Rob never hid his distain for the trust and this continues from that. You might wonder how much extra he made by the trust gifting him ( no, paying him to take) the extra 15% so he could supposedly invest and crack on with all the big projects, if he's had their pants down it's their own fault with the way they presented the sale as a done deal and stifled any questions.
It was my reading of body language and a couple of carefully worded comments that gave me that impression. I don’t think it would be fair to name names.
Why is it not fair to name names. ? The whole of the Trust board ( who represent the supporters) were clearly unhappy , not only in their body language but things they said.
I’m sure we are all frustrated by the vacuum in communication but I still question the poster who said it tells you everything about how his ownership will go. That is a very hasty judgement to make.
I've not cast any doubts over his ownership and we live in a modern age where Teams, Zoom and the phone are all available. I am sure he has spoken plenty with the other two board members even if not in the same country.
And I have not written him off, far from it, I am excited at the prospect of what he is offering in terms of youth and development but it is very clear to me that having not had any contact with the trust he is making a statement on how he will run things.
That is a more sympathetic explanation of your original comments which came across as harsh and unfair. I have no doubt that the Trust directors will soon get the opportunity to meet the new owner and convey the questions that were raised at tonight’s meeting, but we all need to be patient.
Pretending that the communication to fan or trust members has been significantly worsened in recent times is pretty unfair, even with the zero comms from the new owner.
When we were fan owned I went to many a meeting to be TOLD about a significant happening and not invited to discuss it. I used to think ‘I’m supposed to be one of the owners here’ when something like …. oh I don’t know, a training ground was sold or something.
I’m sure the new owner will be quite amused to think that the fans want micro updates about his business. And that’s the reality. It’s not ours, and hasn’t been for years.
I think I will wait until the first full board meeting before I start drawing any conclusions. Then our representatives will hopefully report back with how things are going to change. Boring answer but still.
Bearing in mind that the Trust own the stadium in which the club intend to ply at least half of their trade, those claiming that the Trust are an irrelevance are well wide of the mark. Like it or not, a commercial arrangement has been struck between the club and the trust and that comes with obligations on both sides. Sidelining your most significant partner doesn’t seem like clever business to me.
Surely, the fact that we have already signed a player from Exeter, renewed McCleary's contract, and are rumoured to be in the race for various other signings, would indicate that there is no problem with available funds to strengthen the squad.
I'm sure it will all come out in the wash, and look forward to the big kick off on 10 August.
@Ed_ the Trust own Adams Park but is there anything in place that says the new owner has to play his clubs games there going forward? Trust arguably aren’t the most significant partner but some yet to be announced sponsorship brand we have never heard of, again ‘going forward’z
And the Club have a long lease, so providing they pay the rent and carry out the obligations contained therein they can't be kicked out. As you say there is no restriction on Mr L building a new ground and terminating the current Lease.
The volunteers particularly have done an amazing job over the last decade and more but seems some of those in charge of the trust never used that as any kind of lever to even ask for anything in return and were more interested in making sure they had seats at the table.
The consultation with the membership was always minimal. Hope some of those in charge of the trust don't find themselves unable to get into directors boxes on away trips, that would be terrible.
The wealthy new owner generally gives me reason to be optimistic about the club's future but the Trust's relevance now is really about protecting the core of the club, its community.
In the unlikely scenario of the owners taking the club away from Adams Park the Phoenix Fund (discussed by the Trust) provides a fall back to ensure a community club will always exist. Whilst it is ethically wrong club owners in the past have lacked consideration for the communities they serve (eg Aldershot, Wimbledon, Bury etc).
So whilst the Trust is irrelevant to the current running of the club its raison d'etre is to ensure there will always be a team for the community to support even if the owners have different motivations.
I haven't seen the contract itself but between the two of you it has been characterised as one which the Trust cannot kick the Club out of its tenancy but the Club can terminate the current lease. Is this accurate? I suspect not.
Secondly, aside from the exit terms of the contract itself the EFL have put in place rules and regulations which limit the ability of a club to simply up-sticks. Firstly it must declare where it intends to play its home matches well in advance of the start of a season and outside of force majeure it must fulfil all of its fixtures at that ground. Then if it wishes to move location, the EFL must give permission for the club to do so and there are various stipulations to that approval being given, outlined largely in Section 13 of its regulations, sections 13.5 and 13.6 are the most significant, go look them up.
