I would have thought that Mr Beeks and the other gentlemen could have sold the training ground back to the club and at the same time added a clause in any agreement that would have allowed them to have first refusal should Wycombe have decided to sell in the future. Probably at an agreed preferential price.
They could. But only at a price acceptable to both parties. We don't know what price Couhig through the club is prepared to pay or if you are adding a sale back option at what price Couhig is prepared to sell.
Out of interest, now that the club is the property of an affluent individual seemingly looking to sell to an even more affluent individual, why morally do you think the training ground owners should sell an asset at below market value to the club in order for Couhig to get a higher selling price for the club from Lomtadze?
I sense this is a conversation that is not going anywhere useful.
I have no doubt there is a price at which the owners of the land are prepared to sell.
I have no doubt there is a price at which the tenant of the land is prepared to buy
It seems that there is not overlap between those two figures.
I don't know what those two figures are or what the gap is or which, if either, of those two parties is substantially away from a fair value. Indeed I don't know what a fair value is. I suspect you are in the same place.
@DevC they should sell it back to the club, because they support the club, get preferential treatment from the club, bought it to 'help the club' in the first place and if the club can now afford to buy it back they should sell it back to the club.
That's a fair view to hold @Wendoverman. My view is that the Gasroom has decided collectively that the training ground deal was a bad one and that Beeks and Co have and are acting badly towards the club. I don't think that's fair. I have a weakness that I don't like seeing people being unfairly (in my view) slagged off online and when that happens my instinct is to defend them even when it results in being abused myself (not saying you have by the way here). Probably sometimes would be better for me to just let it run but that goes against my principles I am afraid.
My view on the matter is as per below from a different thread. Its just my view, no better or worse than anyone elses, and I am willing to be persuaded I am wrong if you wish to point out where.
"No that is not quite my view on this matter.
The training ground was sold 10 years or so ago. At that time the potential property development upside for the land was very limited , both by the local plan planning constraints and by the buy back option in the deal. The absence of an identifiable property upside at the time is perhaps been pretty well confirmed by the reality that ten years on, the site itself and its surroundings remain firmly green belt. I don't think an accusation of asset stripping at the time can be supported by the known facts - in fact the opposite. The deal provided much needed funds to a financially distressed club with substantial down side for the investors if that club failed (there was no obvious alternative use and hence no alternative rental income) and very limited upside as the buy back option prevented the investors from benefitting from any property upside if that existed.
Ten years is a long time and the situation has inevitably changed. I don't know if the planning environment for the site will change in the foreseeable future. My guess is no, but I might well be wrong. So it is possible (if perhaps unlikely) that the investors may in fact get the opportunity of an unexpected profit on selling the land. Unless the now existing lease between club and investors is long and unbreakable by the investors or unless the lease is protected by the Landlord and Tenants Act (unlikely) , there seems no obvious way the club could prevent the lands sale without its consent and hence share in the proceeds by right.
The facts of club ownership have also changed. At the time of land sale the club was owned by its fans and financially struggling. In that situation if the land suddenly became worth a substantial amount, I think it would be reasonable to hope that the investors would allow the football club to share in the profit in the land on sale even if, as seems to be the case, it had no legal rights to. The club is however now owned by a private reasonably affluent American owner and feels likely to soon be at least part owned by an extremely rich Georgian businessman. IF the training ground land now acquires substantial realisable value and its now owners now had a choice between keeping the proceeds themselves or donating it to a company owned and funded by a Georgian billionaire, I have to say if I was the investor I would keep the money myself or at least donate it to a more worthy cause."
'I love the club so much...I will keep it from the new owner and hopefully make myself a tidy profit instead of him....errrr I mean a charity donation...'
If I have understood you right , why do you think any gain on the land should end up in Couhig's pocket or even Lomtadze's. I think that might be the essence of where we disagree?
With regards to purchasing the training ground, Couhig needs to put it in the hands of the youthful, enthusiastic stars of The Apprentice.
I’ve seen their negotiating skills. “ You want £100 will you take £8?” and so it goes on “£90 is the absolute minimum. I hear you I’m looking at £15. Do we have a deal?” Just multiply the figures up and we’ll have a training ground for next to nothing.
I apologise. In all the talk of philanthropy and saving the club, I forget the 'No bugger is getting this back unless they promise not make more money from it than me and me mates could' clause.
If you had to make a choice of who got any profit on the training ground you'd surely go in this order
1st choice - The trust / FALL (in some kind of unlikely and possibly impractical ringfenced way)
2nd choice - The entity that currently runs the club - They might waste it, they might use it to make the club more attractive for a sale but the money is in the club
3rd choice - a bunch of wealthy old boys who stood in admirably / took advantage/ a bit of both.
