In the above posts, there are references to ‘trust members’ (@Erroll_Sims, action (a) - heaven forfend that all members should have their skills audited!) and in the penultimate paragraph of @Malone’s post, when I’m fairly sure the references are to Trust Board members.
Great to hear from @Jonny_King - a true voice of reason, a wonderful writer (and editor of The Wanderer, of course) and a really “good egg” - both versions in fairly short supply these days. A pretty mean drummer, to boot, I seem to recall. And they’re not two a penny.
Spot on @DevC the Trust board does have some decent business experience on there but a bean counter and a legal guy would be excellent additions, as indeed would an IT expert. This is a board that needs to be capable of standing toe to toe with savy owners, not star struck by the playing side.
I was encouraged by Ben Dunlop talking about the disconnect with the members and engaging them more - the Trust membership is packed full of IT nerds who if asked I'm sure would help out, they don't need to be elected as board members to do so.
Same goes with finance and investment, and fundraising -
Hopefully we'll see that approach towards the wider membership, that their skills and experience can be utilised positively rather than being seen as sort of some of awkward squad that have to be placated.
Quite! I have in the past offered services where I believed The Trust had a need. My offer was not taken up and the faults which prompted that offer are still there.
I think the Board was perceived as being a closed shop during Trevor Stroud's stewardship. Thankfully, it appears to be more welcoming to potential candidates now.
It's the members who elect persons to the board from those putting themselves forward. If members with skills needed on the board don't put themselves forward I fail to see how the members can blame anyone but themselves?
As an IT type I'm fairly used to people just thinking you'll do it anyway, to be fair most people who are a bit tech savvy will do similar helping out or sharing of knowledge for friends and family but some kind of an IT role is probably required by most organisations at leadership level, as it was they did a decent job of it last night aided by someone who's name I didn't catch.
Ben came across really well and it was possibly unfortunate for some of the others that he went early. As I see it he appealed to members coming across as professional, with solid relevant experience and genuine ideas, some of which people have called for above.
Lisa came across as having done a huge amount of work and perhaps having a different point of view from the majority of ageing blokes otherwise in post. I know she's had a fair amount of abuse before so if we're being fair that may be why that question above wasn't put across.
And @AlanCecil rightly pointed to being very helpful generally, willing to do jobs that aren't necessarily glamorous and being a genuine fan.
In my own opinion only Jamie struggled a little bit when asked non tech related questions and the other candidate (again name escapes me, sorry, long day) lacked a real selling point beyond being a fan willing to help.
Fair play to all for standing, I've often thought I might offer to do more if I lived a bit nearer but not generally contributed much in that way other than the odd offer of help and hope that they go ahead with asking for a bit more help and if needed - money before laying down and doing as told by the majority owners.
Unfortunately those playing central roles seemed quite dismissive again at times and might do well to consider what it is they are trying to achieve.
Not sure anybody thinks @Jonny_King wouldn't do a great job btw but he's even further away than I am.
@micra I have conducted members skills audits in other organisations and all it really amounts to is putting out a simple survey (SurveyMonkey anyone?) asking members to identify any skills they have that they would be willing to utilise to help the organisation and then following up with those who are prepared to help to make sure you do not lose them.
For example I spent my whole career in The City, ultimately specialising in Change Management & the latter 15 years working as a self employed consultant mostly for major merchant banks & asset management groups.
I now help local community organisations with stuff like governance, organisational change & developement, business plan development, risk management & financial analysis. Whilst I am some 100 odd miles away with modern technology I could be next door & am happy to offer my skills to help the Trust if they need them.
Apologies if I misunderstood what you had in mind — ie that you were indeed suggesting that a skills audit of all trust members would be feasible and potentially productive. You clearly have a very impressive CV and it would be disappointing if the Trust didn’t at least contact you to discuss the possibility of availing themselves of your skills.
I found Nigel's introduction a bit bizarre. He listed the current top four of the Premier League, saying 'who would of thought THAT at the start of the season?' Then there was a dramatic pause, and a few glances at the audience, before starting the AGM proper. No idea what that was all about.
Unfortunately it is a massive decision to make the suggested changes and to support the level of spending currently in place and suggested. As they've been involved throughout, have absolutely made their decision 100% and want to deliver that on our behalf - with the minimum of disruption to the majority owner - it's probably not surprising they've ended up at loggerheads with a minority of paying members that take interest in these matters. They are now very defensive when questioned and It's not really the right way to treat the members. When your reason for existing is to rebuild from and preserve life from shark attacks you should at least be receptive to the odd safety net.
