Chiron Sports Group website is here - https://www.chironsportsgroup.com/ - they appear to own Venezia FC who recently got promoted to Serie A along with having their fingers in lots of other sporting pies. Couhig is not listed as a board member so suggest he is the front man to get through the EFL checks etc & maybe be the Chair for a while.
I liked Rob and value what he did for Wycombe but given how prickly he could sometimes be with Wycombe's pretty unpresumptuous fans, I hate to imagine how he'll react to that deluded section of Reading supporters who see the Premier League as their right and proper place.
We ourselves have fans who suddenly expect to be competing for the play offs every season, despite the fact it was only a small amount of years ago just staying up in this division was the glass ceiling.
I have just seen that Reading Buses are starting a new bus route from Reading to High Wycombe, starting at the end of this month. That should be handy if (when?) our clubs merge!
Probably time for a poll to get an indication of how many Wycombe fans would go to watch a merged club or, as an outside possibility, Wanderers sharing the stadium - something which is probably against the regulations.
I can't see it going down well with Royal's supporters either. We have to hope the IFR would squash it, if it is proposed at anytime in the future. IF it is mentioned, who would have the most or biggest blankets you or us? Here's hoping we can all have a laugh together when our troubles are finally sorted out.
Companies with debts in place sell for a lot more than £1 all of the time.
The largely symbolic £1 sale of a company happens if said company were about to fold and the selling company HAS to sell. For example, you could expect Reading could be sold for £1 and the debts to Dai cleared.
However, if the company is a going concern, the seller doesn’t have to sell and there is tangible value in the company via assets or projected income, then that sale could be significantly more than £1.
“Consider a deal to sell a company free of debt for £5million. At the time the deal is agreed the company has debt of £3million. If the seller agrees to sell their shares for £5million and use £3million of the proceeds to repay the company’s debt of £3million, then they will suffer CGT on the gain on the full £5million of proceeds…
…So, what should the seller have done? If the shares were sold for £2million with the buyer agreeing to clear the debt, the buyer is still paying £5million overall and the seller will only pay CGT on the gain on £2million of proceeds”
Link of a practical example of a company with debts being sold where the seller makes a profit and ways to minimise his capital gains tax payments
Valuations of failing clubs are odd and a bit pointless, it depends on how distressed the club is, compliant creditors offering the potential to reduce debt, how badly the owner wants out, wether they think they can recoup historic losses, and how much (if any) interest they have in legacy and it all being sustainable after the sale.
Even at the more successful clubs it then becomes a bit more around theoretical potential and outgoing and incoming ego.
This is why Reading, Southend, Derby and others have taken so long to get sorted out.
A club in a lot of debt could still be worth money to the right buyer.
In Readings case if they could agree reduced or minimal payments to creditors including HMRC and a new owner had big enough funds to pursue premier league football then a good stadium and training ground, potential big crowds make them a relatively good prospect for someone who would have the opportunity to make it all worth a lot more very quickly.
BUT they are probably way off that and the bin fire above is more reflective of where they are.
Even jokey suggestions of mergers should be treated with the upmost suspicion btw, as jarring as it is a few simpletons would follow them but similar to Wasps you'd see us all but disappear.
Indeed. And this was my point in my downvoted original post.
Wycombe wanderers wasn’t a failing club under Rob. Indeed it seems there may have been a couple of interested parties - or at least the seller made it sound like there was - So despite the apparent debts and loses every year I could 100% see Rob walking away with a decent profit to the highest bidder. The potential profit, which we handed to him byw, by allowing him to have 90% voting rights. Why do people think he really wanted those rights?
I suspect a lot of the downvotes might be because of the “fair play to him” but ultimately he came in seeing us as an investment. Investors like to see a profit at the end of there funding cycle, funding cycles that aren’t unusual at lasting 5 years (coincidentally). He left the club in a better position than he started. Some might be luck, some hard work. If you can be bothered to go back and find it, I’m 99% sure one of my questions when he came in was “what’s your exit strategy?” Because he was so clear he was coming in as an investor. We recently found that out.
I don’t have a problem with him leaving with a profit on that basis. Other people might do.
Whether Couhig made a profit or loss on his ownership depends on the level of his initial cash investment plus the amount of any net subsequent cash injection into the club -whether as shares or loans - compared to the amount of net cash received on his exit. None of us know those figures so its impossible to tell. If he did make a profit, he was one of the very few investors in lower league football clubs to emerge with their wealth enhanced. Its really none of our business.
