@glasshalffull said:
I understand that, but we’ve been told that the current trust run model is unsustainable and at this time the Americans’ bid is the only one on the table. You are right to be cautious about the future, but we have to deal with the reality of where we are now.
Derby supporters have been told by Mr Morris that their clubs current financial model is also unsustainable.
I genuinely don’t understand what you’re getting at. If you don’t believe the Trust board when they say that our current model is unsustainable then that’s your prerogative. Personally, I do believe them and the only way I can see WWFC surviving and hopefully prospering is by seeking outside investment.
Obviously, this route has inherent dangers and many safeguards would have to be put in place before handing over control, but the alternative-to carry on as we are-is a far more worrying prospect in my opinion.
We will have no say over who the subsequent buyers are whoever's owns the club unless it remains in Trust ownership.
Then this question will rise again with the next proposed investors
I am reasonably confident we will survive if we don't get significant outside investment although I doubt very much if we will prosper.
For those familiar with the works of the late, great Kurt Vonnegut (which I trust is everyone on here) however it is quite possible that @glasshalffull's recollection of watching us play a league game at Hemel Hempstead is from something that has already happened but he has misplaced in the chronology as it was from 2023 rather than the 1970's following our reluctance to release our fan-owned dogma.
Yes I get that, but you have picked clubs where it has gone wrong whilst there are countless examples of clubs who have benefited from private ownership.
It boils down to whether or not you believe that a club financed solely by its supporters can successfully compete at our level over a long period of time. History would suggest that it’s unlikely.
Incidentally Mooneyman, I have looked back at my response to your post about Walsall’s success story and it was unnecessarily abrupt on my part so I apologise for that.
Not wishing to derail this thread too much (okay I probably do) but just picking up the issue of 'history', anyone know much about the actual history of fan owned clubs in the Football League? I know we have a proud history as an amateur club, but I would imagine that it was a lot more common outside the professional leagues. Did there ever used to be 'fan owned' clubs or were they, as I imagine, all owned by the local factory owner, landed gentry or property developer who was happy to throw in their ill-gotten gains from exploiting the down-trodden working class to allow them to bask in the glow of a hard earned point in the mud at Halifax on a cold wet Saturday afternoon?
That’s a tricky question that would require a lot of research. I think historically the majority of FL clubs have been financed by a person or persons with an emotional attachment to that club, but that’s not quite the model we have at Wycombe. Apart from ourselves, the only trust owned clubs in the current FL are Wimbledon and Exeter. Portsmouth were till fairly recently and Wrexham are now but I’m not sure if that pre-dated their tenure in the FL.
@Wendoverman said:
So have we all decided that we do not need outside investment, we just need to sack the board and get better people in to manage the place?
I think everyone is waiting for the details of the American bid before deciding on anything.
Why on earth would anyone want to know the actual details of anything before they vote on it? This country didn't get where it is today* by worrying about namby-pamby rubbish like that.
*For those looking that is roughly 3/4 of the way down something commonly known as 'Shit Creek' just beyond the Boating Shop with the sign outside saying: 'Sorry, sold out of paddles'
And apologies to those sensitive souls on here who object to the use of profane language and political metaphors. It is meant** to be something called a 'joke'.
**I appreciate I haven't got the hang of it yet but my life-coach (Mr Theakston) instructs me to try, try and try again
@ Glasshalfful, , surely you recall that when WWFC joined the Football League we became the 2nd owned Fan Club. The other Club being Nottingham Forest.
I suspect that the Americans wanted the Harman bid to be successful. We will see if they have also withdrawn.
Maybe we should have a no deal back up plan?
@ Glasshalfful, , surely you recall that when WWFC joined the Football League we became the 2nd owned Fan Club. The other Club being Nottingham Forest.
I suppose it’s a question of interpretation really. As I recall (and I’ve already been chastised for failing to accurately recount events from over 40 years ago!), when we entered the FL we had a constitution that forbid anyone to hold more than one share in the club. Forest’s set up was similar but with important differences in that they had directors putting personal finance into their club. The current WWFC Trust owned model is, of course, different again.