I accept that there is nothing stopping Mr L from simply winding up the club in a pique of fancy or simply doing his own thing and in so doing relinquishing the club's membership of the EFL. He can even break the lease and suffer the legal/financial consequences of doing so through the courts. Is this where you were going with your lines of reasoning? If so, that's the entire raison d'etre of the Trust, to provide a means of spawning a new football club at Wycombe and hence the protected asset that is the ground and the limited funds that it holds.
It has been mentioned above that Mr Couhig didn't have much regard for the Trust and if that is the case, shame on him for not appreciating the history behind its existence (rolled into which is all that we - the club and the fans - have been through during dark times) and its role in safeguarding future football in the local area. Double shame on fans who take a similar view.
The Club's Lease will be a business tenancy under the Lanslord & Tenant Act 1954.
Tenants (the Club) under the Act have "security of tenure" and providing that they comply with the terms and conditions they cannot be thrown out. It is normal for tenants to have a right to terminate a business tenancy. If for instance you are a business and enter into a tenancy and then want to move into larger premises, there will always be a provision to terminate subject to a specified notice. In this case, the Club might be moving to larger premises.
I cannot see how the EFL would be able to prevent the club moving to a new site within the Wycombe area, particularly if the new site provided better access and parking etc.
I suspect that Rob Couhig as the owner and head of a large high level legal firm would have considered all these matters and ensured that they covered all eventualities for the Club.
Almost all commercial leases are contracted out of the LTA.
personally I would be surprised if there were break clauses.
as I recall rent was pretty low so on practise nothing to stop club leaving but carrying on paying rent on old stadium, at which point both sides may agree a settlement even if they have fallen out.
There isn't any suggestion that anything like that is likely, it just sounds like the trust board have noses out of joint as they would have liked to have been kept in the loop, wether they would actually have shared what they found out with humble paying members is a different question.
if the club left but carried on paying the lease rent wouldn’t they have to pay for repairs and so on as well as that is part of the lease package?
I am also intrigued by the phoenix fund. In a case where WWFC went bust or somehow managed to move so far away that it was no longer WWFC, how could the Trust and FALL have anywhere near enough money to create and run a club, never mind sustain AP as a venue for it to play in.
I’m assuming the phoenix fund would be used to keep something ticking over until an owner was found who wanted to play football manager with a non league side or the phoenix club rises as trust owned and run way way down the pyramid, plays somewhere that isn’t a 10,000 seat stadium but more like the Rye, and Adams Park is left to rot or sold and torn down for something else and FALL then has cash to help the Trust grow the new baby?
Not that I expect WWFC to go bust or move. I’m cautiously optimistic we get an access road and the ground and the club are carefully grown to sustainable (ish) championship size.
The way I recall it was that there was a 5-year rent "holiday" as part of the original deal with the Couhigs in acknowledgment of all the work they needed to do under the full repairing lease (the Frank Adams roof, for example). It was a discount from the £150k p.a. to about £15k. Then that holiday was effectively made permanent for the duration of the 50-year lease, in return for the Trust not having to find proportionate funding for cash calls and in acknowledgement of the Couhigs having to do so much work under the full repairing lease (the Frank Adams roof for example). As part of that deal, the Trust retained its residual holding in the club (10% with potential to reduce to 5% but no further?).
Comments
Rob never hid his distain for the trust and this continues from that. You might wonder how much extra he made by the trust gifting him ( no, paying him to take) the extra 15% so he could supposedly invest and crack on with all the big projects, if he's had their pants down it's their own fault with the way they presented the sale as a done deal and stifled any questions.
Who wasn't happy? Genuine question, I missed the meeting
It was my reading of body language and a couple of carefully worded comments that gave me that impression. I don’t think it would be fair to name names.
Why is it not fair to name names. ? The whole of the Trust board ( who represent the supporters) were clearly unhappy , not only in their body language but things they said.
Did the topic of Bearwood come up?
I’m sure we are all frustrated by the vacuum in communication but I still question the poster who said it tells you everything about how his ownership will go. That is a very hasty judgement to make.
