Speculation for potential accumulation I should think. The transformation from a relatively old squad to one containing a number of highly promising younger players (as I predicted at the start of the close season) has increased the prospect of a decent Cup run and the odd windfall from player sales. And much as many people dislike the competition, progress in the Leasing Trophy thing can also bring in substantial income. I really think we now have the strength in depth to be optimistic about the possibility of renewed “football fortune”.
I also think gates will increase as we move into autumn and competition from other outside activities decreases.
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.
Strongest Team , I sincerely apologise for wrongly believing that your original post was aimed at me. As it followed my own post and referenced things that I’d written, I made the assumption that you were calling me out for things I hadn’t said and didn’t mean. My mistake.
What ever the pros and cons what is clear is that the potential new owners need much greater in depth consultations with Legacy members. Not just pr, quicker beer, q&a sessions with them, Gaz and Trev on stools in the Vere but serious one to ones, think MP constituency surgery. Without that offer / opportunity / assurances there is no way they will get 75%. Far too many what ifs from the sceptics at the moment.
I love the fact that so many of our fans want to believe the best of the Couhigs to the extent they'd willingly -- knowingly -- suspend their critical faculties and vote for whatever they're proposing because, what? Their folksy charm? Their enthusiasm on Twitter? Their willingness to serve pints behind the bar and pose for selfies? It shows an endearing trust in mankind but, whisper it, also perhaps a slight naivety?
Come on - this guy is a lawyer and a politician. Two of the trickiest, slipperiest professions known to man. He may be the messiah -- but wouldn't it at least help if he were to first put detailed plans down on paper before you decide to sign over a community asset which you have taken on solemn responsibilities to protect in your role as a legacy member?
If Mr Couhig wants to increase crowds, why has he not brought in an experienced director of marketing, for example? Perhaps that might prove more useful than a 'football consultant', whatever that may be.
I don't have a vote but if I did, I'd be a bit more cautious before committing to voting yes, even without an obvious plan B in place. After all, the more likely it is that the vote is a walkover for the Couhigs, the less incentive they have to commit to a decent offer beforehand.
@Malone rightly recognised the positions at each end of the spectrum and, for me, also rightly suggests both are perhaps extreme and offers a middle ground view. Things look good around the ground and are damn good on the pitch. Rob C says he has a plan to make this sustainable. It makes sense for voting members to look over the plan and draw our conclusions, as best we can, as to whether he is right.
My position is that if I’m confident the plan for sustainability looks viable then I’ll vote yes although I accept down the line we may be sold on to a crook. That’s a gamble I’m willing to make, I can see why some will not be. No plan offered, I may try to register an abstention. Plan looks pure pie in the sky I may have to vote no.
The beauty of the gas room is that there are several on here with apparent business acumen or plain old common sense and smarts so my scrutiny of said plan if and when we see it will be hugely aided by their wisdom.
If you are referring to Mark Palmer @aloysius he was keen to make clear at the inaugural meeting that he is a football industry consultant which I imagine embraces a wide range of football related issues. He made clear that his role did not extend to on-pitch matters.
@aloysius - Whilst I generally agree with your take on the proposed sale, the Trust Board have unfortunately backed us into a corner.
By the time of the vote we are going to be indebted to the Couhig's in a sum of well over £1m (probably nearer £2m). If we vote against the sale, how do we conjure up the money to repay them, which I recall has to be paid within six months or so? Like the Sharkie debacle, we are going to be between a rock and a hard place this time created by the current Trust Board.
Nothing wrong with cynicism, nothing wrong with wanting to see the best in people either. Mr.Couhig has been involved with the club for less than two months, he lives thousands of miles away and has other businesses to run.
Peter Couhig and Mark Palmer are there to oversee his interests at WWWFC and have already made significant progress.
He has discussed detailed plans with the Trust board and these are currently in the hands of the respective lawyers. They will be made public at the meeting planned for later this month.
Mark Palmer is called football consultant but his remit goes beyond the playing squad and has also involved commercial and marketing initiatives.
If the Share Scheme, the 500 Club and attendances failed to raise sufficient funds to enable Gareth to assemble the kind of squad he has now, what could the Trust Board have done about it other than seek outside investment? I say that at the risk of re-opening that horrible old can of worms!
The difficult thing for me is that this is being presented as a takeover, which it is officially, but in some ways, it is more like a rescue. Yes, we can't pay back RC loans, but we were already in a position where we were not sustainable before he walked up.
