Surely any ability to generate extra income is the life blood of the club. Personally being inconvenienced for 2 or 3 games is hardly a hardship. Cannot see what the problem is.
If RC wants to change the current situation, any decisions about AP, shares in the club etc has to be put to the legacy members for a proper vote with information given in writing so people can make an informed decision not just a quick meeting that many cannot attend, zoom meeting and a vote before anyone can properly process the info is not acceptable
I'm in that place at the moment so make no apologies for being Donny Downer. I have that feeling in my stomach that tomorrow is going to have an announcement similar to when the trust sold the Matt Phillips (?) sell on fee a couple of weeks before he went onto be sold for a sh1t load more.
With ownership of AP yes a legacy members’ vote would be required. The fact a vote hasn’t been announced at this stage make me think the ground isn’t on the table as part of this proposal.
As for shares, the legacy member vote was for selling a controlling stake in the club, we voted in favour of that a few years ago. A further vote on dilution of the trust’s existing shareholding is not required.
The risk is that although todays fans may not go anywhere, tomorrows fans may not go today. They might end up discovering they can watch Watford at the top of the championship for £26 in their top tier on the side of the pitch rather than our £28 equivalent seat.
Firstly, who owns Adams Park. Currently, it's my understanding, that it's Frank Adams Legacy Limited (FALL) which is separate to the Trust and has no source of income other than money paid by the football club for rent. However FALL is responsible for not only AP but also the training ground - see here https://wycombewandererstrust.com/2012/07/the-frank-adams-legacy-board-is-announced. I'm not sure whether that makes them financially responsible for the maintainance of those facilities, but if the football club is short of cash and struggling to pay them then FALL has no money to cover those costs. Others have speculated on the football club finances and, if my total guess is true, could lead to FALL considering relinquishing some elements of ownership of AP. Personally that's something which shouldn't be allowed to happen. Retaining control over AP has been the bedrock of the Trust and without it the Trust means nothing.
Secondly, who own the football club - currently that's 75% the Couhigs and 25% the Trust. But if the Trust don't match any investment from the Couhigs with an amount equal to 25% of the total investment that percentage goes down. This doesn't require any vote it will just happen. So if so the football club put out a call for investment and issue new shares, then the Trust has to buy 25% of those shares or they'll own a smaller percentage of the football club. This is what the Trust members voted away when we sold 75% to the Couhigs. I believe the Trust has 2 seats in the football club board and retaining those seats is a function of maintaining a certain percentage share (12.5% rings a bell but I don't really know).
It wouldn't surprise me tomorrow if we hear a suggestion to vary this operating model (since that's what the call to the meeting has said). By which I mean the Couhigs will allow the Trust to maintain seats on the board even if they don't match investment but that this will come at the expense of FALL giving up some level of ownership of AP.
FALL essentially will have failed in its mission to secure Adams Park if it relinquishes ownership of the ground. If it is transferred to WWFC, it leaves it at the whim of whoever holds a controlling share in the club - precisely what the ownership structure put in place in 2012 was meant to guard against. That this core principle of the Trust takeover in 2012 is going to be ditched by WWT, without even having the courtesy to provide its members with details of the proposal they are being asked to vote on in the meeting, is astonishing.
AP must stay in the ownership of FALL otherwise what was the point of WWT?
Any lease to the football club has to either be on a standard full repairing basis & allow the club to benefit from a defined percentage of non match day commercial income or on the basis that they contribute proportionately for maintenance & all non match day income goes to FALL.
I can however see an argument for WWT "selling" their interest in Marlow Road in return for improvements (not maintenance & repair) to AP.
You would certainly hope not, though it would be perfectly reasonable to deduce from Couhig's video interview about the matter that this is something he would be in favour of further along the line. And that must set alarm bells ringing coming in the same interview where he intimates that he may be looking to sell up. Having AP lumped in with the club will make a lot easier to sell, and not necessarily to the sort of person that we would want our club to be sold to.
I'm not as anti the general idea of the Couhigs being allowed to have some greater ownership in return for investment as many but agree with every word of the above.
If the trust board are going to merely rubber stamp everything the majority owners suggest then perhaps it's the trust stakeholding that should be watered down rather than losing the ground if we need to find money for whatever reason.
Anyone notice they haven't used the term "protecting the quarter" recently. They used it a lot when asking for donations, membership fees and to sell stuff and I can see this coming back to be an issue for them.
Should add though it might just be readjusting the terms, price and length of the lease rather than changing ownership that is suggested.
Might be worth hearing what the proposals are before assuming the ground has been lost....
Remember the guys elected by trust members onto the board are all Wycombe supporters, mostly with extensive business experience and are unlikely to do or recommend anything that they do not see as clearly in the best long term interests of the club.
Absolutely! I genuinely have no idea what will be announced tonight, but a lot of posters are jumping to conclusions. On another thread posters are saying they are now certain that Mehmeti and Forino will be sold and the wage bill will be halved next summer.