I've not cast any doubts over his ownership and we live in a modern age where Teams, Zoom and the phone are all available. I am sure he has spoken plenty with the other two board members even if not in the same country.
And I have not written him off, far from it, I am excited at the prospect of what he is offering in terms of youth and development but it is very clear to me that having not had any contact with the trust he is making a statement on how he will run things.
The Trust are now largely irrelevant. They have no power whatsoever with regard to the running of the club, so the new owner can safely ignore them.
Today’s new signings are a good statement for me.
That is a more sympathetic explanation of your original comments which came across as harsh and unfair. I have no doubt that the Trust directors will soon get the opportunity to meet the new owner and convey the questions that were raised at tonight’s meeting, but we all need to be patient.
Pretending that the communication to fan or trust members has been significantly worsened in recent times is pretty unfair, even with the zero comms from the new owner.
When we were fan owned I went to many a meeting to be TOLD about a significant happening and not invited to discuss it. I used to think ‘I’m supposed to be one of the owners here’ when something like …. oh I don’t know, a training ground was sold or something.
I’m sure the new owner will be quite amused to think that the fans want micro updates about his business. And that’s the reality. It’s not ours, and hasn’t been for years.
I think I will wait until the first full board meeting before I start drawing any conclusions. Then our representatives will hopefully report back with how things are going to change. Boring answer but still.
Bearing in mind that the Trust own the stadium in which the club intend to ply at least half of their trade, those claiming that the Trust are an irrelevance are well wide of the mark. Like it or not, a commercial arrangement has been struck between the club and the trust and that comes with obligations on both sides. Sidelining your most significant partner doesn’t seem like clever business to me.
Surely, the fact that we have already signed a player from Exeter, renewed McCleary's contract, and are rumoured to be in the race for various other signings, would indicate that there is no problem with available funds to strengthen the squad.
I'm sure it will all come out in the wash, and look forward to the big kick off on 10 August.
@Ed_ the Trust own Adams Park but is there anything in place that says the new owner has to play his clubs games there going forward? Trust arguably aren’t the most significant partner but some yet to be announced sponsorship brand we have never heard of, again ‘going forward’z
Agreed, we all need to have some patience as the new owners have hardly had time to get their feet under the table yet.
We are off to a flyer in already signing a player Blooms saw as a key target and Garath McCleary has signed for another season.
The season ticket prices have been held to very near last seasons prices.
Let us pick out the positives and don’t go looking for issues where they don’t exist.
And the Club have a long lease, so providing they pay the rent and carry out the obligations contained therein they can't be kicked out. As you say there is no restriction on Mr L building a new ground and terminating the current Lease.
Will be interesting if the Board meetings are held in Kazakhstan and Zoom is on the blink!
You joke but it's just been announced that Donald Trump is doing the group draw for the Bristol Street Motors Trophy from Kazakhstan
You can only sell (or give away) something once.
The volunteers particularly have done an amazing job over the last decade and more but seems some of those in charge of the trust never used that as any kind of lever to even ask for anything in return and were more interested in making sure they had seats at the table.
The consultation with the membership was always minimal. Hope some of those in charge of the trust don't find themselves unable to get into directors boxes on away trips, that would be terrible.
The wealthy new owner generally gives me reason to be optimistic about the club's future but the Trust's relevance now is really about protecting the core of the club, its community.
In the unlikely scenario of the owners taking the club away from Adams Park the Phoenix Fund (discussed by the Trust) provides a fall back to ensure a community club will always exist. Whilst it is ethically wrong club owners in the past have lacked consideration for the communities they serve (eg Aldershot, Wimbledon, Bury etc).
So whilst the Trust is irrelevant to the current running of the club its raison d'etre is to ensure there will always be a team for the community to support even if the owners have different motivations.
@mooneyman
@perfidious_albion
I haven't seen the contract itself but between the two of you it has been characterised as one which the Trust cannot kick the Club out of its tenancy but the Club can terminate the current lease. Is this accurate? I suspect not.
