More chance of 15000 supporters a week and a place in Europe than that one. Wiping your cold wet hands on your coat is a football tradition I’m not willing to give up.
Yes - most American cities have a bunch of suburbs that "don't count" against the official population of the city, so metro area is normally a better gage of city size, as it all flows together. I live in metro Denver but have never lived a day in actual Denver!
I’m looking forward to seeing what all this is about. And then being part of a process that allows us, the custodians of the club, to make the right decision.
I have a lot of time for Rob and his family. He has been great since day 1. But my judgement will not be about Rob it’s about the next person who steps in. Rob might be an honest broker the next one might be an utter cnut. And that is what the current system was set up to protect against.
I admire your optimism regarding us being part of the decision making process #TheAndyGrahamFanClub.
My understanding of the current situation (I'm more than happy to be proved wrong) is that we (the Trust Members enmasse) gave up our rights to any say in the decision as to what % share of the club we retain control of when we voted in favour of allowing RC/Feliciana EFL Ltd to take a 75% stake.
The enshrined rule "any 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" seems to have been a Use once then lose it option.
This rule enforced the requirement for a Legacy Member vote when we voted last time:-
A Legacy Member resolution is one passed by not less than 75% of the Trust’s total number of Legacy Members. Â
As this rule is apparently no longer enforceable, then, as an Ordinary Resolution, the vote on the 9th November will only require a straightforward majority of those voting on the night.
If I have my facts correct this raises a question.
At the time of the vote to allow the change to our % share of the club, were we told that the rule governing this would then vanish and not be replaced by a revised rule?
If not, then why? I assume it had to be for one of the following reasons:-
i]. It is this laid down in the MODEL RULES FOR AÂ SPORTS CLUB COMMUNITY MUTUAL that this has to be the process?
ii]. Was it not realised by any of those (of either party) directly involved at the time?
My belief though is that in order for the Trust to maintain its 25% stake in the football they (we) need to match 25/75% any investment from RC.
Failure to do so will see the Trusts stake in the football club diluted. There's no vote needed for that to happen, it's what's already been voted for!
Brief interview with Rob on Wycombe Sound , no details but brunt of it being that we are competing with lots of clubs with 15/20k bums on seats each week and vastly different budgets, wants to bridge the gap, increase income, fit out more important than expansion, ownership structure and stadium ownership to be revisited, aware of concerns, Pete unable to bring family over so spending more time in US, Rob been at work over there, not exit plan, building on work so far.
In that short video Rob makes a sound point about the revenue disparity with ‘bigger’ clubs as part of the argument for infrastructure development. However, he undermines his premise by dismissing the role of history in determining a club’s scale of support. This either demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the role the game plays in English society, or because, as evidence, it doesn’t help support his case (with his legal skills I suggest it is more likely the latter).
Attendance / support / fandom over here is ALL about history.
A resulting concern is that the ‘funding of infrastructure agenda’ (and by implication The Trust’s inability to keep up their contracted contribution) may be tactical rather than strategic. That is to say primarily a mechanism to wrestle fuller ownership.
The league and non league is full of clubs of rolled the dice to have a go at reaching the promised land (whatever that is to them). Sometimes financed by a sociopath sometimes by debt mountains. Even those clubs who made it subsequently failed as their dreams weren’t sustainable.
It might seem defeatist but sometimes you just need to know your limit and be at peace with that. For some of us we are in the promised land. Just because someone who had never heard of our little club til 4 years ago thinks differently doesn’t mean that they are right.
I think we need to be very careful and realise that establishing Wycombe as a Championship side is not impossible whilst not having that as the only way the club can survive in a sustainable fashion
That is spot on, and this is no slight on the comment or any ultimate decision (should we even get input) about a proposal we haven't seen yet, but we shouldn't pretend 4 years ago all was well, despite cutting the cloth in every conceivable way we were losing money at a rate that we couldn't service and kept being told we weren't far off bankruptcy. Austerity is all good until everything starts to fall apart and you've got nothing left to sell. People are rightly having a go at the current team, but they seem to want improvements there and around the ground, albeit maybe repairs, not at the scale that wil be suggested.