It is a rock and a hard place. It is a huge risk to place your club in the hands of an unknown, and relinquish control forever, but it is just as significant of a risk (quite arguably a larger risk) to try and go back to a model that appears to be unsustainable. It may end up being a case of "live to fight another day" with RC at the helm, assuming the presentation is well thought out.
Part of the subtext of this debate is that any option is fraught with a certain amount of peril, and that is going to breed frustration and alarm no matter which side of the fence you come down on. Those more cynical towards RC are (rightly) going to point to the various cons of handing over control, while those more favourable towards the takeover are going to (rightly) point out the cons of trying to stay as-is.
Personally, I am hoping the presentation is impressive, logical, and practical enough to unify all of the fans into taking a chance with RC. I don't really see a way to remain fan owned, but I would much rather any takeover happened with an almost unanimous sign-off from the fan base, to minimize any bitterness going forward. After all, the way football is going, this could end in tears either way.
@aloysius I’m all for making sensible, informed decisions - but what really are you deciding between? As @mooneyman implies, we’re not in a position where the subtleties of this deal matter. No, it’s not an ideal bargaining position, but it is where we are.
@micra said:
If you are referring to Mark Palmer @aloysius he was keen to make clear at the inaugural meeting that he is a football industry consultant which I imagine embraces a wide range of football related issues. He made clear that his role did not extend to on-pitch matters.
And I’m sure should the bid be successful then Mark will fill the gaps in the commercial team. Right now who worth their salt would take a job that the management might not be around to find by Easter?
@glasshalffull said:
Nothing wrong with cynicism, nothing wrong with wanting to see the best in people either. Mr.Couhig has been involved with the club for less than two months, he lives thousands of miles away and has other businesses to run.
Peter Couhig and Mark Palmer are there to oversee his interests at WWWFC and have already made significant progress.
He has discussed detailed plans with the Trust board and these are currently in the hands of the respective lawyers. They will be made public at the meeting planned for later this month.
Mark Palmer is called football consultant but his remit goes beyond the playing squad and has also involved commercial and marketing initiatives.
My understanding is the details of the deal aren't being discussed at the 19th Sept meeting, it will be at a later date?
@Chris said: @aloysius I’m all for making sensible, informed decisions - but what really are you deciding between? As @mooneyman implies, we’re not in a position where the subtleties of this deal matter. No, it’s not an ideal bargaining position, but it is where we are.
I'm not for a second advocating going about this the way Boris Johnson is with his current negotiations - but I think most people can agree there's logic in his position that you don't concede defeat in a negotiation before the other side has even put their cards on the table. We need to be going into any sale in a position of strength. Mr Couhig is not looking to buy a team 4,600 miles away out of charity. He wants it for his portfolio of investments for whatever reason (which is still not clear to me). Simply handing it over to him without even pushing him for full answers over what he plans on doing with it is a dereliction of duty.
What are the other options? Well firstly, Mr Couhig - if he really wants to buy the club - can come back with a better offer or at least more details of his plan. There's nothing I've seen to suggest each bidder only has one chance of a vote. If he's as emotionally invested as he says he is (once again, I take this with a significant pinch of salt) he'll be back.
Secondly, let's turn again to our PM and his disruptor adviser Dominic Cummings. Mr Couhig has invested significantly in the club, of that there's little doubt. He will want the money back. That won't happen if he liquidates us - as someone has already mentioned, our assets stretch to little more than a photocopier, so he would only get a few hundred quid back and maybe a spare ink cartridge. Steve Hayes found the same when he pulled out - either strike a repayment deal which is not too onerous and see some of the money recouped, or play hardball and lose everything. Cummings wants the EU to see the whites of his eyes, realise he's not bluffing, and strike a deal rather than lose every penny of the £39bn divorce deal. There are many - oh so many - holes you can pick in his current strategy. But I think this advice could be of use to the Trust board.
Accept we're in a position of weakness and we'll get a crap deal. But our hands ain't that weak, we just need to show our friend from the Deep South that we also have big cojones here in High Wycombe.
We have absolutely no idea of Mr Couhig's business plan for the club (other than 'improve the match day experience') , we have absolutely no idea of our current financial situation (other than TS saying is not great).
And the other consideration for me... If Mr Couhig decides to sell up (if his takeover succeeds), then there we have absolutely no say who he sells to. The apparent lack of a Plan B is also worrying, however it seems Trust board have had enough of running our club (their willingness to hand over to Bill and Jim, and now the Couhigs at the first sign of dollars suggest this... )
We are flying high at the moment, and thats great. However, if we were languishing on 3 points at this stage would everyone be so in favour? This is a long term desicion and should not be decided by a short term upturn on fortunes.
