside investment that I’ve seen would all involve slashing spending to the bone with the inevitable decline in playing standards that would bring about. Perhaps some people would be happy with that, many wouldn’t.
What have I ‘made up’ and where have I called anyone names? What is a ‘benitezesque’ manner? You’ve lost me there.
Finally, I didn’t start this thread, I just responded to it as you have. Incidentally, earlier today on the appropriate thread, I praised the outpouring of happiness and goodwill generated by yesterday’s game.
@glasshalffull said:
What a bizarre, over-the-top post. As you well know, the term ‘saddled with debts’ implies that Mr.Couhig somehow forced the club to accept his loan against its will, which is obviously not the case.
I didn’t say that we hadn’t increased spending, I said that their plan was to spend to. improve things on and off the field in the hope that would increase income and help us to be self sufficient.
The only alternatives to outside investment that I’ve seen would all involve slashing spending to the bone with the inevitable decline in playing standards that would bring about. Perhaps some people would be happy with that, many wouldn’t.
What have I ‘made up’ and where have I called anyone names? What is a ‘benitezesque’ manner? You’ve lost me there.
Finally, I didn’t start this thread, I just responded to it as you have. Incidentally, earlier today on the appropriate thread, I praised the outpouring of happiness and goodwill generated by yesterday’s game.
Its not all about you @glasshalffull all the time but maybe look at some of the individual points i made, maybe even read them fully and try and see what I mean or how they refer to other points above.
The "we've won some games" let's sell immediately regardless crew are increasing by the minute and would do us a disservice if the deal didn't receive proper scrutiny.
I read very little of what you saw the way you seem to have and didn’t see anything directed in your direction personally.
All I saw was @StrongestTeam saying that we need to consider the whole picture when we come to vote, which surely you can’t argue with?
Love the ‘benitezesque manner’ but equally clueless to what it means but can sort of nod my head knowingly despite that
Rafa went on a bit of a rant a few years ago at a press conference shouting fact fact repeatedly and its been used against him rather mockingly for years , perhaps less widely than i remembered, i was almost compelled to do the same at some suggestions above.
@DevC said:
I fully understand those who instinctively do not want to vote yes. Realistically though, whether making your decision now or later, if you are minded to vote no, you will need to come up with a realistic alternative. I’m struggling to see what that is.
Also I have no idea wether we are really spending and how much control the Couhigs already have over our future spending. I'm not sure how you can think they are doing a good job so far (as i do) but aren't leading us to spend more.
basically we have no option but to vote yes on the deal, unless we want to return to non league with a ground that holds 9000 and no way of paying to keep it up ..... the whole place is falling down and needs work doing ..... I believe the couhigs have a plan to get things sorted and move us forward and being in the Top 10 of League 1 is Paramount to that plan ....... speculate to accumulate which in football can be risky but it's working out so far, if we still top after the early October fixtures then it is proof there plan is working.
Comments
I'm not Legacy so can't vote but FWIW, I couldn't agree more with @OX66 and @Onlooker.
I am a legacy member, I will continue to listen to those both for and against the investment and will study the presentation in full when the time comes but I have to say so far those arguing against it don’t have any suggestions about what to do if Rob fails in his bid apart from someone else may come along or we can have a squad fire sale as we tumble out of the league .
All this talk of do we want them, has anyone thought maybe the Americans won’t want us?
Aside from all the subjective scepticism, caution, negativity no doubt being closely monitored, they will be looking at the objective data: a top of the table clash on a fine late summer day with schools back, and yet way under 6,000 in the ground. Their business plan will need at least a 25% upturn in gate and concessions from this point. They may feel having put a toe in the water that is unachievable.
Just saying.
My thoughts, too, @perfidious_albion.
If it's going to work the way I think we all want it to, the Couhigs are going to have to find the magic formula that puts more bums on seats and/or gets more money out of each attending bum. Maybe the beer tents are bringing in more money but, as you say, the attendance yesterday, in all the circumstances, must have been a disappointment.
They're not in this to pump money into the club to keep it afloat and, frankly, I don't think any of us want that. The question is, is there a magic formula. I think the answer must be "yes" since life offers infinite possibilities. But that formula most likely looks very different to the one we are used to as football supporters. I am ready to see something radical but have no idea what it might look like.