@glasshalfful You are correct about the single share, but like the current Legacy Shareholder they needed to be a 4yr season Ticket holder to qualify for that Share. The total shares where also restricted to 500. This 500 then became the 500 Founders Share holders when the PLC was formed . It would be interesting to find out if there are any of the original Founder Shareholders who still qualify as season ticket holders but are not members of the trust. Should they have a vote in the future of the club??
I just looked up this definition of an investment as:- "In finance, an investment is a monetary asset purchased with the idea that the asset will provide income in the future or will later be sold at a higher price for a profit".
Is that what is generally understood or is it mistaken for a donation by many?
Thanks wformaion for filling in the gaps. It would be a fascinating exercise to canvass the views of those who regularly attend games at Adams Park as to whether they would be for or against the idea of the Americans gaining majority control. Only legacy members can actually vote, of course, but I wonder if they would be influenced in the way they vote by the views of a cross section of fans who have no say in the club’s future?
As we are witnessing on another important issue at the moment, the views of the majority aren’t necessarily acceptable to those empowered to make the big decisions!!
To be fair Alan, while polls suggest it is highly likely that the majority disagree with the Government's obsession with implementing a flawed referendum from three years ago promising unicorns primarily in a hopefully forlorn hope of maintaining the unity of the tory party, we cant be 100% sure that the public really now want to remain until we ask them in a referendum. Assuming I have read you right, I agree we should delay brexit and obtain that informed democratic consent via a second referendum for whatever the people now see as the way forward as soon as possible.
I do agree it is regrettable that Trevor Stroud was not prime minister instead of Cameron three years ago and hence was not in a position to create a rule that 75% of the entire electorate would need to vote in favour of this act of national sado masochism before we embarked down that disastrous road.
I could have sworn I recall a balding portly gentleman broadly of your appearance (and sadly mine!) moaning the last time someone brought national politics into the gasroom however.
Comments
Derby supporters have been told by Mr Morris that their clubs current financial model is also unsustainable.
I genuinely don’t understand what you’re getting at. If you don’t believe the Trust board when they say that our current model is unsustainable then that’s your prerogative. Personally, I do believe them and the only way I can see WWFC surviving and hopefully prospering is by seeking outside investment.
Obviously, this route has inherent dangers and many safeguards would have to be put in place before handing over control, but the alternative-to carry on as we are-is a far more worrying prospect in my opinion.
We will have no say over who the subsequent buyers are whoever's owns the club unless it remains in Trust ownership.
Then this question will rise again with the next proposed investors
I am reasonably confident we will survive if we don't get significant outside investment although I doubt very much if we will prosper.
For those familiar with the works of the late, great Kurt Vonnegut (which I trust is everyone on here) however it is quite possible that @glasshalffull's recollection of watching us play a league game at Hemel Hempstead is from something that has already happened but he has misplaced in the chronology as it was from 2023 rather than the 1970's following our reluctance to release our fan-owned dogma.
We will survive. Someone should write a song about that.
@glasshalffull - Private ownership is not a magic panacea for survival in the Football League. Just ask the fans of Bolton, Coventry, Hartlepool etc.
Yes I get that, but you have picked clubs where it has gone wrong whilst there are countless examples of clubs who have benefited from private ownership.
It boils down to whether or not you believe that a club financed solely by its supporters can successfully compete at our level over a long period of time. History would suggest that it’s unlikely.
Incidentally Mooneyman, I have looked back at my response to your post about Walsall’s success story and it was unnecessarily abrupt on my part so I apologise for that.
Not wishing to derail this thread too much (okay I probably do) but just picking up the issue of 'history', anyone know much about the actual history of fan owned clubs in the Football League? I know we have a proud history as an amateur club, but I would imagine that it was a lot more common outside the professional leagues. Did there ever used to be 'fan owned' clubs or were they, as I imagine, all owned by the local factory owner, landed gentry or property developer who was happy to throw in their ill-gotten gains from exploiting the down-trodden working class to allow them to bask in the glow of a hard earned point in the mud at Halifax on a cold wet Saturday afternoon?
