Yes I get your point. As the US guys said, they want to invest in the club itself to drive a return rather than covering debt repayment and that's their choice. Your point that the debt remains is a salient one.
@Twizz said:
These guys are no mugs, so whatever their true motives you would be surprised if they didn't come across as very charming. Maybe I was being naïve in expecting more substance tonight, but did we really learn very much at all? Precious little I felt.
However, there were some statements that I was not expecting. Feel free to point out if I misheard any of these.
Firstly they will not be putting in enough funds to clear the existing Trust debts to S.Kane and The Chairboys Funders.
Secondly, they are really only going to underwrite the five year plan plus a bit of extra for some additional personnel. So probably something like £3M - £5M maximum.
Thirdly, their plan would seem to be to use their experience of marketing etc to grow the crowds from 4000-5000 to 7000-8000.
Finally, the Trust are at least working on adding some safeguards into the deal - such as re-introducing the enshrined rights.
That’s their pitch in a nutshell . Absolute fantasy
@DJWYC14 said:
Yes I get your point. As the US guys said, they want to invest in the club itself to drive a return rather than covering debt repayment and that's their choice. Your point that the debt remains is a salient one.
Any new partner who doesn’t want to do the right thing and clear debt to those who have kept this club alive with their generosity is not a partner any legacy member should vote for .
On 12th September Trevor and Burrell stood before us and told us they had “options” and that all bidders would need to put a “ number “ , a big number on their capital input before any consideration for sale could be made .
Less than two months later our chairman presented as a beaten grand national horse a mile out, no options at all other than this bid which merely replicates exactly what Howard has provided for the past 4 years but with much less security and stability.
Underwriting our business plan ... being there to put £25k in every other month to cover wage bills , but having total control and majority share - something Howard never was afforded .
Other proposals have not been adequately considered and that is a fundamental failing by the man chairing our club and the football club board generally .
Proposing to sell our club is one thing , but to do it having so comprehensively butchered the process and having just one very meek,uninspiring ,and financially impotent offer on the table is a special kind of failure that would be hysterically funny if not for the history , sweat and tears that have been invested in this club over the years all to see it urinated away in 18 months of chairmanship .
Before you accuse me of being personal - it’s not my judgement but the boards on “ on record “ statements that tell us all was brilliant and swimmingly progressive financially up until mr Stroud took over . Now we are on our backsides pleading with foreign investment to give us a bit of cash if we need it .... for a controlling share of our club ,
It’s ridiculous we are even considering such a preposterous premise .
If you need any further evidence that things have imploded badly the past 6 months ask Andrew Howard his opinion on the individual members of the football club and trust board .
Mark Burrell standing down as he did and when he did was proper Judas stuff .
Bit OTT and full of hyperbole and not exactly unexpected. But relax. It won’t happen.
And yes, I will accuse you of being personal. Point me in the direction of the statements that all was brilliant, etc up until Stroud took over. That is a statement of fact that you should be able to support - and I will apologise to you accordingly if you do.
In the meantime I, I assume like sensible others, will wait and see what the actual details of the proposal are and the level of safeguards we put in before deciding on the merits of the investment.
And I have absolutely no idea why I feel compelled to defend Trevor Stroud against your attacks. I have no idea as to his competence or integrity and have never met him I don’t think. But given the decision to seek outside investment appears to have been taken long before he took over as chair (if it was only 18 months ago) it does seem a little unfair to blame him for everything from the financial loss last season, to the alleged lack of adequate consideration of potential investors (how do you actually know) to the lack of crisps in the Vere Suite.
I guess it’s similar to why I feel the need to defend Richie from time to time.
If you have constructive criticisms to make @marlowchair , would it not have been better to air them last night giving people a chance to respond to them?
Hardly underwhelming, they fronted up and seemed prepared, as did Trevor, for any questions, and left to waves applause with discussions turning to how to convince enough people to vote.
Ok , they may not want to pay up all debt immediately but neither does the trust and its unrealistic to think anyone else does, they are offering investment to build including where needed in the stadium, with a view to gradual improvement in financial and playing position and they seem realistic about the costs involved. They are after evolution and respect the work of the existing teams so doesn't match marlows opinion that everyone is incompetent. Thought the defence of the conflict of interest question with care not to appear irate that it was raised and dealing with Mr Carrots questions were also good. Due diligence to be done but I can see this happening. Hard to be too synical to the point of stagnation.