New shares were issued in 2020 raising £1.2m, Carrotts.
As I recall the terms of the deal were approved by the Trust and Legacy members at the time. I believe some debt was also paid off but don't have details of that.
I agree, I think entitled fans is probably the wrong choice of words to use, 'restless' may be better?
The reason I say this, is that football success does not move in a linear upward trend. There are always peaks and dips within that. Under Ainsworth we have gone in an upward curve. Most complaining and over-reacting occurs when we are in a dip within that upward curve.
Looking at our position now 17 games in, mid table in League one - any calls for a change in management would seem a massive over reaction in my opinion. We have lost experience with Blooms / Bayo going (no doubt), but we have enough older players in there to turn it around.
Wycombe's cause is never helped by constant revving up of fans from owners with regards to ambition. Wycombe's ambitions have never changed, they are to win football matches. Some want to do it at speed whilst others are happy to ride the roller coaster. I for one value loyalty and togetherness. What the gaffer has built, has given Wycombe an enviable status in the Football League over the last 10 years and I think SO many teams would trade places. A lot of that is down to the him and his team
I'd normally agree but the idea it's already been agreed on our behalf and they are having a show of hands leaves little time for proper scrutiny. The debate on here might be all it gets and prompt a be question or two.
The original loan to replace the last suitors was another half a million and we were advised they had cleared what were maxed out overdrafts, personal loans and payment terms all over the place but not sure if we ever got a number on that.
@ReturnToSenda was much earlier discussing the 'access road proposal' and I would like to say I did always like the idea of a Chairfolk Chiltern Chairlift. Capacity of a 6 person lift 3,200 per hour. Shame we don't have a World Wide attraction in the area other than our beloved football club to allow it to run on days other than match days. Perhaps we could build a dry ski slope for the post snow world.
Do you think there were individuals or consortiums who would have paid more than that because they certainly had enough time and opportunity to make a serious bid?
Comments
It's certainly the Murdoch school of thinking.
Surely any ability to generate extra income is the life blood of the club. Personally being inconvenienced for 2 or 3 games is hardly a hardship. Cannot see what the problem is.
I meant the seats that displaced season ticket holders have been moved to.
I've been moved to the sofa in my house. Is that what you mean?
If RC wants to change the current situation, any decisions about AP, shares in the club etc has to be put to the legacy members for a proper vote with information given in writing so people can make an informed decision not just a quick meeting that many cannot attend, zoom meeting and a vote before anyone can properly process the info is not acceptable
We’ve given away that right haven’t we?
I'm in that place at the moment so make no apologies for being Donny Downer. I have that feeling in my stomach that tomorrow is going to have an announcement similar to when the trust sold the Matt Phillips (?) sell on fee a couple of weeks before he went onto be sold for a sh1t load more.
Not according to the trust website, legacy members still have the right to vote on any key issues that have to do with ownership of AP etc
That would certainly seem to be the case. Now just a simple majority of those that vote on the night is enough.
With ownership of AP yes a legacy members’ vote would be required. The fact a vote hasn’t been announced at this stage make me think the ground isn’t on the table as part of this proposal.
As for shares, the legacy member vote was for selling a controlling stake in the club, we voted in favour of that a few years ago. A further vote on dilution of the trust’s existing shareholding is not required.
The risk is that although todays fans may not go anywhere, tomorrows fans may not go today. They might end up discovering they can watch Watford at the top of the championship for £26 in their top tier on the side of the pitch rather than our £28 equivalent seat.
Aren't there 2 different issues though?
Firstly, who owns Adams Park. Currently, it's my understanding, that it's Frank Adams Legacy Limited (FALL) which is separate to the Trust and has no source of income other than money paid by the football club for rent. However FALL is responsible for not only AP but also the training ground - see here https://wycombewandererstrust.com/2012/07/the-frank-adams-legacy-board-is-announced. I'm not sure whether that makes them financially responsible for the maintainance of those facilities, but if the football club is short of cash and struggling to pay them then FALL has no money to cover those costs. Others have speculated on the football club finances and, if my total guess is true, could lead to FALL considering relinquishing some elements of ownership of AP. Personally that's something which shouldn't be allowed to happen. Retaining control over AP has been the bedrock of the Trust and without it the Trust means nothing.
Secondly, who own the football club - currently that's 75% the Couhigs and 25% the Trust. But if the Trust don't match any investment from the Couhigs with an amount equal to 25% of the total investment that percentage goes down. This doesn't require any vote it will just happen. So if so the football club put out a call for investment and issue new shares, then the Trust has to buy 25% of those shares or they'll own a smaller percentage of the football club. This is what the Trust members voted away when we sold 75% to the Couhigs. I believe the Trust has 2 seats in the football club board and retaining those seats is a function of maintaining a certain percentage share (12.5% rings a bell but I don't really know).