The bringing forward of a proposed vote some 3-4 months ahead of what was originally proposed definitely has set alarm bells ringing as to whose benefit this is for.
As the outline of the terms of deal were extremely hazy and sketchy in the 'meet and greet' Trust meeting it is extremely foolhardy to commit to backing the 'deal' when at the moment it is literally a blank. All that could be gleaned was that the cost of purchase of the 75% stake would be a loan to share conversion. If that is still the case, then it make sense for the Couhigs to try to bounce through an early deal while things are going well on the ptich as there will be less time for WWFC to run up debt to them.
WWFC is at an incredibly important juncture in its history, it is the duty of all WWT members, not just the legacy members, to ask the awkward, difficult questions and not be afraid of questioning people's motives because the consequences of getting it wrong and waving a deal that sells the club massively short could be every bit as bad (and then some) as the apocalyptic scenarios predicted if a deal does not go through.
Interesting because as the loan from the Couhig's is presumably increasing week on week and as the investment does its job the value of the club also increases - I wouldn't know which worth the most out of JJ's left foot, Ainsworth's contact, or our passion is worth the most. My heart says I don't want to sell any of it. My head tells me that the investment is contributing to these most exciting times.
I have a vote which I know I should use, I will look forward to comprehending exactly what level of control is being sold and how much for.
We should have in our minds what sort of ownership structure the owners after next will gain, because the Couhig's are saying that there aim is to make the club sustainable and then sell, although it is true that they have shown us sincere enthusiasm and energy in their time with the club.
I do have a question, to which there may be a simple answer - Is it decided that we must sell 75%.
Thank god the few idiots on here who vote no won't affect the vote !
Err @rmjlondon how many of those on here do you actually know? I have met several in person & can assure you not one of whom have I come away from speaking to them and thought "what an idiot". Every one of them I have engaged with has left me with the opinion that I could have a good debate with and we could still part company on friendly terms to start another debate.
How you can make an informed decision based on heresay and gossip is beyond me.
At present the Couhigs have saddled us with increased debt as a loan. They’ve clearly stated they want the club to run within its means but are doing exactly the opposite. Spend, spend, spend!
At present they have not announced a business plan and we have not been told what debt they are running up on top of the existing debt. How anyone can make an informed decision without seeing a business plan is beyond me.
Many said we played our best ever football yesterday and had a Plan A, B and C. I would tend to agree it was up there as one of our finest ever League performances!
Incidentally nine of the players who played the majority of the game were here last season and not signed with Couhig loans.
A great time to be a Chairboy and we are top of the League. What’s not to like!
wwfcblue, I question your assertion that the Couhigs have ‘saddled us’ with increased debt. My understanding is that the Trust board requested the loan to pay off a previous loan that required more urgent attention. The Couhig loan also enabled us to improve the playing budget and we’ve seen the results of that on the field.
Yes, they did say they want the club to operate within its means, but obviously that can’t happen without an initial outlay. Their plan was to increase income by improving the squad and the match day experience and so far they’ve delivered on both counts.
Be cautious about the long term position by all means, but give them credit where credit is due.
I fully understand those who instinctively do not want to vote yes. Realistically though, whether making your decision now or later, if you are minded to vote no, you will need to come up with a realistic alternative. I’m struggling to see what that is.
The use of the word "saddled" with debt was a bit strong for sure.
Labelling anyone who hasn't been immediately seduced by the huge upturn in squad quality and form is also dangerous.
It's nothing but plain sense to hear the overall situation before any vote.
Fingers crossed the "plan" looks robust and satisfies as many doubts as possible.
You’re right Dev and I have said the same thing many times on here and on the FB page.
" as an idiot" was the missing few words in paragraph two.
Malone finds the synthesis from the dialectic.
Beg pardon @Manboobs ?
I (rightly) don’t have a vote but if I did I’d vote yes, regardless of the fine details of the deal as long as they are in line with the noises so far.
We’ve passed the point where we can continue ‘as was’ - if it’s not this deal it will be the next one in a worse situation.
The last thing we need is name calling we all want the best for the club.