I certainly get the appearance that when we didn't have a pot to piss in it looked like everyone was working harder, we were unearthing gems and fighting for every ball. Not sure you can keep that going forever.
Hopefully this is an in-between motion anyway, if the proposal this week was to borrow £50m for a 30,000 seater stadium that would clearly be rubbish.
I listened to the interview on WWTV with interest.
I get where RC is coming from & understand his desire to align the ownership model with his investment & his aspirations, I am less sure that this aligns with the interests of Trust members.
As for the ground as I haven't seen the lease I am struggling a little but assume that it was leased to the football club by FALL on a standard commercial full repairing basis, so repairs & maintenance are the responsibility of the tenant. Therefore it is reasonable for us to expect RC's company to undertake alll necessary repairs & maintenance on a timely basis (toilets, roof etc.) before we start to discuss how improvements are funded, if they need to be... with an average gate in the low 6,000s I see little or no need to make any enhancements or increase capacity at this stage, if we were selling out our licenced capacity each home game then that is a different conversation.
There are many ways the Trust/FALL can raise funds including expanding usage of the stadium & its environs to non-footballing events especially during the close season, they should also be talking to the FSA, local authority & others to explore grant funding for enhancements, especially those that increase the utility of the site for non-footballing related activities.
I do wonder how much research has been undertaken when statements about what is the barrier to bigger crowds are made.
Top of any current list I would suggest is price. Other issues such as toilets, quality of football, catering, parking and commitment then play a part after that. But let’s face it taking a kid to football will set you back a bare minimum of fifty quid. Then if you want to eat, park and travel any distance another fifty on that.
You can build all the access roads you like but an expensive mediocre experience will not have them flocking in.
It's a funny old game in that most football clubs in the UK are really community centres with some blokes kicking a ball about but the nature of competitive sport and a very large league system allows them to dream of becoming international billionaire owned PLCs.
I'd say League One is the sweet spot between community centre and big business, which is why we have American lawyers swimming around wanting to increase revenue while quite a few fans on here just want real ale at a reasonable price.
I'd take the latter, not just because I'm a functional alcoholic, but because I'd be happier going to a ground (that somebody once said looked like it should be in The Hobbit) with a good cup run over the glam of the higher leagues and all the bile that goes with it. I understand the paradox, if you don't want to win every game then why bother supporting a team? And the answer is another paradox, I want to win every game and nothing to change from how it is now.
Give me the product on the pitch, (interspersed with some lows, more highs) and I will put up with all the crap that maybe residents of the USA won't. When you lived through the stadiums as a supporter during the late 60s through to the mid 90s, Adams Park is a dream. I'm not overly bothered by the odours from the loos etc, I am bothered by the turgid rubbish that I have witnessed over the last four home games.
"When I were a lad, we used to live int paper bag at the bottom of canal & me dad used to beat me wi a broken bottle every day"!
Back in the 80s when we wanted a pop at the Conference but subsequently got spanked by the big boys, we really needed @TheAndyGrahamFanClub to have told us then to be at peace with our Isthmian League status...
At least we’d be having genuine derbies, and would be able to join the FA Cup earlier...
Comments
🤣
Couldn't agree more, some of the speculation on here and other social media has no basis whatsoever.
More chance of 15000 supporters a week and a place in Europe than that one. Wiping your cold wet hands on your coat is a football tradition I’m not willing to give up.
Right up there with that sinking feeling in the gents on a cold day when the steam off the pee of someone next to you starts enveloping your face.
Agreed. New Orleans has no history as world famous in the pottery industry and were not founder members of The Football League.
I know take down the dispensers and put up a picture of the back of a pair of trousers with dry your hands here written underneath.
Yes - most American cities have a bunch of suburbs that "don't count" against the official population of the city, so metro area is normally a better gage of city size, as it all flows together. I live in metro Denver but have never lived a day in actual Denver!
I’ve been using the Gasroom for nearly twenty years and someone comparing New Orleans to Stoke-on-Trent is absolutely my favourite thing ever
"It's Mardi Gras, with Ryan Shawcross!"