It wouldn't surprise me tomorrow if we hear a suggestion to vary this operating model (since that's what the call to the meeting has said). By which I mean the Couhigs will allow the Trust to maintain seats on the board even if they don't match investment but that this will come at the expense of FALL giving up some level of ownership of AP.
FALL essentially will have failed in its mission to secure Adams Park if it relinquishes ownership of the ground. If it is transferred to WWFC, it leaves it at the whim of whoever holds a controlling share in the club - precisely what the ownership structure put in place in 2012 was meant to guard against. That this core principle of the Trust takeover in 2012 is going to be ditched by WWT, without even having the courtesy to provide its members with details of the proposal they are being asked to vote on in the meeting, is astonishing.
Careful @ReadingMarginalista we don't know that is what's going to happen. It's just speculation (by me mostly) ...
AP must stay in the ownership of FALL otherwise what was the point of WWT?
Any lease to the football club has to either be on a standard full repairing basis & allow the club to benefit from a defined percentage of non match day commercial income or on the basis that they contribute proportionately for maintenance & all non match day income goes to FALL.
I can however see an argument for WWT "selling" their interest in Marlow Road in return for improvements (not maintenance & repair) to AP.
The ground can’t be transferred out of Trust ownership without a legacy member vote, so this won’t be getting voted on tomorrow night.
You would certainly hope not, though it would be perfectly reasonable to deduce from Couhig's video interview about the matter that this is something he would be in favour of further along the line. And that must set alarm bells ringing coming in the same interview where he intimates that he may be looking to sell up. Having AP lumped in with the club will make a lot easier to sell, and not necessarily to the sort of person that we would want our club to be sold to.
I'm not as anti the general idea of the Couhigs being allowed to have some greater ownership in return for investment as many but agree with every word of the above.
If the trust board are going to merely rubber stamp everything the majority owners suggest then perhaps it's the trust stakeholding that should be watered down rather than losing the ground if we need to find money for whatever reason.
Anyone notice they haven't used the term "protecting the quarter" recently. They used it a lot when asking for donations, membership fees and to sell stuff and I can see this coming back to be an issue for them.
Should add though it might just be readjusting the terms, price and length of the lease rather than changing ownership that is suggested.
Might be worth hearing what the proposals are before assuming the ground has been lost....
Remember the guys elected by trust members onto the board are all Wycombe supporters, mostly with extensive business experience and are unlikely to do or recommend anything that they do not see as clearly in the best long term interests of the club.
Does anybody on this forum know how much The Couhigs paid for their 75 per cent stake?
Absolutely! I genuinely have no idea what will be announced tonight, but a lot of posters are jumping to conclusions. On another thread posters are saying they are now certain that Mehmeti and Forino will be sold and the wage bill will be halved next summer.
New shares were issued in 2020 raising £1.2m, Carrotts.
As I recall the terms of the deal were approved by the Trust and Legacy members at the time. I believe some debt was also paid off but don't have details of that.
I agree, I think entitled fans is probably the wrong choice of words to use, 'restless' may be better?
The reason I say this, is that football success does not move in a linear upward trend. There are always peaks and dips within that. Under Ainsworth we have gone in an upward curve. Most complaining and over-reacting occurs when we are in a dip within that upward curve.
Looking at our position now 17 games in, mid table in League one - any calls for a change in management would seem a massive over reaction in my opinion. We have lost experience with Blooms / Bayo going (no doubt), but we have enough older players in there to turn it around.
Wycombe's cause is never helped by constant revving up of fans from owners with regards to ambition. Wycombe's ambitions have never changed, they are to win football matches. Some want to do it at speed whilst others are happy to ride the roller coaster. I for one value loyalty and togetherness. What the gaffer has built, has given Wycombe an enviable status in the Football League over the last 10 years and I think SO many teams would trade places. A lot of that is down to the him and his team
The debt was in the millions of dollars wasnt it? So they paid at least £2.2m to buy the club which seems a fair price.
Thank you, Sale of the Century.
I'd normally agree but the idea it's already been agreed on our behalf and they are having a show of hands leaves little time for proper scrutiny. The debate on here might be all it gets and prompt a be question or two.
The original loan to replace the last suitors was another half a million and we were advised they had cleared what were maxed out overdrafts, personal loans and payment terms all over the place but not sure if we ever got a number on that.
@ReturnToSenda was much earlier discussing the 'access road proposal' and I would like to say I did always like the idea of a Chairfolk Chiltern Chairlift. Capacity of a 6 person lift 3,200 per hour. Shame we don't have a World Wide attraction in the area other than our beloved football club to allow it to run on days other than match days. Perhaps we could build a dry ski slope for the post snow world.
Do you think there were individuals or consortiums who would have paid more than that because they certainly had enough time and opportunity to make a serious bid?
Downhill BMX track through the woods??