For those Legacy Members who wish to study the Investment Agreement before casting their vote, then copies of the 50+ page document will be available BEFORE Saturday's game.
Please go to the small storeroom in the corner of the Caledonian Suite (through the fire doors) where you will find Trust Directors Tony Hector and Alan Cecil between 12 noon and 2.30pm.
Should you only be able to make it after the game, then please contact Alan Cecil ASAP who will be in the Caledonian Suite for a short while after the final whistle.
With few such requests during this week and most votes now cast, Trust Directors will NOT now be sitting waiting in reception next week but will attend if required by prior notice. If you still want to view the agreement from Monday 21st and before the 29th voting deadline, then please book a time giving 24 hours notice via Lawrie Read 07825 634489 or email him [email protected] .
I am shocked that the same people who claim to base so much importance on this vote, don’t see the importance of checking the fine print on the deal, particularly given the Trusts consistent failure to strike good financial deals.
I’m with @NiceCarrots and I think so everyone else should be on expressing how disappointing it is that the Trust don’t share the 50+ page document. They clearly don’t want to come under any scrutiny over this. Once again when it comes to communication, they fall short again.
by the sound of it it would have been e-mailled to non-voters as well!
I'm pleased that @Bacon_Sandwich and @Right_in_the_Middle have read it, but as
others have pointed out I'm willing to accept that lawyers have perused it on my behalf to save me getting brain ache. (I am too thick to really get that much out of it...)
I understand that there were two lawyers from law firms at the meeting representing the Trust/EFL in the drafting of the document on stage...who have their and their firms professional reputations on the line...all contracts are subject to English Common Law and can be challenged in the courts too. While the Board may not be, in some people's eyes competent (in which case why not apply for the role) our Trust/their lawyers should be and again sometimes you just have to make a judgement call too on characters. If the Couhigs really want to run the club into the ground, bankrupt the Trust then buy Adam's Park for a peanut and turn it into a baseball park and ice hockey arena they could try...but I think they would concentrate their efforts closer to home around New Orleans. The Trust still own 25% of the club so if they have bought it at a low price and the value increases coming years then the Trust still benefits. If they lose millions then the Trust losses are far less than if we had continued supporter owned.
Nice Carrots etc spend their time pulling down the Board efforts and may say...why couldn't the current Board get the gates up and sort out the food etc. Well...why didn't Nice carrots get off the computer and phone Marlow Bewery /Rebellion themselves rather than wait for the Couhigs to cross the Atlantic and why not set up a stand each Saturday morning in the Eden Centre publicising the game in the afternoon...at least Pete Couhig was down at the Freshers Fare at Bucks University. If you support the club so well get down to the club before the game and give the legal document a read through...or do you just get the result each week on the BBC? Seriously why would Wycombe want every other club in the country to know the line by line deal the Trust has struck with the Couhigs...which would happen if it was emailed out. A no brainer to me!
@Bacon_Sandwich said:
I am shocked that the same people who claim to base so much importance on this vote, don’t see the importance of checking the fine print on the deal, particularly given the Trusts consistent failure to strike good financial deals.
Bacon Sandwich, You say it’s‘disappointing that the board don’t want to share the 50 page document’ but it’s available to read in full from tomorrow. What do you mean the Trust board ‘clearly don’t want to come under any scrutiny’ and fall short when it comes to communication?
They held an open meeting for Legacy members a couple of days ago and answered every question put to them. They have also sent out several emails detailing Rob Couhig’s proposals. By all means be critical where criticism is due, but you’re wide of the mark on this one.
The vote has not yet closed @glasshalffull I am sure having digested the legal document @Bacon_Sandwich will be highlighting any legal concerns next week for those Gasroomers who have not yet voted.
@Bacon_Sandwich said:
I am shocked that the same people who claim to base so much importance on this vote, don’t see the importance of checking the fine print on the deal, particularly given the Trusts consistent failure to strike good financial deals.
I’m with @NiceCarrots and I think so everyone else should be on expressing how disappointing it is that the Trust don’t share the 50+ page document. They clearly don’t want to come under any scrutiny over this. Once again when it comes to communication, they fall short again.
Unfortunately most of us would not be able to fully understand the complexities of a 50 page document prepared by specialist contract lawyers. In light of my personal limited complex legal knowledge, I feel I have no alternative but to rely on the 4 page summary provided by the Trust.
