No issue with this in principle, but I don't like this bit..
"The proposals detailed in that meeting will be put to a members vote at the end of the meeting, to ensure that we have your backing for the future plan"
Either the details should be made accessible prior, or members should have a chance to properly digest the proposal before voting.
Slightly disappointing that it appears we will hear first time at the meeting the new plans and then have to vote. I assume the Trust board have already approved the changes to the structure before informing the membership. Have to say that it was only a question of time before the Couhigs wanted greater control. The Trust cannot raise the necessary cash for us to move forward as a club, so the changes to the structure . I want the club to move forward , so this is good news.
I’d always assumed that, if not the plan, it had to be in their thinking. How the Trust could ever find a quarter of any large investment was a mystery to me. I’m expecting a carrot to be dangled in the meeting, a promise of more funds to pay for these expansion plans in return for what? The end of the Trust?
What I don’t understand is, without the Couhig’s owning the ground, how do they make a return on investment? The plans they suggest don’t sound cheap and even with us in the Championship I don’t understand how they will make a profit that will come close to the expenditure on a building they don’t own. Perhaps the profit would be in selling on to a new owner but is buying a club that is in effect a tenant of FALL ever going to be that attractive?
I hope I’m way off but I can’t help thinking the pitch will be give us it all or we’re done .
Yes, initially the Trust may offer to pay 25% of any costs for stadium improvement. But, as the trust owns 100% of the stadium, the response may come, “should the trust not contribute 100% of the costs of any improvements as it is the trust who benefits 100% from any uplift in value of the stadium?”
I assume that the football club either contributes to annual ground maintenance or pays rent to the trust, out of which the trust would pay for annual maintenance. It would depend upon the type of lease the trust put in place with its tenant, the football club.
That leaves Rob and the trust another option for funding ground improvements. Rob’s company could lend the trust the money for improvements to the ground that it owns. And probably at a commercial interest rate.
Hybrid solutions could be found, Rob’s company taking a share of the stadium would be one example.
At root I would think the trust would struggle to fund 25% of ground improvements.
And I am a long time (realistic) and wholly committed trust member.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why would a proposal to take 100% ownership have to go to a vote when the Couhigs already have a controlling stake?
The road sounded a pipe dream a while back, but it must be decently progressed to mention it again.
Similarly the comment about parking - maybe they're thinking of some sort of multistorey car park on the lower part? That could double capacity or more.
Plus building up the terrace and adding new hospitality areas in the main stand?
This all sounds like it'll cost millions doesn't it?!
Plus your point on attendance is spot on. How many times have we filled say 90% of the ground in the last 5 years?
But how many times would we have filled it in the championship? That's the big question, and likely to be "a lot more".
Think this was inevitable from the outset once Rob came in. Ultimately it comes down to us having ambition to move to a higher level and accepting there’s a risk involved.
I suppose with a nice ground comes more intrigued supporters. Sounds encouraging as long as they leave us in a good state in the long run. I HATE the idea of having one of these stadiums that has no character. I really hope we build a Brentford/Bradford type stand where the 2 tiers are on top of each other! I loved those grounds!
Assuming that the plan is to build all the way up to the bank, meaning there would need to be some sort of walk way through to the Frank Adams incorporated?
Unless there's an idea we can build a bit into the bank?
I’m just hoping any development plans include an Influencer Zone, with hot tubs, selfie-sticks and a prosecco bar on that raised patio between the woodlands and the valley.
Lets get the beautiful people down to AP for sexy times, big spending and total football.
Loosely you'd be expected to have to buy out minority shareholders at some kind of market rate if you wanted the whole pie, not just tell them to clear off.
The Trust also has rules and has made pledges, we are paid up members, we have been encouraged to join up and contribute to various initiatives all in order to "protect the quarter"
There has to be some consideration too for contracts, if it is an increased holding or stadium ownership they want they'd be expected to pay for that in some way. That could be outright or through increased investment but it should really be guaranteed and costed. I.e. We want the stadium ownership and we'll commit to spend £x over the next few years in return. That way you can judge wether it actually happens.
Sharky for example said don't worry if we overspend and that he needed 100% for security as he wouldn't commit to spending lots more money without control and then have us interfere with his master plan or vote to oust him and he'd be left with nothing, in the end he only loaned money and wanted lots of it back despite the condition he left us in.
I'd like to hope they show how they have increased the income in a range of areas as a result of their investment and how allowing them leeway to invest further in a way they are comfortable with will benefit the club overall.