I've tried to steer clear of making many comments on this subject up to now.... but I must say it does seem from a quick glance of comments from last night that we would be handing the club over for not much return.
My main problem so far, as others have mentioned is, the (supposedly?) Apparent un willingness to talk to all possible investors due to personal matters, if this IS true, it is Not acceptable.... the club comes first !
Wasn't there last night or seen link, but as others have said, whoever turned up would be as charming as they could, they are hardly going to turn up and act twats in front of everyone were they ?
For the record, I'm a real sit on the fence for this one. I'd love to stay fan owned if possible, but if not then don't also mind being owned... nightmare, we could get a shark who will sell us down the river.... or, even possible we could get someone like the late Leicester owner who was loved by all... pot luck I guess
So last night was (as expected) a charm offensive. There is no way that they would have shared the detailed numbers of their proposal at the moment because it has not been finalised.
They appeared to want to be involved in making this club sustainable and have a track record at Derby County.
They came out of the Derby deal losing money and stated that they do not see making a profit out of the club as the be all and end all of their involvement. Success can be many things.
They came across as passionate.
However, one way of helping to make the club sustainable is to clear the current debts so the fact that this does not appear to be on the table at the moment does seem a little odd.
There have been mistakes made in the past, including the recent past, but we need to look at what is best to secure the future of our great club.
I am a Legacy Member having seen my first game in 1972. I am naturally cynical and sceptical but they did start to win my support last night. The devil is still in the detail but they seem to have the right passion and vision to take the club forward for my sons.
Having listened to the US guys last night and also read veiws on the Gasroom with interest not once has anyone offered any alternative to moving our club forward.
They came across as personable 'regular guys', a "couple of schmos" as Luby jokingly referred to themselves. He is a real New Yorker and watches all our games on iFollow, Collis is seemingly based 2000 miles much further west. They want to invest in Wycombe "for fun", they kept making that point, because their Derby experience was so much fun.
They made it clear that this was a personal investment, not through their Seaport business where they typically sell a business after a few years, and that they have no timescales for their stay. As long as it's fun, they would stay seemed to be the message. They would be very happy with break even on their investment. When asked why they were not investing in an American soccer club, Luby made it clear they have a very low opinion of football in their country, he would not watch MLS and Derby got them hooked on English football.
They referred to the potential of the club and how it needed more investment to realise that, said one person (General Manager?) was doing the job of four people, and implied that more hands were needed. They had confidence in the current management of the club and would take a hands-off role in the management. They wouldn't be at Adams Park for every game.
It was interesting to hear Trevor say that the club have a loan agreement in place with Messrs Luby and Collis, for "the difficult period up to Christmas". If the vote goes against them, how quickly would they want that loan repaid?
I was disappointed not to get some financial detail on their proposal, Trevor said it was still being negotiated, so all we know so far is that they would underwrite a five year plan. I presume that the evening of the vote will include a detailed financial presentation.
Trevor said that if the 75% vote in favour was not achieved then we have no Plan B, we would continue doing what we do now. This seemed to preclude the other two parties stepping in with a proposal, although he did say that he was still talking to them and they were aware of the American developments.
I have heard nothing so far to make me vote yes, that all rests on the detail.
For me Eric, it would be continuing to provide Football league entertainment for the benefit of the residents of High Wycombe and the surrounding areas.
I believe you are minded to oppose "investment". Could you clarify whether that is based on
a) a belief that WWFC could likely stay in the FL without outside investment
or
b) a belief that fan ownership is so important that you are prepared to suffer a slip down the leagues if that is the price of that model.
Last night went about as well as it good for the potential investors. They came across as passionate but not overbearing to me. The devil will be in the detail on how much money is enough for a majority holding. One point that seemed to slide by was that they have already loaned money to the club. How much and what happens if the deal falls through will be interesting.
If external investment is the best path then these 'guys' (how grating did that become in the opening introduction?) seem to fit the bill. The financials will be the key for me.
In regard to @marlowchair 's latest attempt to get back at Trevor Stroud for spurning him I am assuming the Trust on presenting their view of the best option having considered all three. This is what I have heard to be the case and obviously picking one as favoured will hurt the others. To give Howard a view I have not heard from him is pretty low.
The key to all this is the 75% rule. I can't see anyway this will be achieved. It is almost impossible when some will not vote and it is an emotive issue. Is this rule a problem in the long term as it effectively ties us in the the current situation forever. If it is unsustainable the club is in trouble at some point.
Overall I was impressed enough to know more. I suppose that was all last night was going to be.
