If it goes tits up then people who vote for it (especially if they didn't read the small print) absolutely will have to take their fair share of responsibility for it. The club's future is at stake, and as the trust board during the final meeting prior to voting didn't show any confidence that the club would break even within three years (which you would think would be required if the Couhigs are only providing a £1m 'overdraft' as working capital without the club going even further into debt to them).
Just like in the Hayes era, WWFC supporters must keep up scrutiny on the activities of the owners of the club, not just think that this is the end of having to care about WWFC's finances.
@floyd said:
Brief highlights from the 3CR interview.
a month to six weeks to finalize deal
Missy and Rob have already passed the EFL test dating from their time with Yeovil
Already talking with GA about the transfer window .
Rob feels 'a tremendous sense of obligation,' and has a 'huge list of (fan experience) things that we will get done immediately.'
GA and RC have had 'very direct discussions' about his future. RC thinks GA will be here as long as we can make progress and no other team comes along and offers him a 'moneybags,' deal. RC calls GA 'tremendously loyal,' and will be here for the 'foreseeable future.'
Pete Couhig is serving as CFO. Mark Palmer as COO.
The goal is a sustainable club, generating enough revenue to survive in this league and the next.
'the english league system has huge stability, we looked at several different clubs. Rob was 'driving to another club,' when he got the call from Wycombe and immediately felt at home.
If it goes tits up then people who vote for it (especially if they didn't read the small print) absolutely will have to take their fair share of responsibility for it. The club's future is at stake, and as the trust board during the final meeting prior to voting didn't show any confidence that the club would break even within three years (which you would think would be required if the Couhigs are only providing a £1m 'overdraft' as working capital without the club going even further into debt to them).
Just like in the Hayes era, WWFC supporters must keep up scrutiny on the activities of the owners of the club, not just think that this is the end of having to care about WWFC's finances.
And I am sure everyone will @ReadingMarginalista even those who voted yes would have done it with an air of trepidation so should it all go tits up, it would be nice if it was recognised that people voted Yes because they believed it was the best option for the club at the time and not because they were gullible idiots. (Gullible idiots excepted)
@Wendoverman Believing something was the best (or least worst) option doesn't preclude you from having to take responsibility for your actions (like the author of the tweet appeared to have wanted).
I'm sure some who did vote yes did so with trepidation, however judging by contributions on social media and in meetings, I don't think there is much trepidation about what could potentially land the club in completely different circle of hell than what we were told by WWT that we were set to fall into should we not vote as per their recommendation.
@Steve_Peart said:
Although the "quarters" are an "enshrined right" in the draft full document, the colours as such are not. I have asked for them to be included. There is recent history of a fellow EFL club changing colours.
@drcongo Talking of enshrined rights that WWT are meant to uphold, was there ever any confirmation as to what part of the agreement was meant to ensure that WWFC is not moved more than 5 miles away from AP without Legacy Member approval?
When I queried this with the WWT directors present on Saturday allowing the agreement to be reviewed, no one could point out the clause that was supposed to have guaranteed this.
@ReadingMarginalista said: @drcongo Talking of enshrined rights that WWT are meant to uphold, was there ever any confirmation as to what part of the agreement was meant to ensure that WWFC is not moved more than 5 miles away from AP without Legacy Member approval?
When I queried this with the WWT directors present on Saturday allowing the agreement to be reviewed, no one could point out the clause that was supposed to have guaranteed this.
I don't think 'needing legacy members approval' will be a particularly difficult bar to overcome at any time in the future. As we've just seen, the overwhelming majority of them are willing to sign away ownership of the club based on a short summary of draft proposals, without even demanding an opportunity to question the man wanting to take this on. It's quite remarkable really. Of course they'll be blamed if this goes tits up. And deservedly so.
@ReadingMarginalista, I queried this with the Trust. This is the relevant clause in the 2009 Articles of Association for the Football Club, section 14.3 states:
"The following will be deemed to constitute a variation of the rights of the Founder Shares:", sub-section 14.3.4 being:
"the taking of any steps to relocate the business and playing activities of the football club outside a radius of 5 miles from the Football Ground".
David Smith has confirmed that there is no suggestion that the Founder Share rights will be changed as part of the deal, so this provision will remain in place. They concluded that this was a strong protection, as the right cannot be changed without the consent of the Founder Shareholders.
It is important that we know exactly who will be the new owners of our club.
The Legacy Members voting form stated that Feliciana EFL Limited is "controlled by Rob and Missy Couhig". This is not true, Rob Couhig is the sole officer of the company.