Great podcast and interview with Phil , Rob comes across really well although I can see that he is a victim of his own optimism . If it makes him feel any better from what I see he probably has one of the better owner relationships with the fans in the English football.
Thought he took and answered all questions put to him pretty well, might not agree with every aspect of his approach and there's always a bit of spin but he's clearly not chasing fame or PR quick wins and seems to be plugging away on a number of fronts in the clubs best interests. Clearly has spent a fair amount too, probably more than he'd originally hoped.
Messrs Catchpole and Cecill really are quite good at this sort of thing btw and I don't think anyone will be surprised at that.
I watched on my TV so didn't see the comments but that's probably for the best.
The Heroes of HP12 podcast includes a long interview with Rob Couhig clarifying the sequence of events leading to the decision to pull out of discussion with the company (not Dai Yongh) which owns the Bearwood training complex.
There is no interview with Phil. I haven’t watched it but that must be in the latest Ringing the Blues podcast.
Hasten to say that my reference to confusion relates to earlier exchanges - nothing to do with @StrongestTeam’s post which was written and posted while I was plodding along with my comment.
The Youtube chat seemed to be mostly Reading fans moaning about us. I think they'd rather go bust than be helped by a little club that doesn't know its place.
Comments
I think it’s exactly that.
I would have thought that Mr Beeks and the other gentlemen could have sold the training ground back to the club and at the same time added a clause in any agreement that would have allowed them to have first refusal should Wycombe have decided to sell in the future. Probably at an agreed preferential price.
They could. But only at a price acceptable to both parties. We don't know what price Couhig through the club is prepared to pay or if you are adding a sale back option at what price Couhig is prepared to sell.
Out of interest, now that the club is the property of an affluent individual seemingly looking to sell to an even more affluent individual, why morally do you think the training ground owners should sell an asset at below market value to the club in order for Couhig to get a higher selling price for the club from Lomtadze?
Did I say it should be below market value? I think you need to read my post again.
I'm not sure how remembering every individual who ever disagreed with you even if far more agreed with you makes you thick skinned but there you go.
I sense this is a conversation that is not going anywhere useful.
I have no doubt there is a price at which the owners of the land are prepared to sell.
I have no doubt there is a price at which the tenant of the land is prepared to buy
It seems that there is not overlap between those two figures.
I don't know what those two figures are or what the gap is or which, if either, of those two parties is substantially away from a fair value. Indeed I don't know what a fair value is. I suspect you are in the same place.
Is there anything usefully to add?
@DevC they should sell it back to the club, because they support the club, get preferential treatment from the club, bought it to 'help the club' in the first place and if the club can now afford to buy it back they should sell it back to the club.
Maybe not good business but...
don't feed the troll
That's a fair view to hold @Wendoverman. My view is that the Gasroom has decided collectively that the training ground deal was a bad one and that Beeks and Co have and are acting badly towards the club. I don't think that's fair. I have a weakness that I don't like seeing people being unfairly (in my view) slagged off online and when that happens my instinct is to defend them even when it results in being abused myself (not saying you have by the way here). Probably sometimes would be better for me to just let it run but that goes against my principles I am afraid.
My view on the matter is as per below from a different thread. Its just my view, no better or worse than anyone elses, and I am willing to be persuaded I am wrong if you wish to point out where.
"No that is not quite my view on this matter.
The training ground was sold 10 years or so ago. At that time the potential property development upside for the land was very limited , both by the local plan planning constraints and by the buy back option in the deal. The absence of an identifiable property upside at the time is perhaps been pretty well confirmed by the reality that ten years on, the site itself and its surroundings remain firmly green belt. I don't think an accusation of asset stripping at the time can be supported by the known facts - in fact the opposite. The deal provided much needed funds to a financially distressed club with substantial down side for the investors if that club failed (there was no obvious alternative use and hence no alternative rental income) and very limited upside as the buy back option prevented the investors from benefitting from any property upside if that existed.
Ten years is a long time and the situation has inevitably changed. I don't know if the planning environment for the site will change in the foreseeable future. My guess is no, but I might well be wrong. So it is possible (if perhaps unlikely) that the investors may in fact get the opportunity of an unexpected profit on selling the land. Unless the now existing lease between club and investors is long and unbreakable by the investors or unless the lease is protected by the Landlord and Tenants Act (unlikely) , there seems no obvious way the club could prevent the lands sale without its consent and hence share in the proceeds by right.