No doubt once your good self and @Right_in_the_Middle have carried out a detailed examination of the full document you will enlighten the rest of us if there are any dodgy provisions.
No doubt once your good self and @Right_in_the_Middle have carried out a detailed examination of the full document you will enlighten the rest of us if there are any dodgy provisions.
If you think I'm taking the time to read through it and then share it with the gasroom you'll be having a long wait.
No doubt once your good self and @Right_in_the_Middle have carried out a detailed examination of the full document you will enlighten the rest of us if there are any dodgy provisions.
If you think I'm taking the time to read through it and then share it with the gasroom you'll be having a long wait.
You would presume that if someone reads through the document and finds something they're not happy with which prompts them to vote 'against', that they would warn others of their findings, rather than just vote 'against' and then keep quiet to let the 'for' voters carry on voting based on what they have been told in the hand-out and via the presentation.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
If you think I'm taking the time to read through it and then share it with the gasroom you'll be having a long wait.
Surely, once you have read it and found some alarming bits, you would share the knowledge? After all, it could save a lot of heartache, or at least you could say "I told you so" sometime in the future.
No doubt once your good self and @Right_in_the_Middle have carried out a detailed examination of the full document you will enlighten the rest of us if there are any dodgy provisions.
If you think I'm taking the time to read through it and then share it with the gasroom you'll be having a long wait.
You would presume that if someone reads through the document and finds something they're not happy with which prompts them to vote 'against', that they would warn others of their findings, rather than just vote 'against' and then keep quiet to let the 'for' voters carry on voting based on what they have been told in the hand-out and via the presentation.
So 80% of over 800 Legacy members voted, only 4 have read it. Onus really is on the trust for there not to be any hidden nasties. Shame there hasn't been a bit more detail and scrutiny if only as suggestions from wider reading might have been mutually beneficial.
Did anyone see if there was anything in the deal around preferential terms or first option for the trust to buy it back?
I'm not over most of the detail yet but I don't have a vote and don't live near enough for a read when most people have voted already.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
If you think I'm taking the time to read through it and then share it with the gasroom you'll be having a long wait.
Surely, once you have read it and found some alarming bits, you would share the knowledge? After all, it could save a lot of heartache, or at least you could say "I told you so" sometime in the future.
Seeing as 80% have voted already with the vast majority knowing nothing about the legal document I'm not sure it's that big a deal for most. Unfortunately I'm just not so certain yet.
Talking of voting quickly I actually found it very strange for the meeting last week to be side tracked by an X Factor style 'the voting line is now open' followed by Trust board members and Legacy members checking phones and discussing who'd received the email.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
Seeing as 80% have voted already with the vast majority knowing nothing about the legal document I'm not sure it's that big a deal for most. Unfortunately I'm just not so certain yet.
Your concerns being shared could influence the remaining 20% though. We all know that it has to have a 75% yes vote. I suspect that there may be some no voters in that 80%. As such, it would be wise to share with those of us ignorant of legal jargon your fears & stop us from voting for the "bus over the precipice" surely?
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
Seeing as 80% have voted already with the vast majority knowing nothing about the legal document I'm not sure it's that big a deal for most. Unfortunately I'm just not so certain yet.
Your concerns being shared could influence the remaining 20% though. We all know that it has to have a 75% yes vote. I suspect that there may be some no voters in that 80%. As such, it would be wise to share with those of us ignorant of legal jargon your fears & stop us from voting for the "bus over the precipice" surely?
You want me to do it so you can know what was in a document you could read? Very 21st century.
I am not expecting to see anything in the document to be of concern. Normally it's more around what is not written down when problems arise.
I just want to take my time in an atmosphere where the current Ainsworth interest has spooked some in to thinking a quick vote will some how help him stay. The vote can't be declared until the date given as far as I am aware. I'm sure there is nothing in it but a cynical part of me wants to make sure this apparent rush isn't designed to brush something under the carpet.
@Right_in_the_Middle I think it's a response to it appearing that your good self and @Bacon_Sandwich were so 'shocked' people were voting without reading the full legal document. There's nothing that upsets a voter more than someone suggesting they don't know what they are voting for
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
You want me to do it so you can know what was in a document you could read? Very 21st century.
Got to be honest with you Righty, but you are coming across, on this occasion, as a sanctimonious prick!