As it stands there is an absolute lack of detail and knowledge, and so I cannot see how anyone can vote 'yes' until certain basic questions are answered with facts and figures.
@aloysius Do you think Rob Couhig will come back with a better deal if the 75% is not reached? And do the slight gains of a renegotiated deal outweigh the risk of him walking away?
I’m not convinced the Brexit analogy adds any insight.
And while we're at it, I point I forgot to mention before... The one thing we do know about his offer is that he's promised to clear the charge on the stadium before going to a vote, so that there is no risk of us losing the stadium.
This actually puts him in a very weak negotiating position. The one real threat to the club is losing the stadium. If that's taken off the agenda then my scenario above holds even more weight - if he walks away he will only be able to recoup monies owed if the club remains solvent. So he would have every incentive to return to the negotiating table in the wake of an initial no vote.
Let me give you a scenario which is not beyond the realms of imagination.. The Couhigs' don't get the 75% vote and demand all their money back within around six months in accordance with the agreement they have negotiated with the Board.
The club can't raise the money to repay Mr Couhig and he then proceeds to liquidate the club. Whilst he could do a Sharkie like repayment scheme, he can't be bothered to recover his money via many years annual instalments.
Mr Stroud and his cohorts in exasperation all resign from the Board en bloc leaving us rudderless
I go back and forth between thinking there’s no way they’ll get 75% and no way they won’t.
The ins and outs of the deal itself are almost irrelevant, the debt we’ve accrued to Luby and Collis and the Couhigs themselves mean we really don’t have another option.
Luckily they’ve done almost everything right so far. That might be a good indication of things to come, or it might be precisely nothing.
@mooneyman why would anyone choose liquidation over a medium term repayment scheme? The most he has sunk in will be, say £1-1.5m. That gets paid back within a few years from transfer sales from Freeman, Stewart, Mascoll etc and the next two generations of gems. Or he walks at with nothing. Seems a no brainer to me. Would I shed a tear if the Trust board resigned en mass? Absolutely not. I'm fully confident I could do a better job alongside many other people. Perhaps if they all resigned there would be a chance for free and fair elections.
@BuckinghamBlue that would really be in Mr Couhig's gift to answer, not mine. It all depends what he's offering in the first place which, as far as I'm aware, none of us currently know.
Sorry I must have missed it. Did not see Aloysius on the ballot paper for Trust board members election.If you feel so strongly you should have put your name forward. The board are certainly not perfect but at least they stepped forward.
@aloysius - So your plan relies on "football fortune". That may happen, but how are we going to in the meantime pay the wages of all those players on three year contracts when Mr Couhig stops funding the club?
Incidentally I too would be happy to see the current Trust Board resign and perhaps that is a good reason to support the Couhig deal.
I can’t say I agree with your strategy @aloysius. By the time we get to see the details of the vote the negotiation phase will have been completed between RC and the Trust Board and, rightly or wrongly, we have to believe that the Trust are doing what we elected them to do, and negotiate in the best interests of our club.
When we get to our Chequers we can all get to see the relative success of these negotiations and base our decision on that
If we think its crap, fine we can vote against but if it’s is okay voting against in the hope that we can get a slightly better deal seems unnecessarily antagonistic.
You also have to remember that most of the Legacy Members probably aren’t that well-versed in the nuances of contracts, etc so will be relying on expert, informed views.
Personally, I will listen most to what Trevor says. (Our @trevor, not TS!)
@mooneyman one of the benefits of all this investment now is that we have a strong nucleus signed up to long contracts. Wheeler, Freeman, Samuel, Thompson, Fred etc. So we won't need to bring anything more than the odd loanee in - and Blackman shows we can get them for free if we play our cards right. This is a squad that shouldn't get relegated and Ainsworth has them playing attractive football. So the crowds shouldn't fall off a cliff anytime soon. If Mr Couhig walks away I would expect to see a repayment deal similar to that struck with Steve Hayes - a small base sum repayed each year with the rest made up from transfer profits. If there are none of them then Mr Couhig will have to wait longer for his money while the club - with, we both agree, a new board - keeps its head above water (just) as it did under the post-Hayes years. The only person that would benefit from football fortune would be Rob Couhig, yes, but we wouldn't go under without it.