Out of interest what practical difference do you think it makes whether Couhig owned 75% or 90% of the shares that enabled him to make a profit.
On your last point there is possibly something in there about whether he knowingly encouraged / forced the trust to give away the extra 15% in the name of increased investment that didn't really materialize so that he could sell the club for more (or more easily)
Wether he made a profit or how much of course is of no real consequence to us but there's no reason why that would be free of speculation on forums unlike everything else. It's not at all unthinkable that he put a lot of his own money in and incurred lots of personal expenses along the way.
Regarding the last point - the club has a value. If he, or now ML, holds 90% of the shares, I rather imagine that would command a higher price than having 75% the next time the club is sold.
On day to day decision making, it makes no difference. If he had 51% he’d have the majority but when it comes to value in a company - having 90% is always going to be better than 75%.
I take your point regarding making a profit and him being one of the few to do so. But then How many other club owners come into football club ownership with a purely business brain on, a solid 5 year plan and a proper exit strategy. It’s always been the hope for success on the pitch, move up the league and profit that way. Rob’s primary focus was ALWAYS the off field stuff
I personally think he saw us (and Yeovil before us remember, but it fell through) at a low ebb, a rock bottom price and thought he had the ability to solidify the club, turn it around, add value and flip for a profit.
I imagine he sees the same with Reading. He’s not getting into football ownership for the love of football. That was always Pete.
He’s doing it for business reasons and following a model many businessmen do with traditional companies.
Evidence for that last paragraph is what started this thread in the first place - the purchase of Bearwood. If you go back to my original post I think I said that as a business proposal it was 100% a no brainer. £50m asset for £25m? Take that all day long. But football not being a normal business it was always going to cause issues.
That, for me, is evidence that everything Rob does is with a business brain on and how to add value to a business to (eventually) profit from. It’s always a risk, but I think it’s paid of with us and he’s found the next club at a low ebb to solidify, add value and sell on.
I'm not entirely sure why as supporters of WWFC, or even members of Wycombe Wanderers Trust, we are overly concerned about whether Feliciana (aka RC) / Blue Ocean Partners II (aka ML) own 90% or 75% of WWFC. They only needed to own >50% to have defacto control over the destiny of the club. Yes it might have made the sale easier for RC and he might have gotten a higher price, but the Trust had already lost control when agreeing the sale to RC in the first place.
However, as I see it, if the Trust had retained it's 25% share then over time it would become diluted as the Trust doesn't have the funds to match future investment by ML.
The deal struck with RC allowed the Trust to at least retain a share in WWFC at a defined level. Let's not forget that the original, and in my view more important purpose of the Trust, is to retain ownership of Adam's Park.
What the future holds none of us know, although we can all speculate. And I'm fully aware other may have a different view about the ownership of WWFC to my own. Personally I'm happy to go along for the ride - as, in truth, I've always been supporting WWFC.
Q. At the end of the day what else can I do?
A. Be sceptical, ask questions, never accept what an owner says at face value, seek different opinions and views, make my own judgements.
Yes agree 90% of anything will be worth a bit more than 75%. I read your post as suggesting that moving from 75% to 90% made a material difference to Couhig making a big profit when otherwise he wouldn’t have. I doubt that would be the case.
The rumour is that Rob Couhig is in a consortium with Chiron Sports Group. I have, of course, read about Chiron on HNA, but if they have been involved with him at Wycombe, a bit of first hand info (and your view of them) would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Comments
Kitson Boyce sounds like a minor character in Brighton Rock.
All I can find at CRO is this
Lomtadze - https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/7xwA8ImS5xrbMOp9fi15ZQ0YaxE/appointments
Rice - https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/MDMTsahqEGVg6Mem4xN36GPe_aU/appointments
Vyshnakov - https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/WXMqVsXpvgfCeHX7o_7dN2hW1H4/appointments
Feliciana EFL - https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11808771/officers
CRO have managed to not link records for ML with the club & Feliciana
No trace of the corporate vehicle which suggests it may not be a UK registered entity
On a different note this article was on BBC Sport about the purchase of RFC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cv2gq3znp52o
Chiron Sports Group website is here - https://www.chironsportsgroup.com/ - they appear to own Venezia FC who recently got promoted to Serie A along with having their fingers in lots of other sporting pies. Couhig is not listed as a board member so suggest he is the front man to get through the EFL checks etc & maybe be the Chair for a while.