I have already stated on this very forum, that I would have lost the will to live trying to understand legal jargon after 3 or 4 pages, (I suspect the vast majority of voters to be in a similar boat?), so no chance after the best part of 50. You are leading me to believe, that you would have a far superior knowledge than I, so again I ask, once you have read it, found the missing components that you fear, share it and you may have the chance to use your influence to stop the vote, (in your opinion), going the wrong way?
Can't profess to be a legal expert, but I'm hoping to have a read through tomorrow, in the very unlikely scenario that I understand it and all concerned, I'll post back here, strange attitude above... Do you want an hourly rate for your review RITM?
I think I might be being led down the wrong path though. I've had to check back through my posts to confirm that I've never said I was actually going to read the document. I've been talking about others wanting information without actually reading it themselves.
Comments
Fantastic turnout. Think there may be something of a party atmosphere tomorrow.. is anyone else buzzing for this game (usually that's a bad thing).
For those Legacy Members who wish to study the Investment Agreement before casting their vote, then copies of the 50+ page document will be available BEFORE Saturday's game.
Please go to the small storeroom in the corner of the Caledonian Suite (through the fire doors) where you will find Trust Directors Tony Hector and Alan Cecil between 12 noon and 2.30pm.
Should you only be able to make it after the game, then please contact Alan Cecil ASAP who will be in the Caledonian Suite for a short while after the final whistle.
With few such requests during this week and most votes now cast, Trust Directors will NOT now be sitting waiting in reception next week but will attend if required by prior notice. If you still want to view the agreement from Monday 21st and before the 29th voting deadline, then please book a time giving 24 hours notice via Lawrie Read 07825 634489 or email him [email protected] .
I am shocked that the same people who claim to base so much importance on this vote, don’t see the importance of checking the fine print on the deal, particularly given the Trusts consistent failure to strike good financial deals.
I’m with @NiceCarrots and I think so everyone else should be on expressing how disappointing it is that the Trust don’t share the 50+ page document. They clearly don’t want to come under any scrutiny over this. Once again when it comes to communication, they fall short again.
Just to clarify. When I say “share” I mean email it to voters.
It's a confidential document. Surely it would be a more relevant Trust bash if they made it public.
I am surprised how few voters have chosen to read it. I wonder if any of those who've moaned about it not being emailed out have actually read it?
by the sound of it it would have been e-mailled to non-voters as well!
I'm pleased that @Bacon_Sandwich and @Right_in_the_Middle have read it, but as
others have pointed out I'm willing to accept that lawyers have perused it on my behalf to save me getting brain ache. (I am too thick to really get that much out of it...)
I understand that there were two lawyers from law firms at the meeting representing the Trust/EFL in the drafting of the document on stage...who have their and their firms professional reputations on the line...all contracts are subject to English Common Law and can be challenged in the courts too. While the Board may not be, in some people's eyes competent (in which case why not apply for the role) our Trust/their lawyers should be and again sometimes you just have to make a judgement call too on characters. If the Couhigs really want to run the club into the ground, bankrupt the Trust then buy Adam's Park for a peanut and turn it into a baseball park and ice hockey arena they could try...but I think they would concentrate their efforts closer to home around New Orleans. The Trust still own 25% of the club so if they have bought it at a low price and the value increases coming years then the Trust still benefits. If they lose millions then the Trust losses are far less than if we had continued supporter owned.
Nice Carrots etc spend their time pulling down the Board efforts and may say...why couldn't the current Board get the gates up and sort out the food etc. Well...why didn't Nice carrots get off the computer and phone Marlow Bewery /Rebellion themselves rather than wait for the Couhigs to cross the Atlantic and why not set up a stand each Saturday morning in the Eden Centre publicising the game in the afternoon...at least Pete Couhig was down at the Freshers Fare at Bucks University. If you support the club so well get down to the club before the game and give the legal document a read through...or do you just get the result each week on the BBC? Seriously why would Wycombe want every other club in the country to know the line by line deal the Trust has struck with the Couhigs...which would happen if it was emailed out. A no brainer to me!
Bacon Sandwich, You say it’s‘disappointing that the board don’t want to share the 50 page document’ but it’s available to read in full from tomorrow. What do you mean the Trust board ‘clearly don’t want to come under any scrutiny’ and fall short when it comes to communication?
They held an open meeting for Legacy members a couple of days ago and answered every question put to them. They have also sent out several emails detailing Rob Couhig’s proposals. By all means be critical where criticism is due, but you’re wide of the mark on this one.
