@peterparrotface I have no idea at this point in time. It will depend on how much cash Rob Couhig has available and the extent to which he is keen to commit that cash to funding the club and investing in its development.
If, for example (pure speculation and made up figures - I don't know how much money he has or his intentions), Rob Couhig decides he has £1.5million that he wants to put into the club so that it can afford to enhance the first team squad, have enough players for a reserve team and reintroduce a youth set up, then the Trust would need to find £0.5million. If he only wants to put £375k in then the Trust would only need to find £125k, but even that would, I think, take quite a fund raising effort to get; equivalent to a fully subscribed 500 Club.
I can't remember the exact details now, but this question was addressed at the time, and it shouldn't be a problem for a couple of years (certainly not to keep the 12.5% required to keep having an input)
I'm sure someone will add whichever other revenue was mentioned at the meetings, I can't think for the life of me
Thanks @Uncle_T for your posts of 11.40 am and 12.15 pm clarifying the seemingly widely misunderstood ownership position once the deal with the Couhigs has been signed and sealed.
It does seem likely that something akin to the 500 Club will be needed and in that respect it was noticeable that diminishing returns were very much in evidence when the second and third incarnations were set up. I opted to pay monthly when the most recent arrangement came into being and, to be honest, I can’t recall over what period the payments are spread. I think the target was £240 per subscriber (compared with £150 for the inaugural Club which aimed - successfully - to raise £75,000 from 500 people. With the increasing size of the fan base and a return to the original amount per subscriber, it may be possible to raise a similar amount.
I have taken so long to write this that I will probably discover that more fleet of finger posters have pre-empted the above.
Not sure that is quite true @Right_in_the_Middle. I dont recall the precise details but as I remember a notional rent for the stadium from FALL counted as part of the trusts annual contribution, so in cash terms less would be required.
Given that the Couhigs will be cash funding the vast majority losses from their own pocket, I would say they have as much if not more incentive to minimise losses as the trust, arguably more.
@DevC said:
Not sure that is quite true @Right_in_the_Middle. I dont recall the precise details but as I remember a notional rent for the stadium from FALL counted as part of the trusts annual contribution, so in cash terms less would be required.
Given that the Couhigs will be cash funding the vast majority losses from their own pocket, I would say they have as much if not more incentive to minimise losses as the trust, arguably more.
Sorry. I forgot you were always right despite 'not knowng the precise details'. I will retreat back to safety and leave you to it.
I'm sure the Couhigs won't push the funding to levels the Trust can't afford so they can eat away at the 25%
What exactly does the Trust get for its 25% share? Where's the influence there? Will it get a veto on anything? Will it be able to block the Couhigs selling on to whoever they want if they run out of money / get bored?
Having signed up for the 500 Club this year only for the Trust to then announce the Couhig investment a week later, it would take a lot to convince me to pay in again.
@aloysius said:
What exactly does the Trust get for its 25% share? Where's the influence there? Will it get a veto on anything? Will it be able to block the Couhigs selling on to whoever they want if they run out of money / get bored?
Having signed up for the 500 Club this year only for the Trust to then announce the Couhig investment a week later, it would take a lot to convince me to pay in again.
I believe that, if we (the Trust) no longer hold a minimum of 12.5% of the shares, we can no longer use the 'enshrined rights' to veto such things as changes to club colours, stadium name, groundsharing agreements etc.
That did make me chortle @Cyclops !
It was the balmy 4 degrees this evening that caught my eye. Of course, Rob Couhig will have little perception of what low temperatures feel like, let alone when they’re in that flipping EU Celsius.
Having said that, New Orleans did experience unusually low temperatures very briefly earlier this year.
I believe that, if we (the Trust) no longer hold a minimum of 12.5% of the shares, we can no longer use the 'enshrined rights' to veto such things as changes to club colours, stadium name, groundsharing agreements etc.
That seems the basis of it to me. Perhaps dropping to 12.5% is more realistic if these figures are to be raised year on year by Trust members?