I’m minded to say yes but if a fellow supporter shows me a viable alternative I’ll take that on board, but it has to be thought out. I’d want a plan for no otherwise it’s not even an argument
With regard to the Couhig's increasing the playing budget, I thought it had only been set at last year's level. Admittedly we have got more players, but some of the "big earners" have left, namely El Abd, McCarthy, Tyson, Saunders and Cowan-Hall plus getting some of the CMS wage paid.
We may have got some money for McCarthy (in addition to getting Fred) plus we got the sell on fee for Hause. Other than paying off the existing loans, the financial position may not be as bad as some envisage.
I’m not sure if you were referring to my post Malone, but I didn’t intend to ‘label’ wwfcblue. I merely questioned his use of the phrase ‘saddled us with more debt’ when the loan was actually requested by the club.I also agreed that we needed more information before making a decision as important as this one.
Increased spending / investment in the form of loans is providing if not saddling the club with debt, of course it is. Hopefully this will be converted to equity but a loan is a debt wether you welcome it or not.
Restoring the wage budget having previously decided we need to cut it is increasing spending, I'm not sure how you can argue that or why you'd feel the need.
Increasing spending via loans increases what we would need to pay back if for any reason we needed to do so.
People have submitted many pages of alternatives to this investment although many other people believe these aren't practical, aren't enough, or aren't preferable to the outline investment proposed.
The outlined proposals have been brief and many some fans will want to see more info before they vote, particularly around valuations and size of money pledged, any safeguards on resale and other factors.
Some will want to see if we can suggest any changes for mutual benefit to the club and the investors.
You can be broadly in favour of the investment and welcoming to the prospective owners whilst seeing some of this, without either making up things, calling other people names, or shouting fact a lot in a benitezesque manner, and you can do so without lessening at all the reflective glow from yesterday's wonderful match and matchday experience.
What a bizarre, over-the-top post. As you well know, the term ‘saddled with debts’ implies that Mr.Couhig somehow forced the club to accept his loan against its will, which is obviously not the case.
I didn’t say that we hadn’t increased spending, I said that their plan was to spend to. improve things on and off the field in the hope that would increase income and help us to be self sufficient.
The only alternatives to outside investment that I’ve seen would all involve slashing spending to the bone with the inevitable decline in playing standards that would bring about. Perhaps some people would be happy with that, many wouldn’t.
What have I ‘made up’ and where have I called anyone names? What is a ‘benitezesque’ manner? You’ve lost me there.
Finally, I didn’t start this thread, I just responded to it as you have. Incidentally, earlier today on the appropriate thread, I praised the outpouring of happiness and goodwill generated by yesterday’s game.
5562 surprised me it did feel a bigger crowd than that. I usually go by my block in the FA and that was pretty full
Its not all about you @glasshalffull all the time but maybe look at some of the individual points i made, maybe even read them fully and try and see what I mean or how they refer to other points above.
The "we've won some games" let's sell immediately regardless crew are increasing by the minute and would do us a disservice if the deal didn't receive proper scrutiny.
I’ll echo that “bizarre, over the top” post with yours @glasshalffull!
I read very little of what you saw the way you seem to have and didn’t see anything directed in your direction personally.
All I saw was @StrongestTeam saying that we need to consider the whole picture when we come to vote, which surely you can’t argue with?
Love the ‘benitezesque manner’ but equally clueless to what it means but can sort of nod my head knowingly despite that
Rafa went on a bit of a rant a few years ago at a press conference shouting fact fact repeatedly and its been used against him rather mockingly for years , perhaps less widely than i remembered, i was almost compelled to do the same at some suggestions above.
There is no alternative. We've been over this.
Also I have no idea wether we are really spending and how much control the Couhigs already have over our future spending. I'm not sure how you can think they are doing a good job so far (as i do) but aren't leading us to spend more.
Thanks @StrongestTeam. I remember it now you mention it but had completely slipped my mind (like so, so many other things)
basically we have no option but to vote yes on the deal, unless we want to return to non league with a ground that holds 9000 and no way of paying to keep it up ..... the whole place is falling down and needs work doing ..... I believe the couhigs have a plan to get things sorted and move us forward and being in the Top 10 of League 1 is Paramount to that plan ....... speculate to accumulate which in football can be risky but it's working out so far, if we still top after the early October fixtures then it is proof there plan is working.