Please stop quoting the fallacy that all seater stadia are a requirement. It only makes owners think that we, as fans, don't know what the actual legislation is.
@Twizz Unless I've misinterpreted that, all-seater stadia are a requirement in the Championship, there's just no law that forces you to sit? And unless it's changed, you have to convert to all-seater within three years of promotion (Brentford got special dispensation as they're moving to a new ground).
@chairboyscentral it would, in my understanding, be perfectly within the legislation to have safe standing on the terrace should we gain promotion to the Championship.
It's then up to the club to set the policy on whether they force people to 'sit'.
If we don't continually correct the fallacy that everyone must be seated all the time (a more careful choice of words) then owners will think they don't have to cater for those who want, as part of their match day experience, to stand and watch football.
If we all end up seated in big comfy padded seats then we might as well stay at home and watch it on ifollow.
That was the most positive, grounded, realistic interview with a WWFC Chairman I have seen. To be showing that level of confidence in these uncertain times is sign that we have an extraordinary man in charge of the club now. The fact that Pete is staying in Wycombe during the current crisis shows the committement that this family has towards our family club and we should admire and be grateful for that.
Was reassured by how he answered that one, it may possibly cost the trust / the supporter base £1m in total to get to where he'd like us to be with a great team, shiny state of the art stadium, all bells and whistles, in the championship, but he's not asking for a cheque right now if at all, gradually through shares, events and other schemes I'd like to think we will generate some of that , hopefully seeing returns on initial parts of the investment in increased revenue and some people might want to contribute along the way as we see things improve. its very possible that we'd have to find atleast that amount of money as a group over the next couple of years without any outside investment just to keep the club going.
@OxfordBlue said:
Doesn't the stadium lease cover a significant chunk of it?
I thought someone mentioned it didn't or the discount didn't? but you'd have thought either it will directly or it will provide or free up funds to do so indirectly.
There is a rent payable but it is discounted from full rate down to nominal rent for the first few (7?) years while the stadium is fixed. So very little cash there.
The difference between full and nominal rent was going to count towards trusts cash share requirement but sadly that appears to have changed at the last minute.
If we want to retain our 25 per cent we have to fund 25 per cent of the investment. Frankly hard to see that happening.
I was initially thinking that if offered a refund on my ST I’d let the club keep it, but I’m wondering now whether to take the refund (if offered) and donate it to the Trust.
Would the Trust/FALL themselves be able to take out a loan, against Adams Park, and use the rent income to pay back the loan?
It would only need £500k to keep a 12.5% stake if £4M was invested by RC.
Many people wouldn't like that scenario but maybe it's at least worth considering.
@Twizz said:
Would the Trust/FALL themselves be able to take out a loan, against Adams Park, and use the rent income to pay back the loan?
It would only need £500k to keep a 12.5% stake if £4M was invested by RC.
Many people wouldn't like that scenario but maybe it's at least worth considering.
If RC has a spare £4m that he is ready to put in immediately and wanted the £1m now, which he pretty much said wasn't the case. He was relaxed about it , other matters more pressing at moment.
@aloysius said:
Let's see what measures he introduces before piling on the hero worship, eh? This is a Republican politician we're talking about. Not a group noted for their commitment to social security.
"Some of my decisions may have undesirable short-term ramifications and provoke some adverse reactions."
And of course all previous custodians of WWFC were active members of the Socialist Workers Party. What a shame they couldn't hold on to the club for just a bit longer.
@Twizz said:
Would the Trust/FALL themselves be able to take out a loan, against Adams Park, and use the rent income to pay back the loan?
It would only need £500k to keep a 12.5% stake if £4M was invested by RC.
Many people wouldn't like that scenario but maybe it's at least worth considering.
No charge should ever be placed on Adams Park again.
@DevC said:
Worth saying again that there is a world of difference between debts to third parties and debts to owners.
Frankly there is little an owner owed money can do to a club that he couldn’t do if he didn’t owe money.
Granted, but try finding another buyer or even getting those in charge to leave when they are chasing losses like bad gamblers. You also have to wonder how the loans started, if you can lose £25m on a lower league team what's the state of the rest of your business empire or is the £ all borrowed from elsewhere...
Comments
He speaks very well I think
The improvements to the stadium sound interesting, as long as they don’t include the removal of the terrace.
@LeedsBlue but if we get into the Championship it goes anyway.
Only if we're there for more than three seasons.
Hopefully in three or four years time safe standing is permitted.