I am surprised that the Trust could not get the wording right on such an important vote.
@Steve_Peart said:
It is important that we know exactly who will be the new owners of our club.
The Legacy Members voting form stated that Feliciana EFL Limited is "controlled by Rob and Missy Couhig". This is not true, Rob Couhig is the sole officer of the company.
I am surprised that the Trust could not get the wording right on such an important vote.
Wether it's "controlled" by him, or him and his wife is an odd portion of the process to be massively concerned by isn't it. I'm sure if asked he would laugh about how much control his wife has over what and certainly not answer in any great detail.
don't think 'needing legacy members approval' will be a particularly difficult bar to overcome at any time in the future. As we've just seen, the overwhelming majority of them are willing to sign away ownership of the club based on a short summary of draft proposals, without even demanding an opportunity to question the man wanting to take this on. It's quite remarkable really. Of course they'll be blamed if this goes tits up. And deservedly so.
Legacy members have had several opportunities to ‘question the man wanting to take this on’ at public meetings and through emails and social media. In addition, the full 50 page legal document was-and still is-available for those members to read. The Couhigs and Mark Palmer have never hidden away from anyone seeking to question their motives or plans for the future. You seem to be suggesting that 75% of those members voted without first examining all the details of the proposal. I find that a quite remarkable accusation.
@Steve_Peart said: @ReadingMarginalista, I queried this with the Trust. This is the relevant clause in the 2009 Articles of Association for the Football Club, section 14.3 states:
"The following will be deemed to constitute a variation of the rights of the Founder Shares:", sub-section 14.3.4 being:
"the taking of any steps to relocate the business and playing activities of the football club outside a radius of 5 miles from the Football Ground".
David Smith has confirmed that there is no suggestion that the Founder Share rights will be changed as part of the deal, so this provision will remain in place. They concluded that this was a strong protection, as the right cannot be changed without the consent of the Founder Shareholders.
@Steve_Peart I was under the impression that Founder Shares were no longer a thing, with the enshrined rights now instead belonging to Legacy Members of the Trust. Is the document you quote from still valid or has it been superseded by the current Trust rules?
I didn't think my Founders Share was worth anything any more, apart from as a historical museum piece.
@Steve_Peart said:
It is important that we know exactly who will be the new owners of our club.
The Legacy Members voting form stated that Feliciana EFL Limited is "controlled by Rob and Missy Couhig". This is not true, Rob Couhig is the sole officer of the company.
I am surprised that the Trust could not get the wording right on such an important vote.
Wether it's "controlled" by him, or him and his wife is an odd portion of the process to be massively concerned by isn't it. I'm sure if asked he would laugh about how much control his wife has over what and certainly not answer in any great detail.
I don't agree @StrongestTeam. Fine to joke about it informally, but not on the actual voting form.
@Steve_Peart said: @ReadingMarginalista, I queried this with the Trust. This is the relevant clause in the 2009 Articles of Association for the Football Club, section 14.3 states:
"The following will be deemed to constitute a variation of the rights of the Founder Shares:", sub-section 14.3.4 being:
"the taking of any steps to relocate the business and playing activities of the football club outside a radius of 5 miles from the Football Ground".
David Smith has confirmed that there is no suggestion that the Founder Share rights will be changed as part of the deal, so this provision will remain in place. They concluded that this was a strong protection, as the right cannot be changed without the consent of the Founder Shareholders.
@Steve_Peart I was under the impression that Founder Shares were no longer a thing, with the enshrined rights now instead belonging to Legacy Members of the Trust. Is the document you quote from still valid or has it been superseded by the current Trust rules?
I didn't think my Founders Share was worth anything any more, apart from as a historical museum piece.
@Uncle_T, according to the Trust, the Founder Shares are very much a thing and safeguarding important rights.
@Steve_Peart said:
It is important that we know exactly who will be the new owners of our club.
The Legacy Members voting form stated that Feliciana EFL Limited is "controlled by Rob and Missy Couhig". This is not true, Rob Couhig is the sole officer of the company.
I am surprised that the Trust could not get the wording right on such an important vote.
Wether it's "controlled" by him, or him and his wife is an odd portion of the process to be massively concerned by isn't it. I'm sure if asked he would laugh about how much control his wife has over what and certainly not answer in any great detail.
I don't agree @StrongestTeam. Fine to joke about it informally, but not on the actual voting form.