I really struggle to see how the numbers add up for the club generally when home games are still getting sub 4000 crowds 4 or 5 times a season, but I'm sure there are people looking at it far closer than me.
Sorry. I forgot you were always right despite 'not knowng the precise details'. I will retreat back to safety and leave you to it.
I'm sure the Couhigs won't push the funding to levels the Trust can't afford so they can eat away at the 25%
Not always Mr Middle but yes on this occasion. Not sure why you need to be so aggressive though.
As I recall the stadium rent was something like £125k and that counted, so that if say the club lost £750k, the trust would be liable for 25% -£188k but can deduct rent of roughly £125k from that figure - leaving the trust needing to find £63k. They are not the exact numbers but its something like that.
The couhigs with that loss would be funding almost £700k themselves and the trust around £63k. That is a serious amount of money they have to spend to drive the trusts share down from the 25%. Would seem very odd behaviour to do this deliberately as some kind of fiendish plot.
@aloysius: I think @NewburyWanderer’s response should be sufficient to persuade you to continue to contribute towards the 25% if you value the enshrined rights. The scheme you are/were contributing to was not set up this year. From memory, it was early last year and, at the time the Couhigs (plus Mark Palmer) came on the scene, I also wondered whether I should continue to chip in. I am in no doubt now (and would happily sign up for something similar) just as I doubt whether those wonderful volunteers would withdraw their services when the “takeover” comes into force.
I know it is probably unrealistic owing to cost, but it would be fantastic if the names of all the Trust members were placed into one of the quarters of the new home shirt when it comes out. The symbolism would be terrific, and it would encourage more to join the trust, and also be a constant reminder of the quarter we are responsible for.
@aloysius said:
What exactly does the Trust get for its 25% share? Where's the influence there? Will it get a veto on anything? Will it be able to block the Couhigs selling on to whoever they want if they run out of money / get bored?
Having signed up for the 500 Club this year only for the Trust to then announce the Couhig investment a week later, it would take a lot to convince me to pay in again.
I believe that, if we (the Trust) no longer hold a minimum of 12.5% of the shares, we can no longer use the 'enshrined rights' to veto such things as changes to club colours, stadium name, groundsharing agreements etc.
That's interesting and informative, thanks. Is there a list anywhere setting out the full extent of the enshrined rights? Would be interesting to see what is and isn't covered.
It is my belief that the enshrined rights are linked to the 500 Founders Shares. Over time the original shares will be passed over to the Trust. I believe over 300 of the Shares are now held by the Trust. These shares are as a result of Founder Shares holders either being no longer S/T holders or have passed away. the current Legacy Holders in the Trust would be able to vote on any enshrined rights issue as would the remaining Founder share holders. The Summary of agreement makes no reference to Founder Member Shares. Is this the reason there has been a delay?
Thanks again. So in summary, retaining 12.5% of the club means the Trust is consulted on:
:: putting the ground up as security for a loan
:: putting the club into liquidation
:: keeping the quarters
:: not changing kits more than once every two seasons
:: changing the stadium name
:: allowing any other team to ground share
But, unless I'm wrong, that 12.5% does not give the Trust a veto on:
:: moving to a new stadium
:: changing the colours of the home kit to say light and dark red
:: the Couhigs selling to whomever they so choose
I'm also not clear who gets the veto - the director(s) the Trust nominate to the club board; the legacy share holders (including or otherwise the founder shareholders) or a vote of the full trust membership.
The offer was to inject funds and expertise try and get to break even. Important to remember that also. Won't go far with those desperate for us to go for it in the transfer market.
@Shev said:
I know it is probably unrealistic owing to cost, but it would be fantastic if the names of all the Trust members were placed into one of the quarters of the new home shirt when it comes out. The symbolism would be terrific, and it would encourage more to join the trust, and also be a constant reminder of the quarter we are responsible for.