This may be a squad that shouldn’t get relegated but if the Couhig bid is rejected it is a squad that almost certainly will not get paid.
Once again, it is unlikely to be loan repayments that kill the club. Far more likely would be clubs inability to pay wages, utilities, beer suppliers, HMRC , coach company etc
Comments
Speculation for potential accumulation I should think. The transformation from a relatively old squad to one containing a number of highly promising younger players (as I predicted at the start of the close season) has increased the prospect of a decent Cup run and the odd windfall from player sales. And much as many people dislike the competition, progress in the Leasing Trophy thing can also bring in substantial income. I really think we now have the strength in depth to be optimistic about the possibility of renewed “football fortune”.
I also think gates will increase as we move into autumn and competition from other outside activities decreases.
Wish I’d been there yesterday though!
Strongest Team , I sincerely apologise for wrongly believing that your original post was aimed at me. As it followed my own post and referenced things that I’d written, I made the assumption that you were calling me out for things I hadn’t said and didn’t mean. My mistake.
What ever the pros and cons what is clear is that the potential new owners need much greater in depth consultations with Legacy members. Not just pr, quicker beer, q&a sessions with them, Gaz and Trev on stools in the Vere but serious one to ones, think MP constituency surgery. Without that offer / opportunity / assurances there is no way they will get 75%. Far too many what ifs from the sceptics at the moment.
I love the fact that so many of our fans want to believe the best of the Couhigs to the extent they'd willingly -- knowingly -- suspend their critical faculties and vote for whatever they're proposing because, what? Their folksy charm? Their enthusiasm on Twitter? Their willingness to serve pints behind the bar and pose for selfies? It shows an endearing trust in mankind but, whisper it, also perhaps a slight naivety?
Come on - this guy is a lawyer and a politician. Two of the trickiest, slipperiest professions known to man. He may be the messiah -- but wouldn't it at least help if he were to first put detailed plans down on paper before you decide to sign over a community asset which you have taken on solemn responsibilities to protect in your role as a legacy member?
If Mr Couhig wants to increase crowds, why has he not brought in an experienced director of marketing, for example? Perhaps that might prove more useful than a 'football consultant', whatever that may be.
I don't have a vote but if I did, I'd be a bit more cautious before committing to voting yes, even without an obvious plan B in place. After all, the more likely it is that the vote is a walkover for the Couhigs, the less incentive they have to commit to a decent offer beforehand.
@Malone rightly recognised the positions at each end of the spectrum and, for me, also rightly suggests both are perhaps extreme and offers a middle ground view. Things look good around the ground and are damn good on the pitch. Rob C says he has a plan to make this sustainable. It makes sense for voting members to look over the plan and draw our conclusions, as best we can, as to whether he is right.
My position is that if I’m confident the plan for sustainability looks viable then I’ll vote yes although I accept down the line we may be sold on to a crook. That’s a gamble I’m willing to make, I can see why some will not be. No plan offered, I may try to register an abstention. Plan looks pure pie in the sky I may have to vote no.
The beauty of the gas room is that there are several on here with apparent business acumen or plain old common sense and smarts so my scrutiny of said plan if and when we see it will be hugely aided by their wisdom.
If you are referring to Mark Palmer @aloysius he was keen to make clear at the inaugural meeting that he is a football industry consultant which I imagine embraces a wide range of football related issues. He made clear that his role did not extend to on-pitch matters.
@aloysius - Whilst I generally agree with your take on the proposed sale, the Trust Board have unfortunately backed us into a corner.
By the time of the vote we are going to be indebted to the Couhig's in a sum of well over £1m (probably nearer £2m). If we vote against the sale, how do we conjure up the money to repay them, which I recall has to be paid within six months or so? Like the Sharkie debacle, we are going to be between a rock and a hard place this time created by the current Trust Board.
Nothing wrong with cynicism, nothing wrong with wanting to see the best in people either. Mr.Couhig has been involved with the club for less than two months, he lives thousands of miles away and has other businesses to run.
Peter Couhig and Mark Palmer are there to oversee his interests at WWWFC and have already made significant progress.
He has discussed detailed plans with the Trust board and these are currently in the hands of the respective lawyers. They will be made public at the meeting planned for later this month.
Mark Palmer is called football consultant but his remit goes beyond the playing squad and has also involved commercial and marketing initiatives.
