Skip to content

Legacy Vote System Flawed ?

24

Comments

  • I noticed the latest email refers to the Investment from Rob Couhig and partners ?
    Are the partners other members of the Couhig family, or other investors ?

  • I understand the legacy members have earned the right to vote but wonder if ordinary members will have a chance to read the proposal and ask any questions before the vote.

  • @Uncle_T said:
    In the 2009 vote, in which Founder Shareholders voted on whether to remove the previous 25% shareholding limit and allow Steve Hayes to acquire 100% of the club, the result was -

    In favour 339
    Against 77

    The total Founder Shareholding was limited to 500, so the proportion who voted in favour was 68%.

    Taking into consideration that -

    • there was a lot less positivity among fans for Hayes then than there is now for Couhig;
    • the 2009 vote, if I recall correctly, required only a simple majority in favour to be carried;
    • the ground is not included in the sale; and
    • there was a lot less "whipping" to get people out to vote back in 2009 than we are seeing now,
      I think it is likely that the vote on selling a majority of shares to Couhig will get 75% or more in favour.

    Uncle T, I was vociferously against Sharky (although I accept he could have hurt us a lot more at the end had he been as bad as I feared) but there was a huge amount of cajoling among his team to get his holding to the numbers he required, much of it I felt was deceptive and underhand. I believe many Chairboys are wiser/less naive, I look forward to seeing the deal on offer, so I can make an informed decision. I want to support the deal rather than feel I have to vote or we go bu$t.

  • "partners" could include long time connected parties to WWFC. Selling the club is wrong, just wrong and i say that having given it a LOT of thought, research and experience on the board of WWFT. I expect that the drones and johnny come lately's will vote to give our club to the Americans - and I hope it works out well. Not in the next 3 years but in the next 10-20 years, when your kids are looking for something to do an a Sat afternoon.

    Dont let our pitch be turned into plastic, so we can train on it, then the "Training Facility", which was bought below market price from us, be sold for 2-3 bed housing units at a profit of £12m for its current owners (not the club, but connected parties).

    I wish Garreth and the team well - days like Selhurst Park, Torquay and Leicester are never to be forgotten by me or my 'kids' - but they new proposed owners have different motivations. It will sound great - but they are not the same motivations of the supporters that walk to AP.

    In my opinion, vote NO, and this amazing club will still survive and progress.

    wj

  • @wandering_jock said:
    "partners" could include long time connected parties to WWFC. Selling the club is wrong, just wrong and i say that having given it a LOT of thought, research and experience on the board of WWFT. I expect that the drones and johnny come lately's will vote to give our club to the Americans - and I hope it works out well. Not in the next 3 years but in the next 10-20 years, when your kids are looking for something to do an a Sat afternoon.

    Dont let our pitch be turned into plastic, so we can train on it, then the "Training Facility", which was bought below market price from us, be sold for 2-3 bed housing units at a profit of £12m for its current owners (not the club, but connected parties).

    I wish Garreth and the team well - days like Selhurst Park, Torquay and Leicester are never to be forgotten by me or my 'kids' - but they new proposed owners have different motivations. It will sound great - but they are not the same motivations of the supporters that walk to AP.

    In my opinion, vote NO, and this amazing club will still survive and progress.

    wj

    Survive yes. But how could we progress out of interest?

  • Selling the Training Ground to developers at a fair price would have been an option. Thanks Mr B.

  • @wandering_jock - 2 simple questions. Where are we going to find the money to repay the Couhigs (£2m) within six months of any unsuccessful vote? In the event we can find some mug to lend us the money how are we going to pay it back and survive?

    By the way, I would much prefer to stay supporter owned, but Stroud and his gang have unfortunately driven us into desperate measures due to their mismanagement.

  • fair points MM. if they force us to repay in 6months, are they REALLY supporters of WWFC. There are investors who will provide finance to the club and repayment of 2m over 5 yrs at base+2% would be nice income for the C's - and they would be mad/bad not to accept.

  • .... and we should ask them that before we vote for them ???

  • I suspect you are right @wandering_jock that in the event of a no vote, the Couhigs would accept repayment of their loan over five years. Your interest rate is a little ambitious but five year repayment terms is credible - not frankly because the Couhigs are or are not fans of WWFC but because they wouldn’t have a lot of choice.
    What I don’t see to be honest is how you would fund the losses of around £350k to the end of the season and then transform the finances the next season and every future season to convert a £700k annual loss into the £400k annual profit needed to pay back the Couhigs loan on the schedule you suggest.