What a surprise that marlowchair has used last night’s meeting to launch yet another diatribe against Trevor Stroud and the would be investors. His post could have been written weeks ago rather than this morning because he never had any intention of giving either party a fair hearing. I hope most of those present last night went into the meeting with an open mind rather than a deeply entrenched view.
Most of the people I spoke to after the meeting were impressed with the presentation but understandably cautious until more details are known. I didn’t hear anyone use the words ‘fantasy’ or ‘farcical’. Like them, I will make my mind up when I know more about the proposals.
@DevC that is the meaning that I had for “taking the club forwards”
My sons have grown up supporting a FL based Wycombe and I would want them to have the best opportunity to continue do so.
@glasshalffull To be fair to @marlowchair I don't see any comment on the possible investors and is totally focused on nailing Trevor Stroud for pushing him away.
He makes no comment on the investors at all which very telling.
@DevC said:
For me Eric, it would be continuing to provide Football league entertainment for the benefit of the residents of High Wycombe and the surrounding areas.
I believe you are minded to oppose "investment". Could you clarify whether that is based on
a) a belief that WWFC could likely stay in the FL without outside investment
or
b) a belief that fan ownership is so important that you are prepared to suffer a slip down the leagues if that is the price of that model.
fair enough eric. I think if I had a vote I would be as keen to understand as best as I could the realistic consequences of voting no as I would the consequences of voting yes.
Bit OTT and full of hyperbole and not exactly unexpected. But relax. It won’t happen.
And yes, I will accuse you of being personal. Point me in the direction of the statements that all was brilliant, etc up until Stroud took over. That is a statement of fact that you should be able to support - and I will apologise to you accordingly if you do.
In the meantime I, I assume like sensible others, will wait and see what the actual details of the proposal are and the level of safeguards we put in before deciding on the merits of the investment.
Plus various public statements including the chairman and financial controller themselves st AGM 2017- Stroud had been chair for only a very short time the reporting period was relating to at that meeting and our finance report was glowing , it was “ thriving “.
So Of 18 months under Stroud it is factual we have gone from thriving to desperately bad. According to the board itself . It’s not my words or speculation its their statement of facts .
Sorry but I’m angry. When you see something being planned and unfolding that will have dire consequences for the club you love ,and highlight it , and it still happens in slow motion like an impending train wreck , it makes you angry
@Right_in_the_Middle said: @glasshalffull To be fair to @marlowchair I don't see any comment on the possible investors and is totally focused on nailing Trevor Stroud for pushing him away.
He makes no comment on the investors at all which very telling.
I actually do , I say that a major bid to buy a majority share of a very good league one club that is firmly fan owned , with minimal up front capital and only an “under writing “ plan going forward is very cheeky and they are taking a Liberty . That is of course their right, it’s hard to blame them and is the fault of those who allow them to pinch our club cheaply “ for a bit of fun “
I’ve no idea what your inferring re Stroud but I’ve no dealings with him not have in the past
@DevC said:
fair enough eric. I think if I had a vote I would be as keen to understand as best as I could the realistic consequences of voting no as I would the consequences of voting yes.
Just for the record and to save me having to look through a million pages what is the level of the debt tbey will not be paying off? No business brain me but surely the start of the fun and making the club sustainable would be starting on a level playing field? Am I missing something?
Comments
Yes I get your point. As the US guys said, they want to invest in the club itself to drive a return rather than covering debt repayment and that's their choice. Your point that the debt remains is a salient one.
I can't find the recording on facebook that was mentioned? Anyone have a link?
The devil will be in the detail, which is yet to be shared.
That’s their pitch in a nutshell . Absolute fantasy
Any new partner who doesn’t want to do the right thing and clear debt to those who have kept this club alive with their generosity is not a partner any legacy member should vote for .
Farcical
Why was tonight so underwhelming?
On 12th September Trevor and Burrell stood before us and told us they had “options” and that all bidders would need to put a “ number “ , a big number on their capital input before any consideration for sale could be made .
Less than two months later our chairman presented as a beaten grand national horse a mile out, no options at all other than this bid which merely replicates exactly what Howard has provided for the past 4 years but with much less security and stability.
Underwriting our business plan ... being there to put £25k in every other month to cover wage bills , but having total control and majority share - something Howard never was afforded .
Other proposals have not been adequately considered and that is a fundamental failing by the man chairing our club and the football club board generally .
