Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The scenario that Couhig and Co don’t get 75%..

I dont see what choice we have now in this vote. If we vote no, we have 1.6m of debt, the team will be gutted in January to slash the wage bill, alongside the 1.6m of debt we will be running at a loss of around £700k per annum whilst plummeting down the divisions with incredibly limited resources, with the end result non league or even worse liquidation.

«13

Comments

  • @IanBeale Do you know what losses we would be incurring if the deal went through?

  • Those responsible for the governance of WWFC should already be planning for the eventuality that Legacy members votes do not meet the 75% threshold.

  • Very similar to the way Hayes took over

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • Of course the club were just minutes away from administration less than three years after Steve Hayes takeover.

  • In the first such planning meeting for that eventuality @glasshalfempty, what ideas would you suggest they consider?

    👍 👎 ( -8 )
  • I have nowhere near enough information to give advice on the governance of WWFC.
    I would expect any planning to have begun as soon as the investment was made. c. mid-July.

  • No Che, I can’t think of anything either.....

    👍 👎 ( -4 )
  • @DevC you know what the alternative is, and hardly anyone has any appetite for it, as shown by the losses.

    No choice, as the man Beale says.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • I genuinely don’t know what the alternative half way through this season would be.

    👍 👎 ( -1 )
  • Trying to surpess or ignore every suggested alternative is somewhat foolish as those suggestions are effectively answering the same question as to what we do if for any reason they ever pull out or indeed how we can help.
    The same as anyone or anythings finances, if you lose a significant portion of your expected income you look elsewhere to replace it or you cut your cloth, as unpalatable as that might be to many people involved.
    I'm going to try not to comment any more until we see either proposals or material change in the situation. I'm not sure the speculation helps anyone and any suspicion, instead of being taken on its own merit or leading towards safeguarding suggestions seems to be taken as outright opposition.

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • @DevC said:
    No Che, I can’t think of anything either.....

    I suspect you have nowhere near enough information to give advice on the governance of WWFC either.

    👍 👎 ( 0 )
  • @DevC said:
    I genuinely don’t know what the alternative half way through this season would be.

    There isn't one. Doesn't need saying but I'm sure you will keep going as normal.

  • It is always a pleasure when we agree, Che.

    I have no inside information on how to run the club.

    I'm content to allow those who could be bothered to stand and were then elected to do the job on our behalf to do so. They appear to have done a remarkable job to find first of all Luby and then when that was scuppered and there seemed no alternative credible option to find Couhig.

    If, as now seems within our grasp, they succeed in maintaining league football in High Wycombe for the foreseeable future, we will all owe every one of the Trust board a huge debt of gratitude IMHO.

    @peterparrotface, while I agree with your diagnosis, I disagree that it doesn't need saying. When voters are STILL opposing or suggesting they will abstain etc, I think the question does need asking as to what they see the alternative as.

    👍 👎 ( -5 )
  • So what was remarkable about finding Luby ? I cant wait for your detailed answer !!

  • I suppose it depends on how you see it, @ChasHarps.

    I think finding credible people with a history of successfully running and growing sports teams to invest a significant amount of their money in a loss making lower league club with no assets and no certainty of getting their money back was a pretty remarkable achievement.

    When "circumstances" scuppered that proposal, it is even more remarkable to find a second.

    You may have a different view of course.

    👍 👎 ( -3 )
  • Wasn't the Luby deal involving the asset of the ground though or am I imagining that?

  • That isn't my recollection, @EwanHoosaami.

    👍 👎 ( -1 )
  • Im not sure the ground is an asset, u can't do anything with it and it wouldn't be worth very much as a warehouse !!

  • Give it a few more weeks and warehousing might be quite a profitable industry!

    👍 👎 ( 3 )
  • @DevC said:
    It is always a pleasure when we agree, Che.

    I have no inside information on how to run the club.

    I'm content to allow those who could be bothered to stand and were then elected to do the job on our behalf to do so.

    I’m glad to see you agree with me that those responsible for the governance of WWFC should already be planning for the eventuality that Legacy members votes do not meet the 75% threshold.

  • Bit like the “no deal Brexit” planning and preparation perhaps?

    👍 👎 ( -2 )
  • Relax everyone. The Couhigs love the club so it’s going to be fine.

  • I understand worst case contingency plans if the bid is unsuccessful include food shortages, troops on the streets and martial law.

  • @micra said:
    Bit like the “no deal Brexit” planning and preparation perhaps?

    You’d like to think our board of directors are more competent than the current government wouldn’t you?

  • I think even @marlowchair would agree that our board of directors are more competent that the current government

  • @bookertease said:
    I think even @marlowchair would agree that our board of directors are more competent that the current government

    I think the chlorinated horse bap sounds quite nice actually...

  • The Couhigs' better be airlifting in 'potato chips' or I'll be joining in the civil unrest!

    👍 👎 ( 1 )
  • @DevC said:
    That isn't my recollection, @EwanHoosaami.

    Your memory is failing Dev. Bill and Ben placed a charge on Adams Park so if we were unable to repay the loan they would have the right to take possession by the end of this year.

  • No @mooneyman , I think you are conflating two separate matters.

    As I recall , the ownership of the ground was always intended to stay firmly under the Trust ownership under the Luby bid.

    Unfortunately the delays introduced by consideration of the late Harman bid meant that the club urgently needed to borrow money in advance of the Luby bid being able to complete in order to pay day to day bills and as there was no one else prepared to lend the money had to borrow money from Luby to pay them.

    As we know, by the time the delay as a result of the late Harman bid came to an end, the Luby consortium no longer wished to proceed and hence the loan as far as I know remains outstanding.

    we of course can never know for sure whether, without the delay caused by consideration of the late Harman bid, the Luby bid would have completed and the need for the loan avoided or whether the Luby's would have pulled out earlier. my judgement for what it is worth is that it would have completed.

    👍 👎 ( -5 )
Sign In or Register to comment.