It could and probably should mean that there will be no proposal to dilute the quarter share on the night. It might not. Not very clear or well delivered.
An extension of that might be that either they will be selling a percentage or all of the ground, or coming up with something altogether different like a new bond scheme but it could really be anything.
I take a different view especially having reviewed the proposed new rules, this is very much saying to me, the legacy members of the trust agreed to reduce the stake below 50%+1, we failed (conveniently or through incompetence/oversight) to update the rules at that point & as such there is no requirement to put anything to an EGM or AGM as the Trust Board can effectively decide.
This would not be possible once the FSA model rules are adopted hence the haste to have a vote prior to the AGM.
Rob is a lawyer & business man, he therefore understands rules & governance & would fully understand if the trust Board had said, oh you are in the UK & want to present this to the members, that is great but as we are unable to provide enough notice per the rules etc. we cannot ask for a vote at that meeting but will table a motion for the an EGM to run immediately after the AGM; which gives members loads of time to fully understand your proposal. Not sure why this wasn't the decision they reached.
Here's the actual wording of the tweet by the Trust, to which @ReturnToSenda regers (for those unable to see it)
The Legacy Members had their vote in 2019 in accordance with Rule 49.2.2 on "the decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of shares in the Club that would result in the Trust’s shareholding being less than 50% +1"
Next Wednesday is not an EGM so no formal proposal.
The way this is being bounced through in such a way to make prior analysis and assessment of the proposal difficult. The excuse that the Rob Couhig can only attend a meeting on a certain date begs the question why the proposals weren't shared with members earlier? The proposal may have some merit, what have the WWT board got to lose by making these available in advance of the meeting?
So am I right in thinking that as the Trust constitution has not been amended since the vote to allow RC/Feliciana EFL Ltd to take a 75% share, that there is no longer any requirement to apply the following rule ?
"A Legacy Member resolution is one passed by not less than 75% of the Trust’s total number of Legacy Members".
Would Rob need to get some sort of approval from the Trust to sell his interest (or part thereof) to a bigger fish?
Alternatively the owner of Adams Park (Frank Adams Legacy Ltd?) could perhaps develop the ground via outside funding with naming rights, associated development etc.
I don't think he would need permission to sell, that would be potentially very restrictive and affect the resale price, but any new owner would need to agree the long term use of the ground with the trust. That gives them power the likes of Coventry didn't have.
Can't imagine naming rights for a L1 ground being worth much (and it was pretty divisive last time round), or much spin off development potential around the ground given its location.
This is the big factor really, raising large amounts of money would be very tricky without selling the ground as it's the only major asset.
It does seem odd to me to want to expand a ground that is rarely if ever full and to build a surely expensive road and maybe an expensive multi storey car park even if (as seems unlikely) planning approval can be obtained. It feels like the assumption is that there is huge pent up demand in HW to watch the club if only the access issues are improved. Not sure I see much evidence of that at least while the club is a Lg1 club so hard to see how the investment would earn a return.
Suggests all this is predicated on a return to the promised land of the Championship and achieving sufficient gates and income to be sustainable if we got there. Maybe it's just me but have to say it feels to me very unlikely, without the backing of a sugar daddy throwing money at the team, that Wycombe Wanderers will ever return to the Championship (look at the history of clubs of a similar size that did like us somehow get there once - Burton, Yeovil, Hereford) and even if we did achieving sustainability in the financial madhouse at that level just seems fanciful. Miracles do happen (and did for us n 2019/20) but investing serious money in the hope that lightning will strike twice seems weird to me.
Honestly I think I would prefer our club to recognise what we are and concentrate on trying to achieve sustainability at League 1 and league 2 level rather than chasing pipe dreams.
I do think that with better access and parking, we would see a not insignificant increase in attendances, but it would take many, many decades for it to pay off this sort of investment.
The access and parking issues do seem to be the major factors in deterring people from attending Adams Park, but as you say any solution is going to be very expensive to implement. Also, in reference to Dev’s point above, incredibly difficult though it is to win promotion back to the Championship, let’s not forget that we were 90 minutes away from doing just that only last season.