Secondly, aside from the exit terms of the contract itself the EFL have put in place rules and regulations which limit the ability of a club to simply up-sticks. Firstly it must declare where it intends to play its home matches well in advance of the start of a season and outside of force majeure it must fulfil all of its fixtures at that ground. Then if it wishes to move location, the EFL must give permission for the club to do so and there are various stipulations to that approval being given, outlined largely in Section 13 of its regulations, sections 13.5 and 13.6 are the most significant, go look them up.
I accept that there is nothing stopping Mr L from simply winding up the club in a pique of fancy or simply doing his own thing and in so doing relinquishing the club's membership of the EFL. He can even break the lease and suffer the legal/financial consequences of doing so through the courts. Is this where you were going with your lines of reasoning? If so, that's the entire raison d'etre of the Trust, to provide a means of spawning a new football club at Wycombe and hence the protected asset that is the ground and the limited funds that it holds.
It has been mentioned above that Mr Couhig didn't have much regard for the Trust and if that is the case, shame on him for not appreciating the history behind its existence (rolled into which is all that we - the club and the fans - have been through during dark times) and its role in safeguarding future football in the local area. Double shame on fans who take a similar view.
The Club's Lease will be a business tenancy under the Lanslord & Tenant Act 1954.
Tenants (the Club) under the Act have "security of tenure" and providing that they comply with the terms and conditions they cannot be thrown out. It is normal for tenants to have a right to terminate a business tenancy. If for instance you are a business and enter into a tenancy and then want to move into larger premises, there will always be a provision to terminate subject to a specified notice. In this case, the Club might be moving to larger premises.
I cannot see how the EFL would be able to prevent the club moving to a new site within the Wycombe area, particularly if the new site provided better access and parking etc.
@mooneyman yes, but...
It depends on the actual lease terms such as;
are there break clauses? do these allow either party to serve notice & walk away?
what are the notice periods?
does it allow for rent changes? if so how often? are these changes only in one direction?
is it a standard full repairing lease? if not who is responsible for repairs to which parts of the asset?
is failure to repair considered a fundamental breach?
I ask as these are things that have been in every commercial business premises lease I have been involved with over the last 40 years.
I equally get that you will not know the answers as you were not aprty to the lease drafting or signing.
I suspect that Rob Couhig as the owner and head of a large high level legal firm would have considered all these matters and ensured that they covered all eventualities for the Club.
Almost all commercial leases are contracted out of the LTA.
personally I would be surprised if there were break clauses.
as I recall rent was pretty low so on practise nothing to stop club leaving but carrying on paying rent on old stadium, at which point both sides may agree a settlement even if they have fallen out.
There isn't any suggestion that anything like that is likely, it just sounds like the trust board have noses out of joint as they would have liked to have been kept in the loop, wether they would actually have shared what they found out with humble paying members is a different question.
if the club left but carried on paying the lease rent wouldn’t they have to pay for repairs and so on as well as that is part of the lease package?
I am also intrigued by the phoenix fund. In a case where WWFC went bust or somehow managed to move so far away that it was no longer WWFC, how could the Trust and FALL have anywhere near enough money to create and run a club, never mind sustain AP as a venue for it to play in.
I’m assuming the phoenix fund would be used to keep something ticking over until an owner was found who wanted to play football manager with a non league side or the phoenix club rises as trust owned and run way way down the pyramid, plays somewhere that isn’t a 10,000 seat stadium but more like the Rye, and Adams Park is left to rot or sold and torn down for something else and FALL then has cash to help the Trust grow the new baby?
Not that I expect WWFC to go bust or move. I’m cautiously optimistic we get an access road and the ground and the club are carefully grown to sustainable (ish) championship size.
The way I recall it was that there was a 5-year rent "holiday" as part of the original deal with the Couhigs in acknowledgment of all the work they needed to do under the full repairing lease (the Frank Adams roof, for example). It was a discount from the £150k p.a. to about £15k. Then that holiday was effectively made permanent for the duration of the 50-year lease, in return for the Trust not having to find proportionate funding for cash calls and in acknowledgement of the Couhigs having to do so much work under the full repairing lease (the Frank Adams roof for example). As part of that deal, the Trust retained its residual holding in the club (10% with potential to reduce to 5% but no further?).
I'm picking up that you're not the biggest fan of the Trust,