@Shev said:
I know it is probably unrealistic owing to cost, but it would be fantastic if the names of all the Trust members were placed into one of the quarters of the new home shirt when it comes out. The symbolism would be terrific, and it would encourage more to join the trust, and also be a constant reminder of the quarter we are responsible for.
A dark Quarter with light blue writing or a light quarter with dark blue writing ?
This shirt would also be a nice way to memorialize the end of this Trust phase, and a hopeful new phase. I would pay more for my replica...though I know my name would end up in the armpit!
@Bacon_Sandwich said:
Remember that tea towel everyone used to sign at primary school? Maybe we could take some inspiration from that, with our signatures being used too.
A personalised club T-towel, a perfect birthday gift for wifey.
Comments
We have some existing funds, and get the albeit greatly reduced rent from the football side I seem to remember.
@peterparrotface I have no idea at this point in time. It will depend on how much cash Rob Couhig has available and the extent to which he is keen to commit that cash to funding the club and investing in its development.
If, for example (pure speculation and made up figures - I don't know how much money he has or his intentions), Rob Couhig decides he has £1.5million that he wants to put into the club so that it can afford to enhance the first team squad, have enough players for a reserve team and reintroduce a youth set up, then the Trust would need to find £0.5million. If he only wants to put £375k in then the Trust would only need to find £125k, but even that would, I think, take quite a fund raising effort to get; equivalent to a fully subscribed 500 Club.
I can't remember the exact details now, but this question was addressed at the time, and it shouldn't be a problem for a couple of years (certainly not to keep the 12.5% required to keep having an input)
I'm sure someone will add whichever other revenue was mentioned at the meetings, I can't think for the life of me
Didn't stadium rental count against the quarter for a period?
Thanks @Uncle_T for your posts of 11.40 am and 12.15 pm clarifying the seemingly widely misunderstood ownership position once the deal with the Couhigs has been signed and sealed.
It does seem likely that something akin to the 500 Club will be needed and in that respect it was noticeable that diminishing returns were very much in evidence when the second and third incarnations were set up. I opted to pay monthly when the most recent arrangement came into being and, to be honest, I can’t recall over what period the payments are spread. I think the target was £240 per subscriber (compared with £150 for the inaugural Club which aimed - successfully - to raise £75,000 from 500 people. With the increasing size of the fan base and a return to the original amount per subscriber, it may be possible to raise a similar amount.
I have taken so long to write this that I will probably discover that more fleet of finger posters have pre-empted the above.
Not sure that is quite true @Right_in_the_Middle. I dont recall the precise details but as I remember a notional rent for the stadium from FALL counted as part of the trusts annual contribution, so in cash terms less would be required.
Given that the Couhigs will be cash funding the vast majority losses from their own pocket, I would say they have as much if not more incentive to minimise losses as the trust, arguably more.
Sorry. I forgot you were always right despite 'not knowng the precise details'. I will retreat back to safety and leave you to it.
I'm sure the Couhigs won't push the funding to levels the Trust can't afford so they can eat away at the 25%
What exactly does the Trust get for its 25% share? Where's the influence there? Will it get a veto on anything? Will it be able to block the Couhigs selling on to whoever they want if they run out of money / get bored?
Having signed up for the 500 Club this year only for the Trust to then announce the Couhig investment a week later, it would take a lot to convince me to pay in again.
I believe that, if we (the Trust) no longer hold a minimum of 12.5% of the shares, we can no longer use the 'enshrined rights' to veto such things as changes to club colours, stadium name, groundsharing agreements etc.
Just trying to decipher Rob C's weather graphic above. Does the bit on the right hand side mean it is going to be dark tonight?
That did make me chortle @Cyclops !
It was the balmy 4 degrees this evening that caught my eye. Of course, Rob Couhig will have little perception of what low temperatures feel like, let alone when they’re in that flipping EU Celsius.
Having said that, New Orleans did experience unusually low temperatures very briefly earlier this year.
That seems the basis of it to me. Perhaps dropping to 12.5% is more realistic if these figures are to be raised year on year by Trust members?