I must say I've always had a nasty feeling this was going to happen, promises of this and that and everything, now a couple of years down the line it's going to be "well if you don't give us the club we're not going to do it"
I should add I'm not completely anti it happening, I just think it leaves us as a club in a potentially more difficult spot in the future should it all go wrong. Just stinks a bit.
My heart very much dreams of a better terrace and "main" stand, better access/egress via a new road, bigger attendances, regular Championship football...
I may be horribly wide of the mark here, but it sounds like the decision has pretty much already been made and the vote is just to make sure they don't need to do a U-turn?
I do wonder how many people with young kids are put off - my little boy is four and I haven’t brought him along yet as I know either there’ll be a mile walk each way (not an issue for me but definitely for him) for street parking or we’ll have to wait 45 minutes after the game to get out, which will be late for getting him home for dinner.
If we could leave easily after the game I’d bring him along to most Sat home games.
Comments
It could and probably should mean that there will be no proposal to dilute the quarter share on the night. It might not. Not very clear or well delivered.
An extension of that might be that either they will be selling a percentage or all of the ground, or coming up with something altogether different like a new bond scheme but it could really be anything.
I take a different view especially having reviewed the proposed new rules, this is very much saying to me, the legacy members of the trust agreed to reduce the stake below 50%+1, we failed (conveniently or through incompetence/oversight) to update the rules at that point & as such there is no requirement to put anything to an EGM or AGM as the Trust Board can effectively decide.
This would not be possible once the FSA model rules are adopted hence the haste to have a vote prior to the AGM.
Rob is a lawyer & business man, he therefore understands rules & governance & would fully understand if the trust Board had said, oh you are in the UK & want to present this to the members, that is great but as we are unable to provide enough notice per the rules etc. we cannot ask for a vote at that meeting but will table a motion for the an EGM to run immediately after the AGM; which gives members loads of time to fully understand your proposal. Not sure why this wasn't the decision they reached.
Thanks for the reply @AlanCecil
This is balls, sorry, my mistake, they are talking about 51% not 25%.
The idea that "our" trust board can do what they like without consulting members now is borderline offensive.
Here's the actual wording of the tweet by the Trust, to which @ReturnToSenda regers (for those unable to see it)
The Legacy Members had their vote in 2019 in accordance with Rule 49.2.2 on "the decision to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of shares in the Club that would result in the Trust’s shareholding being less than 50% +1"
Next Wednesday is not an EGM so no formal proposal.
So next weeks meeting isn’t an EGM but it sounds like we don’t need an EGM.
Any vote will be an indication of support rather than a binding decision.
The way this is being bounced through in such a way to make prior analysis and assessment of the proposal difficult. The excuse that the Rob Couhig can only attend a meeting on a certain date begs the question why the proposals weren't shared with members earlier? The proposal may have some merit, what have the WWT board got to lose by making these available in advance of the meeting?
A positive vote will no doubt be taken as a green light, you would imagine the odds of it not being a fait accompli are rather long.
This really deserves more thumbs up.
A strange time ahead me thinks. I'll believe we have planning permission for that road when I see it in writing.
So am I right in thinking that as the Trust constitution has not been amended since the vote to allow RC/Feliciana EFL Ltd to take a 75% share, that there is no longer any requirement to apply the following rule ?
"A Legacy Member resolution is one passed by not less than 75% of the Trust’s total number of Legacy Members".
Would Rob need to get some sort of approval from the Trust to sell his interest (or part thereof) to a bigger fish?
Alternatively the owner of Adams Park (Frank Adams Legacy Ltd?) could perhaps develop the ground via outside funding with naming rights, associated development etc.
Also, of course, The Trust has done no such thing; the Board may have.
I don't think he would need permission to sell, that would be potentially very restrictive and affect the resale price, but any new owner would need to agree the long term use of the ground with the trust. That gives them power the likes of Coventry didn't have.