Proposing to sell our club is one thing , but to do it having so comprehensively butchered the process and having just one very meek,uninspiring ,and financially impotent offer on the table is a special kind of failure that would be hysterically funny if not for the history , sweat and tears that have been invested in this club over the years all to see it urinated away in 18 months of chairmanship .
Before you accuse me of being personal - it’s not my judgement but the boards on “ on record “ statements that tell us all was brilliant and swimmingly progressive financially up until mr Stroud took over . Now we are on our backsides pleading with foreign investment to give us a bit of cash if we need it .... for a controlling share of our club ,
It’s ridiculous we are even considering such a preposterous premise .
If you need any further evidence that things have imploded badly the past 6 months ask Andrew Howard his opinion on the individual members of the football club and trust board .
Mark Burrell standing down as he did and when he did was proper Judas stuff .
Not keen then @marlowchair!
Bit OTT and full of hyperbole and not exactly unexpected. But relax. It won’t happen.
And yes, I will accuse you of being personal. Point me in the direction of the statements that all was brilliant, etc up until Stroud took over. That is a statement of fact that you should be able to support - and I will apologise to you accordingly if you do.
In the meantime I, I assume like sensible others, will wait and see what the actual details of the proposal are and the level of safeguards we put in before deciding on the merits of the investment.
And I have absolutely no idea why I feel compelled to defend Trevor Stroud against your attacks. I have no idea as to his competence or integrity and have never met him I don’t think. But given the decision to seek outside investment appears to have been taken long before he took over as chair (if it was only 18 months ago) it does seem a little unfair to blame him for everything from the financial loss last season, to the alleged lack of adequate consideration of potential investors (how do you actually know) to the lack of crisps in the Vere Suite.
I guess it’s similar to why I feel the need to defend Richie from time to time.
Play the ball, not the man.
If you have constructive criticisms to make @marlowchair , would it not have been better to air them last night giving people a chance to respond to them?
Hear, hear, @bookertease.
Hardly underwhelming, they fronted up and seemed prepared, as did Trevor, for any questions, and left to waves applause with discussions turning to how to convince enough people to vote.
Ok , they may not want to pay up all debt immediately but neither does the trust and its unrealistic to think anyone else does, they are offering investment to build including where needed in the stadium, with a view to gradual improvement in financial and playing position and they seem realistic about the costs involved. They are after evolution and respect the work of the existing teams so doesn't match marlows opinion that everyone is incompetent. Thought the defence of the conflict of interest question with care not to appear irate that it was raised and dealing with Mr Carrots questions were also good. Due diligence to be done but I can see this happening. Hard to be too synical to the point of stagnation.
I've tried to steer clear of making many comments on this subject up to now.... but I must say it does seem from a quick glance of comments from last night that we would be handing the club over for not much return.
My main problem so far, as others have mentioned is, the (supposedly?) Apparent un willingness to talk to all possible investors due to personal matters, if this IS true, it is Not acceptable.... the club comes first !
Wasn't there last night or seen link, but as others have said, whoever turned up would be as charming as they could, they are hardly going to turn up and act twats in front of everyone were they ?
For the record, I'm a real sit on the fence for this one. I'd love to stay fan owned if possible, but if not then don't also mind being owned... nightmare, we could get a shark who will sell us down the river.... or, even possible we could get someone like the late Leicester owner who was loved by all... pot luck I guess
So last night was (as expected) a charm offensive. There is no way that they would have shared the detailed numbers of their proposal at the moment because it has not been finalised.
They appeared to want to be involved in making this club sustainable and have a track record at Derby County.
They came out of the Derby deal losing money and stated that they do not see making a profit out of the club as the be all and end all of their involvement. Success can be many things.
They came across as passionate.
However, one way of helping to make the club sustainable is to clear the current debts so the fact that this does not appear to be on the table at the moment does seem a little odd.
There have been mistakes made in the past, including the recent past, but we need to look at what is best to secure the future of our great club.
I am a Legacy Member having seen my first game in 1972. I am naturally cynical and sceptical but they did start to win my support last night. The devil is still in the detail but they seem to have the right passion and vision to take the club forward for my sons.
Having listened to the US guys last night and also read veiws on the Gasroom with interest not once has anyone offered any alternative to moving our club forward.
What does "moving our club forward" mean?
They came across as personable 'regular guys', a "couple of schmos" as Luby jokingly referred to themselves. He is a real New Yorker and watches all our games on iFollow, Collis is seemingly based 2000 miles much further west. They want to invest in Wycombe "for fun", they kept making that point, because their Derby experience was so much fun.