I'm sure his wife's influence on his business affairs will vary throughout the ownership period and isn't really our business. The wider issue is that the trust aren't in control and he can appoint who he likes and sell on as he likes, but that has been raised and voted on.
@glasshalffull said:
You seem to be suggesting that 75% of those members voted without first examining all the details of the proposal. I find that a quite remarkable accusation.
And yet that is my accusation. Rob Couhig has not made himself available for examination subsequent to the summary of the draft proposals being published. Nor were they published until immediately before the voting period commenced - when legacy members were falling over themselves to say they'd voted as soon as possible, using it as a badge of honour. The trust directors had to cancel the sessions to scrutinise the full legal document because no one was turning up to read it. As for your point that Rob Couhig was available on social media - I find that spurious. Scrutiny consists of more than 280 characters of platitudinous claptrap.
I don't see why individual Legacy Member should feel any "personal responsibility" (other than in voting in the current individuals to the Trust Board) if the sale ends up going tits up.
if Armageddon occurs, responsibility will surely principally fall on Mr Stroud and his cohorts who ran the club in such a financially cavalier way by building up debts we couldn't realistically repay. As far as I can recall, none of those who advocated voting against the sale identified a way of repaying around £2m in a matter of months. Gareth would have left and God knows how we would have been able to pay the current players wages for the duration of their contracts.
I wanted to stay supporter owned, but in my judgement snubbing Mr Couhig would have left us in an immediate dire situation which I could not see a way out of.
@glasshalffull said:
You seem to be suggesting that 75% of those members voted without first examining all the details of the proposal. I find that a quite remarkable accusation.
And yet that is my accusation. Rob Couhig has not made himself available for examination subsequent to the summary of the draft proposals being published. Nor were they published until immediately before the voting period commenced - when legacy members were falling over themselves to say they'd voted as soon as possible, using it as a badge of honour. The trust directors had to cancel the sessions to scrutinise the full legal document because no one was turning up to read it. As for your point that Rob Couhig was available on social media - I find that spurious. Scrutiny consists of more than 280 characters of platitudinous claptrap.
So you are happy to insult the intelligence and duty of responsibility shown by around 700 of the club’s most dedicated and loyal fans? I think many Legacy members will feel insulted by that allegation and rightly so.
Incidentally, I referred to Mr.Couhig being open to receive emails as well as messages on social media. What you refer to as ‘platitudinous claptrap’ might be regarded by others as good communication.
Unfortunately some people still live in a parallel universe were fan run clubs prosper, make profit every year and don’t need outside support. Probably still believe in unicorns!!! It would great if that world existed but it doesn’t. Fortunately Legacy members live in the real world and voted for the deal. I’m sure many with a heavy hard but realise it was the best way forward for our club. Now is the time to move forward.
@glasshalffull said:
You seem to be suggesting that 75% of those members voted without first examining all the details of the proposal. I find that a quite remarkable accusation.
A quite remarkable accusation? I’m fairly sure that you read the vast majority of Gasroom content. Me too. As far as I can tell, a handful of posters have gone to the admirable lengths of reading the legal document and raising any concerns that they had. I applaud them for their efforts. Given how the document has been handled, I can understand that many have simply been unable to do this. However, a good number have dismissed the very notion of reading it. Indeed, a fair few have consistently laughed and made jokes at the idea. Is it really quite such a remarkable accusation?
@YorkExile - You've hit the nail on the head. I'm not a contract lawyer but I have feel it particularly important for WWT to ensure that the enshrined rights are upheld, and made a point of going through the document concentrating on the relevant parts of it (and pointing out where the agreement was not in accordance with the enshrined rights set out in the WWT rules).
I was shocked to hear that barely 3-5% of Legacy Members had actually came to read the document (either in part or in its entirety) up until Saturday, though considering how many people were falling over themselves to state they had voted without doing so, maybe I shouldn't have been.
But why do you think the relatively small number of people who post on the Gasroom are representative of the 900 Legacy members? Those who voted yes did so having weighed up the major points of the proposal and at least some of them will have read the detailed document. Others will have put their faith in the legal experts who drew up that document in consultation with the Supporters Trust board that they had helped to elect and the Couhigs. I used the word ‘remarkable’ because that’s how Aloysius described the attitude of the yes voters.
@glasshalffull said:
You seem to be suggesting that 75% of those members voted without first examining all the details of the proposal. I find that a quite remarkable accusation.