If the Share Scheme, the 500 Club and attendances failed to raise sufficient funds to enable Gareth to assemble the kind of squad he has now, what could the Trust Board have done about it other than seek outside investment? I say that at the risk of re-opening that horrible old can of worms!
The difficult thing for me is that this is being presented as a takeover, which it is officially, but in some ways, it is more like a rescue. Yes, we can't pay back RC loans, but we were already in a position where we were not sustainable before he walked up.
It is a rock and a hard place. It is a huge risk to place your club in the hands of an unknown, and relinquish control forever, but it is just as significant of a risk (quite arguably a larger risk) to try and go back to a model that appears to be unsustainable. It may end up being a case of "live to fight another day" with RC at the helm, assuming the presentation is well thought out.
Part of the subtext of this debate is that any option is fraught with a certain amount of peril, and that is going to breed frustration and alarm no matter which side of the fence you come down on. Those more cynical towards RC are (rightly) going to point to the various cons of handing over control, while those more favourable towards the takeover are going to (rightly) point out the cons of trying to stay as-is.
Personally, I am hoping the presentation is impressive, logical, and practical enough to unify all of the fans into taking a chance with RC. I don't really see a way to remain fan owned, but I would much rather any takeover happened with an almost unanimous sign-off from the fan base, to minimize any bitterness going forward. After all, the way football is going, this could end in tears either way.
@aloysius I’m all for making sensible, informed decisions - but what really are you deciding between? As @mooneyman implies, we’re not in a position where the subtleties of this deal matter. No, it’s not an ideal bargaining position, but it is where we are.
And I’m sure should the bid be successful then Mark will fill the gaps in the commercial team. Right now who worth their salt would take a job that the management might not be around to find by Easter?
My understanding is the details of the deal aren't being discussed at the 19th Sept meeting, it will be at a later date?
I'm not for a second advocating going about this the way Boris Johnson is with his current negotiations - but I think most people can agree there's logic in his position that you don't concede defeat in a negotiation before the other side has even put their cards on the table. We need to be going into any sale in a position of strength. Mr Couhig is not looking to buy a team 4,600 miles away out of charity. He wants it for his portfolio of investments for whatever reason (which is still not clear to me). Simply handing it over to him without even pushing him for full answers over what he plans on doing with it is a dereliction of duty.
What are the other options? Well firstly, Mr Couhig - if he really wants to buy the club - can come back with a better offer or at least more details of his plan. There's nothing I've seen to suggest each bidder only has one chance of a vote. If he's as emotionally invested as he says he is (once again, I take this with a significant pinch of salt) he'll be back.
Secondly, let's turn again to our PM and his disruptor adviser Dominic Cummings. Mr Couhig has invested significantly in the club, of that there's little doubt. He will want the money back. That won't happen if he liquidates us - as someone has already mentioned, our assets stretch to little more than a photocopier, so he would only get a few hundred quid back and maybe a spare ink cartridge. Steve Hayes found the same when he pulled out - either strike a repayment deal which is not too onerous and see some of the money recouped, or play hardball and lose everything. Cummings wants the EU to see the whites of his eyes, realise he's not bluffing, and strike a deal rather than lose every penny of the £39bn divorce deal. There are many - oh so many - holes you can pick in his current strategy. But I think this advice could be of use to the Trust board.
Accept we're in a position of weakness and we'll get a crap deal. But our hands ain't that weak, we just need to show our friend from the Deep South that we also have big cojones here in High Wycombe.
We have absolutely no idea of Mr Couhig's business plan for the club (other than 'improve the match day experience') , we have absolutely no idea of our current financial situation (other than TS saying is not great).
And the other consideration for me... If Mr Couhig decides to sell up (if his takeover succeeds), then there we have absolutely no say who he sells to. The apparent lack of a Plan B is also worrying, however it seems Trust board have had enough of running our club (their willingness to hand over to Bill and Jim, and now the Couhigs at the first sign of dollars suggest this... )
We are flying high at the moment, and thats great. However, if we were languishing on 3 points at this stage would everyone be so in favour? This is a long term desicion and should not be decided by a short term upturn on fortunes.
As it stands there is an absolute lack of detail and knowledge, and so I cannot see how anyone can vote 'yes' until certain basic questions are answered with facts and figures.
@aloysius Do you think Rob Couhig will come back with a better deal if the 75% is not reached? And do the slight gains of a renegotiated deal outweigh the risk of him walking away?
I’m not convinced the Brexit analogy adds any insight.
@Chris yes I do.