I’m looking forward to seeing what all this is about. And then being part of a process that allows us, the custodians of the club, to make the right decision.
I have a lot of time for Rob and his family. He has been great since day 1. But my judgement will not be about Rob it’s about the next person who steps in. Rob might be an honest broker the next one might be an utter cnut. And that is what the current system was set up to protect against.
True, Stoke is much more like Baltimore in The Wire.
I bet even New Orleans’ Republicans are to the left of dismal Stoke MP, Jonathan Gullis.
I admire your optimism regarding us being part of the decision making process #TheAndyGrahamFanClub.
My understanding of the current situation (I'm more than happy to be proved wrong) is that we (the Trust Members enmasse) gave up our rights to any say in the decision as to what % share of the club we retain control of when we voted in favour of allowing RC/Feliciana EFL Ltd to take a 75% stake.
The enshrined rule "any 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" seems to have been a Use once then lose it option.
This rule enforced the requirement for a Legacy Member vote when we voted last time:-
A Legacy Member resolution is one passed by not less than 75% of the Trust’s total number of Legacy Members. Â
As this rule is apparently no longer enforceable, then, as an Ordinary Resolution, the vote on the 9th November will only require a straightforward majority of those voting on the night.
If I have my facts correct this raises a question.
At the time of the vote to allow the change to our % share of the club, were we told that the rule governing this would then vanish and not be replaced by a revised rule?
If not, then why? I assume it had to be for one of the following reasons:-
i]. It is this laid down in the MODEL RULES FOR AÂ SPORTS CLUB COMMUNITY MUTUAL that this has to be the process?
ii]. Was it not realised by any of those (of either party) directly involved at the time?
iii]. Was it deliberately withheld from us?
My belief though is that in order for the Trust to maintain its 25% stake in the football they (we) need to match 25/75% any investment from RC.
Failure to do so will see the Trusts stake in the football club diluted. There's no vote needed for that to happen, it's what's already been voted for!
These situations are why we elect a Trust board. I, for one, should have paid much more attention to that process.
Brief interview with Rob on Wycombe Sound , no details but brunt of it being that we are competing with lots of clubs with 15/20k bums on seats each week and vastly different budgets, wants to bridge the gap, increase income, fit out more important than expansion, ownership structure and stadium ownership to be revisited, aware of concerns, Pete unable to bring family over so spending more time in US, Rob been at work over there, not exit plan, building on work so far.
Thanks for passing this on.
Another point on the exit plan, he seemed to allude to passing the club on to Pete at some stage. He just said Pete was his exit plan.
It was a frank discussion and the message is basically wait and hear what he has to say.
In that short video Rob makes a sound point about the revenue disparity with ‘bigger’ clubs as part of the argument for infrastructure development. However, he undermines his premise by dismissing the role of history in determining a club’s scale of support. This either demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the role the game plays in English society, or because, as evidence, it doesn’t help support his case (with his legal skills I suggest it is more likely the latter).
Attendance / support / fandom over here is ALL about history.
A resulting concern is that the ‘funding of infrastructure agenda’ (and by implication The Trust’s inability to keep up their contracted contribution) may be tactical rather than strategic. That is to say primarily a mechanism to wrestle fuller ownership.
I hope this is wrong. We will see.
It's just been uploaded on to our website if you missed it
https://wycombesound.org.uk/wycombe-wanderers-chairman-rob-couhig-pre-walsall/
The league and non league is full of clubs of rolled the dice to have a go at reaching the promised land (whatever that is to them). Sometimes financed by a sociopath sometimes by debt mountains. Even those clubs who made it subsequently failed as their dreams weren’t sustainable.
It might seem defeatist but sometimes you just need to know your limit and be at peace with that. For some of us we are in the promised land. Just because someone who had never heard of our little club til 4 years ago thinks differently doesn’t mean that they are right.
Just saying.