Aye. Less than halfway through the season, 3 of the the big six are there, the other being recently Saudi invested Newcastle. City are even more likely to win the League than they were at the start of the season. Only surprise is Liverpool aren't in there, but are still odds on for a top four finish. It felt a bit like an uncle who has a passing interest in football trying to engage you at a wedding. But at the start of a Wycombe Trust AGM haha.
Leicester winning the league and then cup was the better example used in the other meeting I think but they're not exactly run by a couple of market traders, anyway nobody is disputing these things are possible just that they can't be relied on.
As a possible area of interest earlier (my own possibly) I had a look into the idea taken as absolute enforceable fact at the meetings and by some posters that Rob could carry on exactly as he likes bypassing all obligations simply by turning an unmatched cash call or investment in to shares and thereby getting rid of the trust, or that we'd have to sell up our share should he do so with the majority. It looks like he can dilute the trust shareholding by issuing and buying new shares but it can be argued that if he does so purely bypass the trust that he isn't acting in the overall organisations best interests and that could be challenged legally at any point, minority stakeholders do have rights. As someone pointed out the trust also have the option to match investment, and while that may be unlikely they really haven't asked.
Also it seems that there isn't automatically a right in law to enforce the trust to sell should he do, any waiver granted to allow him to do so would be from something called drag along rights in the original sale contract, I might be missing something but I can't see how allowing them in there (if they exist) was in line with the trusts stated objectives. Maybe they didn't, or didn't have much choice.
Feel free to ignore the minute details as I said above , it's part guesswork, few seem interested and the trust don't seem to be too keen to share.
@Meursault another way to look at that is the Trust needs people who know how to attract large amounts of money to the Trust - perhaps fund raisers &/or marketing experts something the current board appears to be lacking
Let’s face facts. A 25% shareholder is obliged to fund 25% of the losses at a football club (or take 25% of any dividends). Nearly all football clubs are loss making therefore the trust should and would have been aware that this obligation was staring them in the face. And this obligation would be a season after season thing, not just a one off.
The playoff win: a season in the championship, with TV money; an insurance claim for Covid hit to income (mentioned at the trust meeting as a £2.5m payout); a few quid from Derby. All these have delayed the inevitable cash call. And when it came recently the Trust put £100k in the pot and said, “We haven’t got any more money”.
I now question the role of the Trust. They are not stupid people on the Trust Board, as someone said earlier they are hard working fans with plenty of business experience. But, there is a ‘structural’ challenge to the current structure, that being we Trust members can’t match the funding obligations of our shareholding.
And yes, the Trust discussions over the last week have revealed the existence of ‘drag along’ rights in the investment agreement. Rob can sell the club and the buyers can buy the Trust shares at the same price. And force the sale of those to achieve 100% ownership of the club.
The last piece of the jigsaw remains the ground and the Trust has had to agree a 50 year lease at a low rent to get a deal done. And it is a low rent not an increase as the Trust Board tried to suggest. I’m sure the original deal was £100k annual rent reduced to a smaller number for a strictly limited period.
And I voted in favour of all of the above in the indicative vote because I see a lack of realistic alternatives.
To me, post-Couhig, the Trust's ownership has been more notional than actual. It can have as many members (owners) as it likes but if they aren't actually contributing any money, what sort of owners are they?
or people with the B*llks to stand up to the interlopers and say - " you knew what you were getting" and shame them into leaving the club with more than it had when they arrived on their "pleasure trip"? Ask them to commit to leaving any profits to the Trust as they leave? Steve Hayes, with an American accent. :(
Seriously - DONT BE BULLIED! Tell them what we want and put up the lawyers to help make that happen. We don't need "seat cleaners" - we need experienced, hard-nosed businessmen (or preferably women!) who know how to stand up to "Owners" , (and that's NOT what we have on the Trust Board currently! :( )
PS the post above was not meant to be offensive to anyone on the Board - i have a HUGE respect for them volunteering and putting themselves forward. I just meant that their are some skills/attitude needed for dealing with Owners, either the Coughigs or their successors, and the Trust need to work out how to best do this. I can’t criticise if I don’t put myself up for election again, and I’m not able/prepared to d that.
I have tried to contact Nigel for a short conversation, and after that, I will back off and wish the Trust and Club the very best.
I believe all trusts can be a valuable voice for fans and as minority shareholders and ground owners we can occasionally excert some pressure where needed, this may only be to inform fans and secure small concessions and safety nets here and there but also to have one eye on what happens should the Couhigs want out and prepare for it. The trust board used to think so too. I fear that the current lot are diluting any influence they might have had by not enforcing and reinforcing their position. It's fine to say we have no money but that's without any real push to get more money, or to actively challenge reckless and potentially unnecessary spending. Also it seems they are just that bit too grateful to be central and each change is delivered in a way to minimize distress to the owner not with members views front and centre.