Can't imagine naming rights for a L1 ground being worth much (and it was pretty divisive last time round), or much spin off development potential around the ground given its location.
This is the big factor really, raising large amounts of money would be very tricky without selling the ground as it's the only major asset.
Frank Adams Legacy Company selling the naming rights to Adams Park? I dare say you remember how deeply unpopular that was last time...
'The Mardi Gras Megadome @ Adams Park'?
Sorry, boring question, but any other Trust members not even get the email?
Could build a fireworks factory in the car park!
It does seem odd to me to want to expand a ground that is rarely if ever full and to build a surely expensive road and maybe an expensive multi storey car park even if (as seems unlikely) planning approval can be obtained. It feels like the assumption is that there is huge pent up demand in HW to watch the club if only the access issues are improved. Not sure I see much evidence of that at least while the club is a Lg1 club so hard to see how the investment would earn a return.
Suggests all this is predicated on a return to the promised land of the Championship and achieving sufficient gates and income to be sustainable if we got there. Maybe it's just me but have to say it feels to me very unlikely, without the backing of a sugar daddy throwing money at the team, that Wycombe Wanderers will ever return to the Championship (look at the history of clubs of a similar size that did like us somehow get there once - Burton, Yeovil, Hereford) and even if we did achieving sustainability in the financial madhouse at that level just seems fanciful. Miracles do happen (and did for us n 2019/20) but investing serious money in the hope that lightning will strike twice seems weird to me.
Honestly I think I would prefer our club to recognise what we are and concentrate on trying to achieve sustainability at League 1 and league 2 level rather than chasing pipe dreams.
Firstly thank you to everyone who has posted and with a better knowledge of the Trust rules than myself.
As there is a home game this weekend why do the Trust not have a table to answer the points raised before the meeting
Secrecy unfortunately creates mistrust and as we know from previous experience can be well founded.
I do think that with better access and parking, we would see a not insignificant increase in attendances, but it would take many, many decades for it to pay off this sort of investment.
What about if it's all about gaining planning permission ? With the Couhigs potentially owning all the assets.
Developing adjacent land for houses, business units,etc, or revisiting a new Stadium at Booker or Little Marlow.
Why was Sharky Hayes given VIP treatment and paraded on the pitch at Man City last season ?
Why was there an attempt for ringing the blues to have a phone in and potentially a propaganda slot for Mr Hayes.
Is it true he acquired land near to Booker Airport and still owns that land ?
The access and parking issues do seem to be the major factors in deterring people from attending Adams Park, but as you say any solution is going to be very expensive to implement. Also, in reference to Dev’s point above, incredibly difficult though it is to win promotion back to the Championship, let’s not forget that we were 90 minutes away from doing just that only last season.
MAGAdome when you consider the owner's politics.
I must say I've always had a nasty feeling this was going to happen, promises of this and that and everything, now a couple of years down the line it's going to be "well if you don't give us the club we're not going to do it"
I should add I'm not completely anti it happening, I just think it leaves us as a club in a potentially more difficult spot in the future should it all go wrong. Just stinks a bit.
My heart very much dreams of a better terrace and "main" stand, better access/egress via a new road, bigger attendances, regular Championship football...
But my head seems very similar to @DevC
With Uncle Ivor involved in the scheme!
I may be horribly wide of the mark here, but it sounds like the decision has pretty much already been made and the vote is just to make sure they don't need to do a U-turn?
@ReturnToSenda I don't think there needs to be a vote at all, but if there is one it will be supportive
The vote is so they can say we voted for it.
It's investment, other options are distant, it will pass with a huge majority regardless of content unless they really deliver it badly.
Even if there is a vote it will be 90% plus in favour of whatever they propose
I do wonder how many people with young kids are put off - my little boy is four and I haven’t brought him along yet as I know either there’ll be a mile walk each way (not an issue for me but definitely for him) for street parking or we’ll have to wait 45 minutes after the game to get out, which will be late for getting him home for dinner.
If we could leave easily after the game I’d bring him along to most Sat home games.