That’s a tricky question that would require a lot of research. I think historically the majority of FL clubs have been financed by a person or persons with an emotional attachment to that club, but that’s not quite the model we have at Wycombe. Apart from ourselves, the only trust owned clubs in the current FL are Wimbledon and Exeter. Portsmouth were till fairly recently and Wrexham are now but I’m not sure if that pre-dated their tenure in the FL.
Alan will be fine to continue his tea , meal and drinks in the boardroom so all is good with the American bid.
No need for that Marlow old chap.
@glasshalffull has made considerable efforts to be particularly civil in the last few weeks and I’m not sure goading him helps anyone.
I'm sure the American's will love hearing the stories of @glasshalffull imaginairy trips to Hemel over a cup of Earl Grey.
So have we all decided that we do not need outside investment, we just need to sack the board and get better people in to manage the place?
are we talking about the club or the gasroom @Wendoverman?
Not sure...have the moderators been in talks with American investors?
I think everyone is waiting for the details of the American bid before deciding on anything.
Why on earth would anyone want to know the actual details of anything before they vote on it? This country didn't get where it is today* by worrying about namby-pamby rubbish like that.
*For those looking that is roughly 3/4 of the way down something commonly known as 'Shit Creek' just beyond the Boating Shop with the sign outside saying: 'Sorry, sold out of paddles'
And apologies to those sensitive souls on here who object to the use of profane language and political metaphors. It is meant** to be something called a 'joke'.
**I appreciate I haven't got the hang of it yet but my life-coach (Mr Theakston) instructs me to try, try and try again
@bookertease Peculiar advise from your life-coach
He’s getting on a bit...
@ Glasshalfful, , surely you recall that when WWFC joined the Football League we became the 2nd owned Fan Club. The other Club being Nottingham Forest.
Of course.
I suspect that the Americans wanted the Harman bid to be successful. We will see if they have also withdrawn.
Maybe we should have a no deal back up plan?
Z> @wformation said:
I suppose it’s a question of interpretation really. As I recall (and I’ve already been chastised for failing to accurately recount events from over 40 years ago!), when we entered the FL we had a constitution that forbid anyone to hold more than one share in the club. Forest’s set up was similar but with important differences in that they had directors putting personal finance into their club. The current WWFC Trust owned model is, of course, different again.
@glasshalfful You are correct about the single share, but like the current Legacy Shareholder they needed to be a 4yr season Ticket holder to qualify for that Share. The total shares where also restricted to 500. This 500 then became the 500 Founders Share holders when the PLC was formed . It would be interesting to find out if there are any of the original Founder Shareholders who still qualify as season ticket holders but are not members of the trust. Should they have a vote in the future of the club??
Anyone know what happened to those Founder Shares. I had one but have no idea if it is still valid or means anything at all. Could I have two votes?
I just looked up this definition of an investment as:- "In finance, an investment is a monetary asset purchased with the idea that the asset will provide income in the future or will later be sold at a higher price for a profit".
Is that what is generally understood or is it mistaken for a donation by many?
Thanks wformaion for filling in the gaps. It would be a fascinating exercise to canvass the views of those who regularly attend games at Adams Park as to whether they would be for or against the idea of the Americans gaining majority control. Only legacy members can actually vote, of course, but I wonder if they would be influenced in the way they vote by the views of a cross section of fans who have no say in the club’s future?
As we are witnessing on another important issue at the moment, the views of the majority aren’t necessarily acceptable to those empowered to make the big decisions!!
@glasshalffull oh my God...never ask the man in the street!
To be fair Alan, while polls suggest it is highly likely that the majority disagree with the Government's obsession with implementing a flawed referendum from three years ago promising unicorns primarily in a hopefully forlorn hope of maintaining the unity of the tory party, we cant be 100% sure that the public really now want to remain until we ask them in a referendum. Assuming I have read you right, I agree we should delay brexit and obtain that informed democratic consent via a second referendum for whatever the people now see as the way forward as soon as possible.
I do agree it is regrettable that Trevor Stroud was not prime minister instead of Cameron three years ago and hence was not in a position to create a rule that 75% of the entire electorate would need to vote in favour of this act of national sado masochism before we embarked down that disastrous road.
I could have sworn I recall a balding portly gentleman broadly of your appearance (and sadly mine!) moaning the last time someone brought national politics into the gasroom however.