In the end they will do what they want and sell to who they want but if there is no diligence or pressure what is the point of the trust? These meetings should be to discuss impact of proposals, take away points to investigate and expressions of help then negotiate, not to rubber stamp whatever they are told, crushing any counter points of view with glee and the giddy pride of being allowed in the room.
I have often wondered firstly what the growth potential is for Trust Membership & secondly what targets the board has actually set? Currently membership stands at c1400 i.e. about 30% of our average home crowd; so are the board aiming to achieve growth to 50% - c2500, or less? Or more?
This matters as it is only through the numbers that the Trust can:
a) exert an appropriate level of influence
b) generate additional income through members subs
c) set membership subs at the right level to maximise income
For example subs at the current level are expected to raise £42k pa, but if we raise them to £35 would we lose members? I reckon we might lose 5% members so a raise to £35 would actually see an increase in revenue to £46.5k. But what if that increase in subs was coupled with an increase in visibility & campaigning? Would we still lose members? Or would we see some membership growth? What about if there was a family membership option what would that do to our overall numbers? What would you charge? What constitutes a family for this purpose? & so it goes on...
Whilst this needs significantly more analysis & stress testing, I think you get the point I am trying to make.
P.S. I personally feel that £30pa is far too low & would be happy to see it rise over a couple of years to £50 but recognise that not everyone is in the same position that I am & the trust would need to look at a variety of other membership concessions to ensure that they maximise membership.
In the example I used yes, but until the Trust either poll members on their propensity to continue to be members at various price points or they actually alter the price we will never know - will we...
Comments
In the above posts, there are references to ‘trust members’ (@Erroll_Sims, action (a) - heaven forfend that all members should have their skills audited!) and in the penultimate paragraph of @Malone’s post, when I’m fairly sure the references are to Trust Board members.
Great to hear from @Jonny_King - a true voice of reason, a wonderful writer (and editor of The Wanderer, of course) and a really “good egg” - both versions in fairly short supply these days. A pretty mean drummer, to boot, I seem to recall. And they’re not two a penny.
Spot on @DevC the Trust board does have some decent business experience on there but a bean counter and a legal guy would be excellent additions, as indeed would an IT expert. This is a board that needs to be capable of standing toe to toe with savy owners, not star struck by the playing side.
I was encouraged by Ben Dunlop talking about the disconnect with the members and engaging them more - the Trust membership is packed full of IT nerds who if asked I'm sure would help out, they don't need to be elected as board members to do so.
Same goes with finance and investment, and fundraising -
Hopefully we'll see that approach towards the wider membership, that their skills and experience can be utilised positively rather than being seen as sort of some of awkward squad that have to be placated.
Quite! I have in the past offered services where I believed The Trust had a need. My offer was not taken up and the faults which prompted that offer are still there.
I think the Board was perceived as being a closed shop during Trevor Stroud's stewardship. Thankfully, it appears to be more welcoming to potential candidates now.
It's the members who elect persons to the board from those putting themselves forward. If members with skills needed on the board don't put themselves forward I fail to see how the members can blame anyone but themselves?
As an IT type I'm fairly used to people just thinking you'll do it anyway, to be fair most people who are a bit tech savvy will do similar helping out or sharing of knowledge for friends and family but some kind of an IT role is probably required by most organisations at leadership level, as it was they did a decent job of it last night aided by someone who's name I didn't catch.
Ben came across really well and it was possibly unfortunate for some of the others that he went early. As I see it he appealed to members coming across as professional, with solid relevant experience and genuine ideas, some of which people have called for above.
Lisa came across as having done a huge amount of work and perhaps having a different point of view from the majority of ageing blokes otherwise in post. I know she's had a fair amount of abuse before so if we're being fair that may be why that question above wasn't put across.
And @AlanCecil rightly pointed to being very helpful generally, willing to do jobs that aren't necessarily glamorous and being a genuine fan.
In my own opinion only Jamie struggled a little bit when asked non tech related questions and the other candidate (again name escapes me, sorry, long day) lacked a real selling point beyond being a fan willing to help.
Fair play to all for standing, I've often thought I might offer to do more if I lived a bit nearer but not generally contributed much in that way other than the odd offer of help and hope that they go ahead with asking for a bit more help and if needed - money before laying down and doing as told by the majority owners.
Unfortunately those playing central roles seemed quite dismissive again at times and might do well to consider what it is they are trying to achieve.