He could but if the club was sold at some point the trust stake would be valued at a certain level based on the overall value, as would the stadium, in theory Rob could spend £10m doing up the ground and the trust could sell it off without paying him a penny.
" Wycombe Wanderers Supporters Group Limited (operating as Wycombe Wanderers Trust) have reached an agreement with Rob Couhig, chairman and chief executive of Wycombe Wanderers Football Club and principal owner of Feliciana EFL Ltd".
How can the Trust have "reached an agreement'' without consulting it's members?
This is raising all sorts of alarm bells for me. Promises of a new road, and two new / heavily rebuilt stands? This is going to cost millions, and where exactly is that going to come from? And who is suddenly going to start coming to games as a consequence who isn't coming at the moment?
The EFLs cack handed approach to ffp means you have to raise overall income to be able to increase player spending, even if that means increasing outgoings, crazy really.
Of course the members can vote against it, if they did I would expect the current board would have to review their positions if their recommendation was acceptance.
I suspect @davecz that you are right regarding the current board's position, but without reading & fully understanding the immediate & longer term implications for the Trust, Club & supporters I would be loath to blindly take this sort of thing on someone elses say so. I am uncomfortable with the implied urgency for a vote on these proposals without understanding the need for urgency & why it cannot wait 2 weeks for the AGM & the adoption of the rules ensuring we comply with the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. (Would that make it harder for this to be pushed through?)
Anyway let us see what Rob & the Trust have to say & what the advice of their silver tongued friends is before we judge.
This has been the real problem of the trust. Is run by the old boys and not business men. The trust should also be raising serious income, not just relying on a sale of a raffle ticket or raffle for a signed shirt. I’ve tried suggesting fund raising ideas in the past but seems to fall on death ears as I’m not sure they want to try different
Comments
I am a trust member and I will attend (or zoom) the meeting , listen to the proposal and vote accordingly.
I also appreciate that the Q and A is usually after the presentation so as many questions as I definitely have I'm happy to wait.
Likewise
True, but I was worried they were not even aiming to keep it!
To me it seems as though the subtext is that the Trust can't up with their 25% of the plough. All likely part of the initial plan, of course.
Hopefully Rob will provide the meeting with details of the Club's current financial state including accounts.
No issue with this in principle, but I don't like this bit..
"The proposals detailed in that meeting will be put to a members vote at the end of the meeting, to ensure that we have your backing for the future plan"
Either the details should be made accessible prior, or members should have a chance to properly digest the proposal before voting.
Slightly disappointing that it appears we will hear first time at the meeting the new plans and then have to vote. I assume the Trust board have already approved the changes to the structure before informing the membership. Have to say that it was only a question of time before the Couhigs wanted greater control. The Trust cannot raise the necessary cash for us to move forward as a club, so the changes to the structure . I want the club to move forward , so this is good news.
But if something needed doing to the ground couldn't he just fund it and not have it affect the ownership structure?
I’d always assumed that, if not the plan, it had to be in their thinking. How the Trust could ever find a quarter of any large investment was a mystery to me. I’m expecting a carrot to be dangled in the meeting, a promise of more funds to pay for these expansion plans in return for what? The end of the Trust?
What I don’t understand is, without the Couhig’s owning the ground, how do they make a return on investment? The plans they suggest don’t sound cheap and even with us in the Championship I don’t understand how they will make a profit that will come close to the expenditure on a building they don’t own. Perhaps the profit would be in selling on to a new owner but is buying a club that is in effect a tenant of FALL ever going to be that attractive?
I hope I’m way off but I can’t help thinking the pitch will be give us it all or we’re done .
Good to have a proper union man on here.
Yes, initially the Trust may offer to pay 25% of any costs for stadium improvement. But, as the trust owns 100% of the stadium, the response may come, “should the trust not contribute 100% of the costs of any improvements as it is the trust who benefits 100% from any uplift in value of the stadium?”
I assume that the football club either contributes to annual ground maintenance or pays rent to the trust, out of which the trust would pay for annual maintenance. It would depend upon the type of lease the trust put in place with its tenant, the football club.
That leaves Rob and the trust another option for funding ground improvements. Rob’s company could lend the trust the money for improvements to the ground that it owns. And probably at a commercial interest rate.
Hybrid solutions could be found, Rob’s company taking a share of the stadium would be one example.
At root I would think the trust would struggle to fund 25% of ground improvements.
And I am a long time (realistic) and wholly committed trust member.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why would a proposal to take 100% ownership have to go to a vote when the Couhigs already have a controlling stake?
It's all very well investing on infrastructure and increasing the capacity of the stadium - but surely we have to fill the stadium first?