And while we're at it, I point I forgot to mention before... The one thing we do know about his offer is that he's promised to clear the charge on the stadium before going to a vote, so that there is no risk of us losing the stadium.
This actually puts him in a very weak negotiating position. The one real threat to the club is losing the stadium. If that's taken off the agenda then my scenario above holds even more weight - if he walks away he will only be able to recoup monies owed if the club remains solvent. So he would have every incentive to return to the negotiating table in the wake of an initial no vote.
We might well see.
Let me give you a scenario which is not beyond the realms of imagination.. The Couhigs' don't get the 75% vote and demand all their money back within around six months in accordance with the agreement they have negotiated with the Board.
The club can't raise the money to repay Mr Couhig and he then proceeds to liquidate the club. Whilst he could do a Sharkie like repayment scheme, he can't be bothered to recover his money via many years annual instalments.
Mr Stroud and his cohorts in exasperation all resign from the Board en bloc leaving us rudderless
WHAT DO YOU DO?
I go back and forth between thinking there’s no way they’ll get 75% and no way they won’t.
The ins and outs of the deal itself are almost irrelevant, the debt we’ve accrued to Luby and Collis and the Couhigs themselves mean we really don’t have another option.
Luckily they’ve done almost everything right so far. That might be a good indication of things to come, or it might be precisely nothing.
@aloysius I don’t understand what would Rob come back to the table with after an initial no vote? 3ply in the loos
basically they are getting the club for paying off the debt its that simple
Unlimited free crisps at every game for each attendee.
@mooneyman why would anyone choose liquidation over a medium term repayment scheme? The most he has sunk in will be, say £1-1.5m. That gets paid back within a few years from transfer sales from Freeman, Stewart, Mascoll etc and the next two generations of gems. Or he walks at with nothing. Seems a no brainer to me. Would I shed a tear if the Trust board resigned en mass? Absolutely not. I'm fully confident I could do a better job alongside many other people. Perhaps if they all resigned there would be a chance for free and fair elections.
@BuckinghamBlue that would really be in Mr Couhig's gift to answer, not mine. It all depends what he's offering in the first place which, as far as I'm aware, none of us currently know.
Sorry I must have missed it. Did not see Aloysius on the ballot paper for Trust board members election.If you feel so strongly you should have put your name forward. The board are certainly not perfect but at least they stepped forward.
@aloysius - So your plan relies on "football fortune". That may happen, but how are we going to in the meantime pay the wages of all those players on three year contracts when Mr Couhig stops funding the club?
Incidentally I too would be happy to see the current Trust Board resign and perhaps that is a good reason to support the Couhig deal.
I can’t say I agree with your strategy @aloysius. By the time we get to see the details of the vote the negotiation phase will have been completed between RC and the Trust Board and, rightly or wrongly, we have to believe that the Trust are doing what we elected them to do, and negotiate in the best interests of our club.
When we get to our Chequers we can all get to see the relative success of these negotiations and base our decision on that
If we think its crap, fine we can vote against but if it’s is okay voting against in the hope that we can get a slightly better deal seems unnecessarily antagonistic.
You also have to remember that most of the Legacy Members probably aren’t that well-versed in the nuances of contracts, etc so will be relying on expert, informed views.
Personally, I will listen most to what Trevor says. (Our @trevor, not TS!)
@mooneyman one of the benefits of all this investment now is that we have a strong nucleus signed up to long contracts. Wheeler, Freeman, Samuel, Thompson, Fred etc. So we won't need to bring anything more than the odd loanee in - and Blackman shows we can get them for free if we play our cards right. This is a squad that shouldn't get relegated and Ainsworth has them playing attractive football. So the crowds shouldn't fall off a cliff anytime soon. If Mr Couhig walks away I would expect to see a repayment deal similar to that struck with Steve Hayes - a small base sum repayed each year with the rest made up from transfer profits. If there are none of them then Mr Couhig will have to wait longer for his money while the club - with, we both agree, a new board - keeps its head above water (just) as it did under the post-Hayes years. The only person that would benefit from football fortune would be Rob Couhig, yes, but we wouldn't go under without it.
This may be a squad that shouldn’t get relegated but if the Couhig bid is rejected it is a squad that almost certainly will not get paid.
Once again, it is unlikely to be loan repayments that kill the club. Far more likely would be clubs inability to pay wages, utilities, beer suppliers, HMRC , coach company etc
@aloysius - That is assuming we can get a new Board with competent directors (in addition to yourself) with the ability to run a League One club.