Not sure anybody thinks @Jonny_King wouldn't do a great job btw but he's even further away than I am.
I think Tina Davis also deserves a mention for standing, huge respect for everyone who gives it a go to try and help the Trust and the club.
@micra I have conducted members skills audits in other organisations and all it really amounts to is putting out a simple survey (SurveyMonkey anyone?) asking members to identify any skills they have that they would be willing to utilise to help the organisation and then following up with those who are prepared to help to make sure you do not lose them.
For example I spent my whole career in The City, ultimately specialising in Change Management & the latter 15 years working as a self employed consultant mostly for major merchant banks & asset management groups.
I now help local community organisations with stuff like governance, organisational change & developement, business plan development, risk management & financial analysis. Whilst I am some 100 odd miles away with modern technology I could be next door & am happy to offer my skills to help the Trust if they need them.
Apologies if I misunderstood what you had in mind — ie that you were indeed suggesting that a skills audit of all trust members would be feasible and potentially productive. You clearly have a very impressive CV and it would be disappointing if the Trust didn’t at least contact you to discuss the possibility of availing themselves of your skills.
We should have a skills audit of the Gasroom
I'll handle the funny stuff, obviously
This is all very commendable but is only of use if:
A. The Trust recognizes the need for 'outside' skills.
B. Reaches out to the membership when that need occurs.
Not sure that either of those is going to happen.
I found Nigel's introduction a bit bizarre. He listed the current top four of the Premier League, saying 'who would of thought THAT at the start of the season?' Then there was a dramatic pause, and a few glances at the audience, before starting the AGM proper. No idea what that was all about.
Possibly designed to make people believe that the unexpected can occur - like WWFC becoming a 'sustainable Championship' club!
A bit of a strange one as while you wouldn't have Arsenal top, they are still a giant club.
So 2 oil sports washing regimes in there and also another London giant, and it's hardly something actually amazing like say Brentford in there
Unfortunately it is a massive decision to make the suggested changes and to support the level of spending currently in place and suggested. As they've been involved throughout, have absolutely made their decision 100% and want to deliver that on our behalf - with the minimum of disruption to the majority owner - it's probably not surprising they've ended up at loggerheads with a minority of paying members that take interest in these matters. They are now very defensive when questioned and It's not really the right way to treat the members. When your reason for existing is to rebuild from and preserve life from shark attacks you should at least be receptive to the odd safety net.
Aye. Less than halfway through the season, 3 of the the big six are there, the other being recently Saudi invested Newcastle. City are even more likely to win the League than they were at the start of the season. Only surprise is Liverpool aren't in there, but are still odds on for a top four finish. It felt a bit like an uncle who has a passing interest in football trying to engage you at a wedding. But at the start of a Wycombe Trust AGM haha.
Perhaps I've misunderstood but isn't it large amounts of money that the Trust need rather than people with certain skills?
Leicester winning the league and then cup was the better example used in the other meeting I think but they're not exactly run by a couple of market traders, anyway nobody is disputing these things are possible just that they can't be relied on.
As a possible area of interest earlier (my own possibly) I had a look into the idea taken as absolute enforceable fact at the meetings and by some posters that Rob could carry on exactly as he likes bypassing all obligations simply by turning an unmatched cash call or investment in to shares and thereby getting rid of the trust, or that we'd have to sell up our share should he do so with the majority. It looks like he can dilute the trust shareholding by issuing and buying new shares but it can be argued that if he does so purely bypass the trust that he isn't acting in the overall organisations best interests and that could be challenged legally at any point, minority stakeholders do have rights. As someone pointed out the trust also have the option to match investment, and while that may be unlikely they really haven't asked.
Also it seems that there isn't automatically a right in law to enforce the trust to sell should he do, any waiver granted to allow him to do so would be from something called drag along rights in the original sale contract, I might be missing something but I can't see how allowing them in there (if they exist) was in line with the trusts stated objectives. Maybe they didn't, or didn't have much choice.
Feel free to ignore the minute details as I said above , it's part guesswork, few seem interested and the trust don't seem to be too keen to share.
That might be attractive but it would also be a recipe for turning large amounts into small ones
@Meursault another way to look at that is the Trust needs people who know how to attract large amounts of money to the Trust - perhaps fund raisers &/or marketing experts something the current board appears to be lacking
StrongestTeam and Erroll_Sims
I agree with both of you - what a pickle!
Let’s face facts. A 25% shareholder is obliged to fund 25% of the losses at a football club (or take 25% of any dividends). Nearly all football clubs are loss making therefore the trust should and would have been aware that this obligation was staring them in the face. And this obligation would be a season after season thing, not just a one off.