A new road isn't going to attract new fans.
What if the trust give up their share and planning gets rejected? Or has planning already been approved?
The whole thing is intriguing.
The road sounded a pipe dream a while back, but it must be decently progressed to mention it again.
Similarly the comment about parking - maybe they're thinking of some sort of multistorey car park on the lower part? That could double capacity or more.
Plus building up the terrace and adding new hospitality areas in the main stand?
This all sounds like it'll cost millions doesn't it?!
Plus your point on attendance is spot on. How many times have we filled say 90% of the ground in the last 5 years?
But how many times would we have filled it in the championship? That's the big question, and likely to be "a lot more".
Think this was inevitable from the outset once Rob came in. Ultimately it comes down to us having ambition to move to a higher level and accepting there’s a risk involved.
Can the Trust membership vote against it. My sense the Trust board have already approved it.
I suppose with a nice ground comes more intrigued supporters. Sounds encouraging as long as they leave us in a good state in the long run. I HATE the idea of having one of these stadiums that has no character. I really hope we build a Brentford/Bradford type stand where the 2 tiers are on top of each other! I loved those grounds!
Assuming that the plan is to build all the way up to the bank, meaning there would need to be some sort of walk way through to the Frank Adams incorporated?
Unless there's an idea we can build a bit into the bank?
I’m just hoping any development plans include an Influencer Zone, with hot tubs, selfie-sticks and a prosecco bar on that raised patio between the woodlands and the valley.
Lets get the beautiful people down to AP for sexy times, big spending and total football.
Loosely you'd be expected to have to buy out minority shareholders at some kind of market rate if you wanted the whole pie, not just tell them to clear off.
The Trust also has rules and has made pledges, we are paid up members, we have been encouraged to join up and contribute to various initiatives all in order to "protect the quarter"
There has to be some consideration too for contracts, if it is an increased holding or stadium ownership they want they'd be expected to pay for that in some way. That could be outright or through increased investment but it should really be guaranteed and costed. I.e. We want the stadium ownership and we'll commit to spend £x over the next few years in return. That way you can judge wether it actually happens.
Sharky for example said don't worry if we overspend and that he needed 100% for security as he wouldn't commit to spending lots more money without control and then have us interfere with his master plan or vote to oust him and he'd be left with nothing, in the end he only loaned money and wanted lots of it back despite the condition he left us in.
I'd like to hope they show how they have increased the income in a range of areas as a result of their investment and how allowing them leeway to invest further in a way they are comfortable with will benefit the club overall.
Or with a walkway that runs underneath the stand...
He could but if the club was sold at some point the trust stake would be valued at a certain level based on the overall value, as would the stadium, in theory Rob could spend £10m doing up the ground and the trust could sell it off without paying him a penny.
The statement says:
" Wycombe Wanderers Supporters Group Limited (operating as Wycombe Wanderers Trust) have reached an agreement with Rob Couhig, chairman and chief executive of Wycombe Wanderers Football Club and principal owner of Feliciana EFL Ltd".
How can the Trust have "reached an agreement'' without consulting it's members?
This is raising all sorts of alarm bells for me. Promises of a new road, and two new / heavily rebuilt stands? This is going to cost millions, and where exactly is that going to come from? And who is suddenly going to start coming to games as a consequence who isn't coming at the moment?
The EFLs cack handed approach to ffp means you have to raise overall income to be able to increase player spending, even if that means increasing outgoings, crazy really.
Don't forget the executive cheese room
Of course the members can vote against it, if they did I would expect the current board would have to review their positions if their recommendation was acceptance.
I suspect @davecz that you are right regarding the current board's position, but without reading & fully understanding the immediate & longer term implications for the Trust, Club & supporters I would be loath to blindly take this sort of thing on someone elses say so. I am uncomfortable with the implied urgency for a vote on these proposals without understanding the need for urgency & why it cannot wait 2 weeks for the AGM & the adoption of the rules ensuring we comply with the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. (Would that make it harder for this to be pushed through?)
Anyway let us see what Rob & the Trust have to say & what the advice of their silver tongued friends is before we judge.
This has been the real problem of the trust. Is run by the old boys and not business men. The trust should also be raising serious income, not just relying on a sale of a raffle ticket or raffle for a signed shirt. I’ve tried suggesting fund raising ideas in the past but seems to fall on death ears as I’m not sure they want to try different
Can anyone make sense of this? https://twitter.com/wwtrust/status/1588281152590135296?t=BQt3QWYrmdO5Bbt8jmXAzA&s=19