And yet that is my accusation. Rob Couhig has not made himself available for examination subsequent to the summary of the draft proposals being published. Nor were they published until immediately before the voting period commenced - when legacy members were falling over themselves to say they'd voted as soon as possible, using it as a badge of honour. The trust directors had to cancel the sessions to scrutinise the full legal document because no one was turning up to read it. As for your point that Rob Couhig was available on social media - I find that spurious. Scrutiny consists of more than 280 characters of platitudinous claptrap.
Just sounds like sour grapes as you wanted to vote no, however weren’t entitled to vote.
@davecz said:
Unfortunately some people still live in a parallel universe were fan run clubs prosper, make profit every year and don’t need outside support. Probably still believe in unicorns!!!
Comments
If it goes tits up then people who vote for it (especially if they didn't read the small print) absolutely will have to take their fair share of responsibility for it. The club's future is at stake, and as the trust board during the final meeting prior to voting didn't show any confidence that the club would break even within three years (which you would think would be required if the Couhigs are only providing a £1m 'overdraft' as working capital without the club going even further into debt to them).
Just like in the Hayes era, WWFC supporters must keep up scrutiny on the activities of the owners of the club, not just think that this is the end of having to care about WWFC's finances.
All reads pretty brilliantly.
And I am sure everyone will @ReadingMarginalista even those who voted yes would have done it with an air of trepidation so should it all go tits up, it would be nice if it was recognised that people voted Yes because they believed it was the best option for the club at the time and not because they were gullible idiots. (Gullible idiots excepted)
@Wendoverman Believing something was the best (or least worst) option doesn't preclude you from having to take responsibility for your actions (like the author of the tweet appeared to have wanted).
I'm sure some who did vote yes did so with trepidation, however judging by contributions on social media and in meetings, I don't think there is much trepidation about what could potentially land the club in completely different circle of hell than what we were told by WWT that we were set to fall into should we not vote as per their recommendation.
If our new overlords need any help defining those colours for legal reasons, I’ve already done the ground work form them here: https://gasroom.org/discussion/comment/34485/#Comment_34485
Still amazes/annoys me that they haven't got the navy blue right on our last two kits
Unacceptable
@drcongo Talking of enshrined rights that WWT are meant to uphold, was there ever any confirmation as to what part of the agreement was meant to ensure that WWFC is not moved more than 5 miles away from AP without Legacy Member approval?
When I queried this with the WWT directors present on Saturday allowing the agreement to be reviewed, no one could point out the clause that was supposed to have guaranteed this.
I don't think 'needing legacy members approval' will be a particularly difficult bar to overcome at any time in the future. As we've just seen, the overwhelming majority of them are willing to sign away ownership of the club based on a short summary of draft proposals, without even demanding an opportunity to question the man wanting to take this on. It's quite remarkable really. Of course they'll be blamed if this goes tits up. And deservedly so.
@ReadingMarginalista, I queried this with the Trust. This is the relevant clause in the 2009 Articles of Association for the Football Club, section 14.3 states:
"The following will be deemed to constitute a variation of the rights of the Founder Shares:", sub-section 14.3.4 being:
"the taking of any steps to relocate the business and playing activities of the football club outside a radius of 5 miles from the Football Ground".
David Smith has confirmed that there is no suggestion that the Founder Share rights will be changed as part of the deal, so this provision will remain in place. They concluded that this was a strong protection, as the right cannot be changed without the consent of the Founder Shareholders.
@Steve_Peart - Thanks for that. I was labouring under the misapprehension that it was in the takeover agreement.
It is important that we know exactly who will be the new owners of our club.
The Legacy Members voting form stated that Feliciana EFL Limited is "controlled by Rob and Missy Couhig". This is not true, Rob Couhig is the sole officer of the company.
I am surprised that the Trust could not get the wording right on such an important vote.
Wether it's "controlled" by him, or him and his wife is an odd portion of the process to be massively concerned by isn't it. I'm sure if asked he would laugh about how much control his wife has over what and certainly not answer in any great detail.
don't think 'needing legacy members approval' will be a particularly difficult bar to overcome at any time in the future. As we've just seen, the overwhelming majority of them are willing to sign away ownership of the club based on a short summary of draft proposals, without even demanding an opportunity to question the man wanting to take this on. It's quite remarkable really. Of course they'll be blamed if this goes tits up. And deservedly so.
Legacy members have had several opportunities to ‘question the man wanting to take this on’ at public meetings and through emails and social media. In addition, the full 50 page legal document was-and still is-available for those members to read. The Couhigs and Mark Palmer have never hidden away from anyone seeking to question their motives or plans for the future. You seem to be suggesting that 75% of those members voted without first examining all the details of the proposal. I find that a quite remarkable accusation.