I think we need to be very careful and realise that establishing Wycombe as a Championship side is not impossible whilst not having that as the only way the club can survive in a sustainable fashion
That is spot on, and this is no slight on the comment or any ultimate decision (should we even get input) about a proposal we haven't seen yet, but we shouldn't pretend 4 years ago all was well, despite cutting the cloth in every conceivable way we were losing money at a rate that we couldn't service and kept being told we weren't far off bankruptcy. Austerity is all good until everything starts to fall apart and you've got nothing left to sell. People are rightly having a go at the current team, but they seem to want improvements there and around the ground, albeit maybe repairs, not at the scale that wil be suggested.
I certainly get the appearance that when we didn't have a pot to piss in it looked like everyone was working harder, we were unearthing gems and fighting for every ball. Not sure you can keep that going forever.
Hopefully this is an in-between motion anyway, if the proposal this week was to borrow £50m for a 30,000 seater stadium that would clearly be rubbish.
I listened to the interview on WWTV with interest.
I get where RC is coming from & understand his desire to align the ownership model with his investment & his aspirations, I am less sure that this aligns with the interests of Trust members.
As for the ground as I haven't seen the lease I am struggling a little but assume that it was leased to the football club by FALL on a standard commercial full repairing basis, so repairs & maintenance are the responsibility of the tenant. Therefore it is reasonable for us to expect RC's company to undertake alll necessary repairs & maintenance on a timely basis (toilets, roof etc.) before we start to discuss how improvements are funded, if they need to be... with an average gate in the low 6,000s I see little or no need to make any enhancements or increase capacity at this stage, if we were selling out our licenced capacity each home game then that is a different conversation.
There are many ways the Trust/FALL can raise funds including expanding usage of the stadium & its environs to non-footballing events especially during the close season, they should also be talking to the FSA, local authority & others to explore grant funding for enhancements, especially those that increase the utility of the site for non-footballing related activities.
All this talk about a new access road to the ground completely ignores the fact that we'll be using flying cars in a few years time.
Though I suppose this brings a whole new set of problems that I haven't thought of.
I do wonder how much research has been undertaken when statements about what is the barrier to bigger crowds are made.
Top of any current list I would suggest is price. Other issues such as toilets, quality of football, catering, parking and commitment then play a part after that. But let’s face it taking a kid to football will set you back a bare minimum of fifty quid. Then if you want to eat, park and travel any distance another fifty on that.
You can build all the access roads you like but an expensive mediocre experience will not have them flocking in.
Thank you #TheAndyGrahamFanClub for your words of reason. "Sometimes you just need to know your limit and be at peace with that".
Maybe if we adopt that as a motto and/or mantra we could still have a club in another 125 yrs
I feel a tattoo coming on, the swan in chains with that written underneath.
It's a funny old game in that most football clubs in the UK are really community centres with some blokes kicking a ball about but the nature of competitive sport and a very large league system allows them to dream of becoming international billionaire owned PLCs.
I'd say League One is the sweet spot between community centre and big business, which is why we have American lawyers swimming around wanting to increase revenue while quite a few fans on here just want real ale at a reasonable price.
I'd take the latter, not just because I'm a functional alcoholic, but because I'd be happier going to a ground (that somebody once said looked like it should be in The Hobbit) with a good cup run over the glam of the higher leagues and all the bile that goes with it. I understand the paradox, if you don't want to win every game then why bother supporting a team? And the answer is another paradox, I want to win every game and nothing to change from how it is now.
Give me the product on the pitch, (interspersed with some lows, more highs) and I will put up with all the crap that maybe residents of the USA won't. When you lived through the stadiums as a supporter during the late 60s through to the mid 90s, Adams Park is a dream. I'm not overly bothered by the odours from the loos etc, I am bothered by the turgid rubbish that I have witnessed over the last four home games.
"When I were a lad, we used to live int paper bag at the bottom of canal & me dad used to beat me wi a broken bottle every day"!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE
Back in the 80s when we wanted a pop at the Conference but subsequently got spanked by the big boys, we really needed @TheAndyGrahamFanClub to have told us then to be at peace with our Isthmian League status...
At least we’d be having genuine derbies, and would be able to join the FA Cup earlier...
The quality of the football would be better too.