The playoff win: a season in the championship, with TV money; an insurance claim for Covid hit to income (mentioned at the trust meeting as a £2.5m payout); a few quid from Derby. All these have delayed the inevitable cash call. And when it came recently the Trust put £100k in the pot and said, “We haven’t got any more money”.
I now question the role of the Trust. They are not stupid people on the Trust Board, as someone said earlier they are hard working fans with plenty of business experience. But, there is a ‘structural’ challenge to the current structure, that being we Trust members can’t match the funding obligations of our shareholding.
And yes, the Trust discussions over the last week have revealed the existence of ‘drag along’ rights in the investment agreement. Rob can sell the club and the buyers can buy the Trust shares at the same price. And force the sale of those to achieve 100% ownership of the club.
The last piece of the jigsaw remains the ground and the Trust has had to agree a 50 year lease at a low rent to get a deal done. And it is a low rent not an increase as the Trust Board tried to suggest. I’m sure the original deal was £100k annual rent reduced to a smaller number for a strictly limited period.
And I voted in favour of all of the above in the indicative vote because I see a lack of realistic alternatives.
@Forest_Blue - well said!
To me, post-Couhig, the Trust's ownership has been more notional than actual. It can have as many members (owners) as it likes but if they aren't actually contributing any money, what sort of owners are they?
or people with the B*llks to stand up to the interlopers and say - " you knew what you were getting" and shame them into leaving the club with more than it had when they arrived on their "pleasure trip"? Ask them to commit to leaving any profits to the Trust as they leave? Steve Hayes, with an American accent. :(
Seriously - DONT BE BULLIED! Tell them what we want and put up the lawyers to help make that happen. We don't need "seat cleaners" - we need experienced, hard-nosed businessmen (or preferably women!) who know how to stand up to "Owners" , (and that's NOT what we have on the Trust Board currently! :( )
PS the post above was not meant to be offensive to anyone on the Board - i have a HUGE respect for them volunteering and putting themselves forward. I just meant that their are some skills/attitude needed for dealing with Owners, either the Coughigs or their successors, and the Trust need to work out how to best do this. I can’t criticise if I don’t put myself up for election again, and I’m not able/prepared to d that.
I have tried to contact Nigel for a short conversation, and after that, I will back off and wish the Trust and Club the very best.
I believe all trusts can be a valuable voice for fans and as minority shareholders and ground owners we can occasionally excert some pressure where needed, this may only be to inform fans and secure small concessions and safety nets here and there but also to have one eye on what happens should the Couhigs want out and prepare for it. The trust board used to think so too. I fear that the current lot are diluting any influence they might have had by not enforcing and reinforcing their position. It's fine to say we have no money but that's without any real push to get more money, or to actively challenge reckless and potentially unnecessary spending. Also it seems they are just that bit too grateful to be central and each change is delivered in a way to minimize distress to the owner not with members views front and centre.
In the end they will do what they want and sell to who they want but if there is no diligence or pressure what is the point of the trust? These meetings should be to discuss impact of proposals, take away points to investigate and expressions of help then negotiate, not to rubber stamp whatever they are told, crushing any counter points of view with glee and the giddy pride of being allowed in the room.
I have often wondered firstly what the growth potential is for Trust Membership & secondly what targets the board has actually set? Currently membership stands at c1400 i.e. about 30% of our average home crowd; so are the board aiming to achieve growth to 50% - c2500, or less? Or more?
This matters as it is only through the numbers that the Trust can:
a) exert an appropriate level of influence
b) generate additional income through members subs
c) set membership subs at the right level to maximise income
For example subs at the current level are expected to raise £42k pa, but if we raise them to £35 would we lose members? I reckon we might lose 5% members so a raise to £35 would actually see an increase in revenue to £46.5k. But what if that increase in subs was coupled with an increase in visibility & campaigning? Would we still lose members? Or would we see some membership growth? What about if there was a family membership option what would that do to our overall numbers? What would you charge? What constitutes a family for this purpose? & so it goes on...
Whilst this needs significantly more analysis & stress testing, I think you get the point I am trying to make.
P.S. I personally feel that £30pa is far too low & would be happy to see it rise over a couple of years to £50 but recognise that not everyone is in the same position that I am & the trust would need to look at a variety of other membership concessions to ensure that they maximise membership.
So what you’re saying is the price elasticity of demand for Trust membership is -0.3
In the example I used yes, but until the Trust either poll members on their propensity to continue to be members at various price points or they actually alter the price we will never know - will we...