The vote has not yet closed @glasshalffull I am sure having digested the legal document @Bacon_Sandwich will be highlighting any legal concerns next week for those Gasroomers who have not yet voted.
Unfortunately most of us would not be able to fully understand the complexities of a 50 page document prepared by specialist contract lawyers. In light of my personal limited complex legal knowledge, I feel I have no alternative but to rely on the 4 page summary provided by the Trust.
No doubt once your good self and @Right_in_the_Middle have carried out a detailed examination of the full document you will enlighten the rest of us if there are any dodgy provisions.
Not sure the 'why not do it yourself' argument works with an internet troll @blue67
Not actually sure it works for most people. It's ok to differ in views to those in the hot seat. Not many could actually take over.
Delighted to hear this, but where is this information coming from? Can't see anything on either the Club or Trust websites.
If you think I'm taking the time to read through it and then share it with the gasroom you'll be having a long wait.
Posted by the club on Twitter
Just because 80% have voted does not mean 75% have said yes!
You would presume that if someone reads through the document and finds something they're not happy with which prompts them to vote 'against', that they would warn others of their findings, rather than just vote 'against' and then keep quiet to let the 'for' voters carry on voting based on what they have been told in the hand-out and via the presentation.
Surely, once you have read it and found some alarming bits, you would share the knowledge? After all, it could save a lot of heartache, or at least you could say "I told you so" sometime in the future.
I did consider some sort of "i hear 54.9% are yesses so far", but obvs way too serious a situation for "bantz"
Sharing a confidential document, and keeping it confidential/for the intended audience only is a complicated and expensive thing to do.
So 80% of over 800 Legacy members voted, only 4 have read it. Onus really is on the trust for there not to be any hidden nasties. Shame there hasn't been a bit more detail and scrutiny if only as suggestions from wider reading might have been mutually beneficial.
Did anyone see if there was anything in the deal around preferential terms or first option for the trust to buy it back?
I'm not over most of the detail yet but I don't have a vote and don't live near enough for a read when most people have voted already.
Seeing as 80% have voted already with the vast majority knowing nothing about the legal document I'm not sure it's that big a deal for most. Unfortunately I'm just not so certain yet.
Talking of voting quickly I actually found it very strange for the meeting last week to be side tracked by an X Factor style 'the voting line is now open' followed by Trust board members and Legacy members checking phones and discussing who'd received the email.
Your concerns being shared could influence the remaining 20% though. We all know that it has to have a 75% yes vote. I suspect that there may be some no voters in that 80%. As such, it would be wise to share with those of us ignorant of legal jargon your fears & stop us from voting for the "bus over the precipice" surely?
If the trust have summarised what is in the documents, then surely people can use that to vote from.
Otherwise, if you mistrust the trust, and need to see the document yourself, you're relying on having a fair amount of legal speak skills I dare say.
You want me to do it so you can know what was in a document you could read? Very 21st century.
I am not expecting to see anything in the document to be of concern. Normally it's more around what is not written down when problems arise.
I just want to take my time in an atmosphere where the current Ainsworth interest has spooked some in to thinking a quick vote will some how help him stay. The vote can't be declared until the date given as far as I am aware. I'm sure there is nothing in it but a cynical part of me wants to make sure this apparent rush isn't designed to brush something under the carpet.
@Right_in_the_Middle I think it's a response to it appearing that your good self and @Bacon_Sandwich were so 'shocked' people were voting without reading the full legal document. There's nothing that upsets a voter more than someone suggesting they don't know what they are voting for
Got to be honest with you Righty, but you are coming across, on this occasion, as a sanctimonious prick!
I have already stated on this very forum, that I would have lost the will to live trying to understand legal jargon after 3 or 4 pages, (I suspect the vast majority of voters to be in a similar boat?), so no chance after the best part of 50. You are leading me to believe, that you would have a far superior knowledge than I, so again I ask, once you have read it, found the missing components that you fear, share it and you may have the chance to use your influence to stop the vote, (in your opinion), going the wrong way?
Can't profess to be a legal expert, but I'm hoping to have a read through tomorrow, in the very unlikely scenario that I understand it and all concerned, I'll post back here, strange attitude above... Do you want an hourly rate for your review RITM?
You are entitled to your opinion @EwanHoosaami
I think I might be being led down the wrong path though. I've had to check back through my posts to confirm that I've never said I was actually going to read the document. I've been talking about others wanting information without actually reading it themselves.