@Steve_Peart I was under the impression that Founder Shares were no longer a thing, with the enshrined rights now instead belonging to Legacy Members of the Trust. Is the document you quote from still valid or has it been superseded by the current Trust rules?
I didn't think my Founders Share was worth anything any more, apart from as a historical museum piece.
I don't agree @StrongestTeam. Fine to joke about it informally, but not on the actual voting form.
@Uncle_T, according to the Trust, the Founder Shares are very much a thing and safeguarding important rights.
I'm sure his wife's influence on his business affairs will vary throughout the ownership period and isn't really our business. The wider issue is that the trust aren't in control and he can appoint who he likes and sell on as he likes, but that has been raised and voted on.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, hindsight before anything has happened is a gasroom thing.
And yet that is my accusation. Rob Couhig has not made himself available for examination subsequent to the summary of the draft proposals being published. Nor were they published until immediately before the voting period commenced - when legacy members were falling over themselves to say they'd voted as soon as possible, using it as a badge of honour. The trust directors had to cancel the sessions to scrutinise the full legal document because no one was turning up to read it. As for your point that Rob Couhig was available on social media - I find that spurious. Scrutiny consists of more than 280 characters of platitudinous claptrap.
@Steve_Peart Thanks, that's interesting. I'll contact the club for clarification.
I don't see why individual Legacy Member should feel any "personal responsibility" (other than in voting in the current individuals to the Trust Board) if the sale ends up going tits up.
if Armageddon occurs, responsibility will surely principally fall on Mr Stroud and his cohorts who ran the club in such a financially cavalier way by building up debts we couldn't realistically repay. As far as I can recall, none of those who advocated voting against the sale identified a way of repaying around £2m in a matter of months. Gareth would have left and God knows how we would have been able to pay the current players wages for the duration of their contracts.
I wanted to stay supporter owned, but in my judgement snubbing Mr Couhig would have left us in an immediate dire situation which I could not see a way out of.
So you are happy to insult the intelligence and duty of responsibility shown by around 700 of the club’s most dedicated and loyal fans? I think many Legacy members will feel insulted by that allegation and rightly so.
Incidentally, I referred to Mr.Couhig being open to receive emails as well as messages on social media. What you refer to as ‘platitudinous claptrap’ might be regarded by others as good communication.
And here I was thinking the result would put an end to all the bickering and allow us to move on...
Unfortunately some people still live in a parallel universe were fan run clubs prosper, make profit every year and don’t need outside support. Probably still believe in unicorns!!! It would great if that world existed but it doesn’t. Fortunately Legacy members live in the real world and voted for the deal. I’m sure many with a heavy hard but realise it was the best way forward for our club. Now is the time to move forward.
Its just debate, not bickering.
It really isn't a bad thing for differing views to be raised or points to be clarified as @Steve_Peart has done with the Trust.
A quite remarkable accusation? I’m fairly sure that you read the vast majority of Gasroom content. Me too. As far as I can tell, a handful of posters have gone to the admirable lengths of reading the legal document and raising any concerns that they had. I applaud them for their efforts. Given how the document has been handled, I can understand that many have simply been unable to do this. However, a good number have dismissed the very notion of reading it. Indeed, a fair few have consistently laughed and made jokes at the idea. Is it really quite such a remarkable accusation?
@YorkExile - You've hit the nail on the head. I'm not a contract lawyer but I have feel it particularly important for WWT to ensure that the enshrined rights are upheld, and made a point of going through the document concentrating on the relevant parts of it (and pointing out where the agreement was not in accordance with the enshrined rights set out in the WWT rules).
I was shocked to hear that barely 3-5% of Legacy Members had actually came to read the document (either in part or in its entirety) up until Saturday, though considering how many people were falling over themselves to state they had voted without doing so, maybe I shouldn't have been.
But why do you think the relatively small number of people who post on the Gasroom are representative of the 900 Legacy members? Those who voted yes did so having weighed up the major points of the proposal and at least some of them will have read the detailed document. Others will have put their faith in the legal experts who drew up that document in consultation with the Supporters Trust board that they had helped to elect and the Couhigs. I used the word ‘remarkable’ because that’s how Aloysius described the attitude of the yes voters.
Just sounds like sour grapes as you wanted to vote no, however weren’t entitled to vote.
Exeter is a parallel universe?