Please stop quoting the fallacy that all seater stadia are a requirement. It only makes owners think that we, as fans, don't know what the actual legislation is.
http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/standing/the-legalities-of-standing
In fact Manchester United want to have a safe standing section at Old Trafford, the plan was to have it done by the end of this season.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/manchester-united-old-trafford-rail-seating-safe-standing-apply-latest-news-a9328796.html
@Twizz Unless I've misinterpreted that, all-seater stadia are a requirement in the Championship, there's just no law that forces you to sit? And unless it's changed, you have to convert to all-seater within three years of promotion (Brentford got special dispensation as they're moving to a new ground).
Finally got around to listening to Rob's interview with Matt. Interesting and welcome update. Thanks to those who raised the questions.
@chairboyscentral it would, in my understanding, be perfectly within the legislation to have safe standing on the terrace should we gain promotion to the Championship.
It's then up to the club to set the policy on whether they force people to 'sit'.
If we don't continually correct the fallacy that everyone must be seated all the time (a more careful choice of words) then owners will think they don't have to cater for those who want, as part of their match day experience, to stand and watch football.
If we all end up seated in big comfy padded seats then we might as well stay at home and watch it on ifollow.
That was the most positive, grounded, realistic interview with a WWFC Chairman I have seen. To be showing that level of confidence in these uncertain times is sign that we have an extraordinary man in charge of the club now. The fact that Pete is staying in Wycombe during the current crisis shows the committement that this family has towards our family club and we should admire and be grateful for that.
Bright times ahead.
COYB!
Seems they even share Martin O’Neill’s ‘silly little dream’, albeit after a few pints...
Has anybody stopped to think how the trust are to find £1m as mentioned by Rob
No. I hadn't. Rob did give some thoughts on my it though didn't he?
Was reassured by how he answered that one, it may possibly cost the trust / the supporter base £1m in total to get to where he'd like us to be with a great team, shiny state of the art stadium, all bells and whistles, in the championship, but he's not asking for a cheque right now if at all, gradually through shares, events and other schemes I'd like to think we will generate some of that , hopefully seeing returns on initial parts of the investment in increased revenue and some people might want to contribute along the way as we see things improve. its very possible that we'd have to find atleast that amount of money as a group over the next couple of years without any outside investment just to keep the club going.
Doesn't the stadium lease cover a significant chunk of it?
I thought someone mentioned it didn't or the discount didn't? but you'd have thought either it will directly or it will provide or free up funds to do so indirectly.
No @OxfordBlue afraid not.
There is a rent payable but it is discounted from full rate down to nominal rent for the first few (7?) years while the stadium is fixed. So very little cash there.
The difference between full and nominal rent was going to count towards trusts cash share requirement but sadly that appears to have changed at the last minute.
If we want to retain our 25 per cent we have to fund 25 per cent of the investment. Frankly hard to see that happening.
I was initially thinking that if offered a refund on my ST I’d let the club keep it, but I’m wondering now whether to take the refund (if offered) and donate it to the Trust.
Would the Trust/FALL themselves be able to take out a loan, against Adams Park, and use the rent income to pay back the loan?
It would only need £500k to keep a 12.5% stake if £4M was invested by RC.
Many people wouldn't like that scenario but maybe it's at least worth considering.
If Couhig invests £4m, trust would need £1.3m
There is no rent income (for a number of years.
Banks don’t lend against football stadiums much. Too much adverse PR if they have to call in loan.
If RC has a spare £4m that he is ready to put in immediately and wanted the £1m now, which he pretty much said wasn't the case. He was relaxed about it , other matters more pressing at moment.
No charge should ever be placed on Adams Park again.
Speaking of finances, I had no idea Bristol Rovers were in this deep a hole.
Wow, that's a mighty big hole to dig your way out of!
Col U the same , owe £25m to their rich owners, sure that'll end well.
Worth saying again that there is a world of difference between debts to third parties and debts to owners.
Frankly there is little an owner owed money can do to a club that he couldn’t do if he didn’t owe money.
Granted, but try finding another buyer or even getting those in charge to leave when they are chasing losses like bad gamblers. You also have to wonder how the loans started, if you can lose £25m on a lower league team what's the state of the rest of your business empire or is the £ all borrowed from elsewhere...
Would imagine trying to borrow or gain investment mighty tricky too when your books look like that.
Future “buyers” certainly are unlikely to take on the previous owners debt, that is true.
The previous owner when he wants to sell has to write off debt or not sell.
Or hold the new owners ransom for future earnings...