From the BBC article…
…but Reading is a different scale and proposition to Wycombe Wanderers.
Fans and staff will be keen Couhig appreciates this, if he does get a deal over the line
Oh just f off
With a different scale of debt to go with it. Pompous load of arses.
Assume they mean different scale "of a mess"
Maybe Rob isn’t the guy for them. They should find a Crypto billionaire
That's code for... " we don't really want a club that's sustainable and safe, we just want to have a go."
Reading fans : “ Does Couhig appreciate how much petrol this thing eats “
I liked Rob and value what he did for Wycombe but given how prickly he could sometimes be with Wycombe's pretty unpresumptuous fans, I hate to imagine how he'll react to that deluded section of Reading supporters who see the Premier League as their right and proper place.
All fan bases have those types though don't they?
We ourselves have fans who suddenly expect to be competing for the play offs every season, despite the fact it was only a small amount of years ago just staying up in this division was the glass ceiling.
I have just seen that Reading Buses are starting a new bus route from Reading to High Wycombe, starting at the end of this month. That should be handy if (when?) our clubs merge!
Probably time for a poll to get an indication of how many Wycombe fans would go to watch a merged club or, as an outside possibility, Wanderers sharing the stadium - something which is probably against the regulations.
Here's the poll results. Go and watch 0%
Disagree, obviously. But neither option is likely to be attractive to true blue supporters.
I’m hoping my idea of a new stadium on Holmer Green common soon becomes a reality.
I can't see it going down well with Royal's supporters either. We have to hope the IFR would squash it, if it is proposed at anytime in the future. IF it is mentioned, who would have the most or biggest blankets you or us? Here's hoping we can all have a laugh together when our troubles are finally sorted out.
Good on you @theRoyalBiscuit 👍
Companies with debts in place sell for a lot more than £1 all of the time.
The largely symbolic £1 sale of a company happens if said company were about to fold and the selling company HAS to sell. For example, you could expect Reading could be sold for £1 and the debts to Dai cleared.
However, if the company is a going concern, the seller doesn’t have to sell and there is tangible value in the company via assets or projected income, then that sale could be significantly more than £1.
https://www.wilkinchapman.co.uk/resources/2022/06/24/selling-companies-with-debt-don-t-get-caught-out
“Consider a deal to sell a company free of debt for £5million. At the time the deal is agreed the company has debt of £3million. If the seller agrees to sell their shares for £5million and use £3million of the proceeds to repay the company’s debt of £3million, then they will suffer CGT on the gain on the full £5million of proceeds…
…So, what should the seller have done? If the shares were sold for £2million with the buyer agreeing to clear the debt, the buyer is still paying £5million overall and the seller will only pay CGT on the gain on £2million of proceeds”
Link of a practical example of a company with debts being sold where the seller makes a profit and ways to minimise his capital gains tax payments
That would be bloody handy !!
Valuations of failing clubs are odd and a bit pointless, it depends on how distressed the club is, compliant creditors offering the potential to reduce debt, how badly the owner wants out, wether they think they can recoup historic losses, and how much (if any) interest they have in legacy and it all being sustainable after the sale.
Even at the more successful clubs it then becomes a bit more around theoretical potential and outgoing and incoming ego.
This is why Reading, Southend, Derby and others have taken so long to get sorted out.
A club in a lot of debt could still be worth money to the right buyer.
In Readings case if they could agree reduced or minimal payments to creditors including HMRC and a new owner had big enough funds to pursue premier league football then a good stadium and training ground, potential big crowds make them a relatively good prospect for someone who would have the opportunity to make it all worth a lot more very quickly.
BUT they are probably way off that and the bin fire above is more reflective of where they are.
Even jokey suggestions of mergers should be treated with the upmost suspicion btw, as jarring as it is a few simpletons would follow them but similar to Wasps you'd see us all but disappear.
Please no... parking at my mums will be shocking.
Indeed. And this was my point in my downvoted original post.
Wycombe wanderers wasn’t a failing club under Rob. Indeed it seems there may have been a couple of interested parties - or at least the seller made it sound like there was - So despite the apparent debts and loses every year I could 100% see Rob walking away with a decent profit to the highest bidder. The potential profit, which we handed to him byw, by allowing him to have 90% voting rights. Why do people think he really wanted those rights?