The facts of club ownership have also changed. At the time of land sale the club was owned by its fans and financially struggling. In that situation if the land suddenly became worth a substantial amount, I think it would be reasonable to hope that the investors would allow the football club to share in the profit in the land on sale even if, as seems to be the case, it had no legal rights to. The club is however now owned by a private reasonably affluent American owner and feels likely to soon be at least part owned by an extremely rich Georgian businessman. IF the training ground land now acquires substantial realisable value and its now owners now had a choice between keeping the proceeds themselves or donating it to a company owned and funded by a Georgian billionaire, I have to say if I was the investor I would keep the money myself or at least donate it to a more worthy cause."
I wouldn't let Beeks do my patio in case he didn't give it back to me.
Obscure joke aside, he became dead to me because of the Hayes stuff.
It's been a while, I should have known better.
'I love the club so much...I will keep it from the new owner and hopefully make myself a tidy profit instead of him....errrr I mean a charity donation...'
If I have understood you right , why do you think any gain on the land should end up in Couhig's pocket or even Lomtadze's. I think that might be the essence of where we disagree?
Should any loss on the land though be for Beeks?
With regards to purchasing the training ground, Couhig needs to put it in the hands of the youthful, enthusiastic stars of The Apprentice.
I’ve seen their negotiating skills. “ You want £100 will you take £8?” and so it goes on “£90 is the absolute minimum. I hear you I’m looking at £15. Do we have a deal?” Just multiply the figures up and we’ll have a training ground for next to nothing.
I apologise. In all the talk of philanthropy and saving the club, I forget the 'No bugger is getting this back unless they promise not make more money from it than me and me mates could' clause.
Excellent podcast. Recommend everyone to listen if they can spare the time.
What takes precedence. Fewer injuries or more dosh ?
The Heroes of HP12 podcast is excellent. I found it a few mo the ago and have enjoyed every episode since.
One of the podcasters is audibly a ringer for Steve Coogan. I like to imagine it’s Alan Partridge offering his musings on the Blues!
Michael Kenny used to do PA stuff at Adams Park, and Dan I know. Some of the other guys sound familiar too.
It’s a superb podcast. Exactly what I want. Fans talking about the game, giving opinions analysis and thoughts. This weeks episode was excellent.
If you had to make a choice of who got any profit on the training ground you'd surely go in this order
1st choice - The trust / FALL (in some kind of unlikely and possibly impractical ringfenced way)
2nd choice - The entity that currently runs the club - They might waste it, they might use it to make the club more attractive for a sale but the money is in the club
3rd choice - a bunch of wealthy old boys who stood in admirably / took advantage/ a bit of both.
Podcast is good but not much added around affordability or funding source, wonder if that will come tonight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZEFiZ-Vho
Starts at 7:30 for those who want more Hot Rob action
Offer the right of reply to Mr Beeks and gang.
Every story has 2 sides and that.
If they really won't sell the training ground back to our club at a sensible market price then they must have a reason why.
And any ceremonial role in the club should be thus removed quicker than a drum from a bad drummer.
Great podcast and interview with Phil , Rob comes across really well although I can see that he is a victim of his own optimism . If it makes him feel any better from what I see he probably has one of the better owner relationships with the fans in the English football.
One of the best I would have thought.
Thought he took and answered all questions put to him pretty well, might not agree with every aspect of his approach and there's always a bit of spin but he's clearly not chasing fame or PR quick wins and seems to be plugging away on a number of fronts in the clubs best interests. Clearly has spent a fair amount too, probably more than he'd originally hoped.
Messrs Catchpole and Cecill really are quite good at this sort of thing btw and I don't think anyone will be surprised at that.
I watched on my TV so didn't see the comments but that's probably for the best.
Danger of confusion here.
The Heroes of HP12 podcast includes a long interview with Rob Couhig clarifying the sequence of events leading to the decision to pull out of discussion with the company (not Dai Yongh) which owns the Bearwood training complex.
There is no interview with Phil. I haven’t watched it but that must be in the latest Ringing the Blues podcast.
Phil just finished hosting a Q and A with Rob on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=tvgVfbsubwEjssQm&u=/watch%3Fv%3DRIZEFiZ-Vho%26feature%3Dem-lbrm
Hasten to say that my reference to confusion relates to earlier exchanges - nothing to do with @StrongestTeam’s post which was written and posted while I was plodding along with my comment.
The Youtube chat seemed to be mostly Reading fans moaning about us. I think they'd rather go bust than be helped by a little club that doesn't know its place.
Some fans get the owners they deserve.