I really struggle to see how the numbers add up for the club generally when home games are still getting sub 4000 crowds 4 or 5 times a season, but I'm sure there are people looking at it far closer than me.
Not always Mr Middle but yes on this occasion. Not sure why you need to be so aggressive though.
As I recall the stadium rent was something like £125k and that counted, so that if say the club lost £750k, the trust would be liable for 25% -£188k but can deduct rent of roughly £125k from that figure - leaving the trust needing to find £63k. They are not the exact numbers but its something like that.
The couhigs with that loss would be funding almost £700k themselves and the trust around £63k. That is a serious amount of money they have to spend to drive the trusts share down from the 25%. Would seem very odd behaviour to do this deliberately as some kind of fiendish plot.
@aloysius: I think @NewburyWanderer’s response should be sufficient to persuade you to continue to contribute towards the 25% if you value the enshrined rights. The scheme you are/were contributing to was not set up this year. From memory, it was early last year and, at the time the Couhigs (plus Mark Palmer) came on the scene, I also wondered whether I should continue to chip in. I am in no doubt now (and would happily sign up for something similar) just as I doubt whether those wonderful volunteers would withdraw their services when the “takeover” comes into force.
I know it is probably unrealistic owing to cost, but it would be fantastic if the names of all the Trust members were placed into one of the quarters of the new home shirt when it comes out. The symbolism would be terrific, and it would encourage more to join the trust, and also be a constant reminder of the quarter we are responsible for.
That's interesting and informative, thanks. Is there a list anywhere setting out the full extent of the enshrined rights? Would be interesting to see what is and isn't covered.
@aloysius Here you go...
http://wycombewandererstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Summary-of-agreements-for-Legacy-Members-141019.pdf
Starts halfway down page 3.
It is my belief that the enshrined rights are linked to the 500 Founders Shares. Over time the original shares will be passed over to the Trust. I believe over 300 of the Shares are now held by the Trust. These shares are as a result of Founder Shares holders either being no longer S/T holders or have passed away. the current Legacy Holders in the Trust would be able to vote on any enshrined rights issue as would the remaining Founder share holders. The Summary of agreement makes no reference to Founder Member Shares. Is this the reason there has been a delay?
Thanks again. So in summary, retaining 12.5% of the club means the Trust is consulted on:
:: putting the ground up as security for a loan
:: putting the club into liquidation
:: keeping the quarters
:: not changing kits more than once every two seasons
:: changing the stadium name
:: allowing any other team to ground share
But, unless I'm wrong, that 12.5% does not give the Trust a veto on:
:: moving to a new stadium
:: changing the colours of the home kit to say light and dark red
:: the Couhigs selling to whomever they so choose
I'm also not clear who gets the veto - the director(s) the Trust nominate to the club board; the legacy share holders (including or otherwise the founder shareholders) or a vote of the full trust membership.
The offer was to inject funds and expertise try and get to break even. Important to remember that also. Won't go far with those desperate for us to go for it in the transfer market.
Should sell more shirts too!
Deal completion now Tuesday 18th at earliest.
Any source for that information @LordMandeville
A dark Quarter with light blue writing or a light quarter with dark blue writing ?
Perhaps a slightly different dark on dark, so that you have to look closely. I remember an MLS team doing this:
https://www.coloradorapids.com/post/2013/02/25/new-rapids-jerseys-feature-fans-names-tribute-colorado-flag
Birmingham City did something similar more recently:
http://www.footballshirtculture.com/15/16-Kits/birmingham-city-2015-2016-carbrini-140th-anniversary-home-kit.html
This shirt would also be a nice way to memorialize the end of this Trust phase, and a hopeful new phase. I would pay more for my replica...though I know my name would end up in the armpit!
Or you could just leave the quarters alone with your egos out of it?
Zing!
Excellent post
Remember that tea towel everyone used to sign at primary school? Maybe we could take some inspiration from that, with our signatures being used too.
A personalised club T-towel, a perfect birthday gift for wifey.