I suspect a lot of the downvotes might be because of the “fair play to him” but ultimately he came in seeing us as an investment. Investors like to see a profit at the end of there funding cycle, funding cycles that aren’t unusual at lasting 5 years (coincidentally). He left the club in a better position than he started. Some might be luck, some hard work. If you can be bothered to go back and find it, I’m 99% sure one of my questions when he came in was “what’s your exit strategy?” Because he was so clear he was coming in as an investor. We recently found that out.
I don’t have a problem with him leaving with a profit on that basis. Other people might do.
Whether Couhig made a profit or loss on his ownership depends on the level of his initial cash investment plus the amount of any net subsequent cash injection into the club -whether as shares or loans - compared to the amount of net cash received on his exit. None of us know those figures so its impossible to tell. If he did make a profit, he was one of the very few investors in lower league football clubs to emerge with their wealth enhanced. Its really none of our business.
Out of interest what practical difference do you think it makes whether Couhig owned 75% or 90% of the shares that enabled him to make a profit.
On your last point there is possibly something in there about whether he knowingly encouraged / forced the trust to give away the extra 15% in the name of increased investment that didn't really materialize so that he could sell the club for more (or more easily)
Wether he made a profit or how much of course is of no real consequence to us but there's no reason why that would be free of speculation on forums unlike everything else. It's not at all unthinkable that he put a lot of his own money in and incurred lots of personal expenses along the way.
Regarding the last point - the club has a value. If he, or now ML, holds 90% of the shares, I rather imagine that would command a higher price than having 75% the next time the club is sold.
On day to day decision making, it makes no difference. If he had 51% he’d have the majority but when it comes to value in a company - having 90% is always going to be better than 75%.
I take your point regarding making a profit and him being one of the few to do so. But then How many other club owners come into football club ownership with a purely business brain on, a solid 5 year plan and a proper exit strategy. It’s always been the hope for success on the pitch, move up the league and profit that way. Rob’s primary focus was ALWAYS the off field stuff
I personally think he saw us (and Yeovil before us remember, but it fell through) at a low ebb, a rock bottom price and thought he had the ability to solidify the club, turn it around, add value and flip for a profit.
I imagine he sees the same with Reading. He’s not getting into football ownership for the love of football. That was always Pete.
He’s doing it for business reasons and following a model many businessmen do with traditional companies.
Evidence for that last paragraph is what started this thread in the first place - the purchase of Bearwood. If you go back to my original post I think I said that as a business proposal it was 100% a no brainer. £50m asset for £25m? Take that all day long. But football not being a normal business it was always going to cause issues.
That, for me, is evidence that everything Rob does is with a business brain on and how to add value to a business to (eventually) profit from. It’s always a risk, but I think it’s paid of with us and he’s found the next club at a low ebb to solidify, add value and sell on.
I'm not entirely sure why as supporters of WWFC, or even members of Wycombe Wanderers Trust, we are overly concerned about whether Feliciana (aka RC) / Blue Ocean Partners II (aka ML) own 90% or 75% of WWFC. They only needed to own >50% to have defacto control over the destiny of the club. Yes it might have made the sale easier for RC and he might have gotten a higher price, but the Trust had already lost control when agreeing the sale to RC in the first place.
However, as I see it, if the Trust had retained it's 25% share then over time it would become diluted as the Trust doesn't have the funds to match future investment by ML.
The deal struck with RC allowed the Trust to at least retain a share in WWFC at a defined level. Let's not forget that the original, and in my view more important purpose of the Trust, is to retain ownership of Adam's Park.
What the future holds none of us know, although we can all speculate. And I'm fully aware other may have a different view about the ownership of WWFC to my own. Personally I'm happy to go along for the ride - as, in truth, I've always been supporting WWFC.
Q. At the end of the day what else can I do?
A. Be sceptical, ask questions, never accept what an owner says at face value, seek different opinions and views, make my own judgements.
Yes agree 90% of anything will be worth a bit more than 75%. I read your post as suggesting that moving from 75% to 90% made a material difference to Couhig making a big profit when otherwise he wouldn’t have. I doubt that would be the case.
The rumour is that Rob Couhig is in a consortium with Chiron Sports Group. I have, of course, read about Chiron on HNA, but if they have been involved with him at Wycombe, a bit of first hand info (and your view of them) would be much appreciated. Thanks.