  • really good question DC. Have you understood how Couhigs would fund the investments & lossers for the next 5 yrs? and why?

  • and i'm guessing that their share of £12m+ would help.

  • Yes I thought it was a good question too, @wandering_jock. One I notice you haven’t answered.

  • anyone investing to buy the club would be happy to put up 500k pa to fund 'losses'until championship status was achieved - in say 3 yrs. What you haven't answered is why Couhigs would be prepared to fund -$650k pa for the dark n blue qtrs? where is their gain if not from the sale of property at the training ground for housing development like Mr Beeks does? They are "businessmen" first and foremost - do they even understand the offside rule?

  • Err OK. We seem to have moved on from a discussion about how WWFC could be funded if Couhigs deal fails and into a theory that Couhigs is somehow part of a training ground conspiracy.

    If you would like to spell out your theory clearly (and the evidence to support it) , I am sure it will prove fascinating

  • I thought that ship had passed, buying the football club now doesn't get you the training ground that has already been sold surely

  • @DevC said:
    I suspect you are right @wandering_jock that in the event of a no vote, the Couhigs would accept repayment of their loan over five years. Your interest rate is a little ambitious but five year repayment terms is credible - not frankly because the Couhigs are or are not fans of WWFC but because they wouldn’t have a lot of choice.
    What I don’t see to be honest is how you would fund the losses of around £350k to the end of the season and then transform the finances the next season and every future season to convert a £700k annual loss into the £400k annual profit needed to pay back the Couhigs loan on the schedule you suggest.

    @wandering_jock could you answer this, you’ve put a lot of thought into a no vote, apparently.

  • What happens to the training ground has been something that has escaped scrutiny by lay Trust members thus far, putting it on the agenda isn't exactly bad, though getting bogged down in assuming the worst isn't exactly helpful.
    While the club doesn't own the training ground, WWT members should be informed if it forms part of the deal. There is at least the potential for a conflict of interests, and is an area that WWT members should be prepared to question, even at the risk of appearing awkward or annoying our new American friends.

  • This is even worse than Brexit.

  • @micra said:
    This is even worse than Brexit.

    Not until someone shouts 'Surrender !'

  • Why would the training ground be part of the deal?

  • @Wendoverman said:
    Why would the training ground be part of the deal?

    We've got the backstop issue to resolve before any deal can be finalised on the training ground!

  • So Rob Couhig almost bought Yeovil as a ruse to buy Wycombe as a ruse to get his hands on the training ground the club doesn't actually own

  • @BuckinghamBlue said:
    So Rob Couhig almost bought Yeovil as a ruse to buy Wycombe as a ruse to get his hands on the training ground the club doesn't actually own

    ...and without telling anyone how rich he is and his wife upsetting richie.

  • but I thought there was a buy-back option on the training ground for 10 years?

  • F.A.O. Wandering Jock

    Don't let the South Bucks Stasi put you off. They did the same with Marlow Chair.

    Most of the people have already made their mind up to vote yes before reading the details of the deal.

    They wanted to do the same with the last set of Americans and we never saw any details of that deal either in spite of the promises made by the Chairmen.

    If any clever techno posters are out their could somebody post a link titled:

    John Oliver explains how billions of taxpayers dollars are wasted on professional sports stadiums.

    It's worth watching...

    The Chairmen were keen to point out at the last meeting that a trust board directors is married to Karen Satterford, ex- CEO of Wycombe District Council, and that Mr. Couhig is already talking to the stadiums company that built Wembley.

    It's always about the land...

    As you can see with the training ground deal, nobody ever lost money underestimating the stupidity of other people.

    Obviously, Mr. Couhig met with owners of the training ground before he met members as they are the people who actually run the supporters-trust owned club.

  • Apologies for at least two typos above.

    Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

  • Can't help wondering if these particular nice carrots are sourced from Camberwell.....

    There is some controversy about funding stadia in the USA. Someone is married to someone who doesn't work for the local council and Mr Couhig once met (presumably) Ivor Beeks.

    I get the old adage about throw enough mud and some will stick but to be honest at the moment I don't even understand why this is supposed to be mud. Anyone any idea the suggested relevance of all this?

  • @NiceCarrots said:
    F.A.O. Wandering Jock

    Don't let the South Bucks Stasi put you off. They did the same with Marlow Chair.

    Never Surrender! Never Surrender! You cannot say anything on here or people will read it and comment like the fascist communists that they are. Fire! Fire! We need democratic debate but opposing views are those of Traitors!!!!! Don;t let them infect you @wandering_jock .

Sign In or Register to comment.