They made it clear that this was a personal investment, not through their Seaport business where they typically sell a business after a few years, and that they have no timescales for their stay. As long as it's fun, they would stay seemed to be the message. They would be very happy with break even on their investment. When asked why they were not investing in an American soccer club, Luby made it clear they have a very low opinion of football in their country, he would not watch MLS and Derby got them hooked on English football.
They referred to the potential of the club and how it needed more investment to realise that, said one person (General Manager?) was doing the job of four people, and implied that more hands were needed. They had confidence in the current management of the club and would take a hands-off role in the management. They wouldn't be at Adams Park for every game.
It was interesting to hear Trevor say that the club have a loan agreement in place with Messrs Luby and Collis, for "the difficult period up to Christmas". If the vote goes against them, how quickly would they want that loan repaid?
I was disappointed not to get some financial detail on their proposal, Trevor said it was still being negotiated, so all we know so far is that they would underwrite a five year plan. I presume that the evening of the vote will include a detailed financial presentation.
Trevor said that if the 75% vote in favour was not achieved then we have no Plan B, we would continue doing what we do now. This seemed to preclude the other two parties stepping in with a proposal, although he did say that he was still talking to them and they were aware of the American developments.
I have heard nothing so far to make me vote yes, that all rests on the detail.
For me Eric, it would be continuing to provide Football league entertainment for the benefit of the residents of High Wycombe and the surrounding areas.
I believe you are minded to oppose "investment". Could you clarify whether that is based on
a) a belief that WWFC could likely stay in the FL without outside investment
or
b) a belief that fan ownership is so important that you are prepared to suffer a slip down the leagues if that is the price of that model.
Last night went about as well as it good for the potential investors. They came across as passionate but not overbearing to me. The devil will be in the detail on how much money is enough for a majority holding. One point that seemed to slide by was that they have already loaned money to the club. How much and what happens if the deal falls through will be interesting.
If external investment is the best path then these 'guys' (how grating did that become in the opening introduction?) seem to fit the bill. The financials will be the key for me.
In regard to @marlowchair 's latest attempt to get back at Trevor Stroud for spurning him I am assuming the Trust on presenting their view of the best option having considered all three. This is what I have heard to be the case and obviously picking one as favoured will hurt the others. To give Howard a view I have not heard from him is pretty low.
The key to all this is the 75% rule. I can't see anyway this will be achieved. It is almost impossible when some will not vote and it is an emotive issue. Is this rule a problem in the long term as it effectively ties us in the the current situation forever. If it is unsustainable the club is in trouble at some point.
Overall I was impressed enough to know more. I suppose that was all last night was going to be.
What a surprise that marlowchair has used last night’s meeting to launch yet another diatribe against Trevor Stroud and the would be investors. His post could have been written weeks ago rather than this morning because he never had any intention of giving either party a fair hearing. I hope most of those present last night went into the meeting with an open mind rather than a deeply entrenched view.
Most of the people I spoke to after the meeting were impressed with the presentation but understandably cautious until more details are known. I didn’t hear anyone use the words ‘fantasy’ or ‘farcical’. Like them, I will make my mind up when I know more about the proposals.
@DevC that is the meaning that I had for “taking the club forwards”
My sons have grown up supporting a FL based Wycombe and I would want them to have the best opportunity to continue do so.
@glasshalffull To be fair to @marlowchair I don't see any comment on the possible investors and is totally focused on nailing Trevor Stroud for pushing him away.
He makes no comment on the investors at all which very telling.
I'm still waiting to hear some details Dev
@Right-in-the-Middle - Other than calling their pitch fantasy!
fair enough eric. I think if I had a vote I would be as keen to understand as best as I could the realistic consequences of voting no as I would the consequences of voting yes.
See the article I posted from December 16.
https://www.wycombewanderers.co.uk/news/2016/december/michael-davies-appointed-new-general-manager/
Plus various public statements including the chairman and financial controller themselves st AGM 2017- Stroud had been chair for only a very short time the reporting period was relating to at that meeting and our finance report was glowing , it was “ thriving “.
So Of 18 months under Stroud it is factual we have gone from thriving to desperately bad. According to the board itself . It’s not my words or speculation its their statement of facts .
Sorry but I’m angry. When you see something being planned and unfolding that will have dire consequences for the club you love ,and highlight it , and it still happens in slow motion like an impending train wreck , it makes you angry
I actually do , I say that a major bid to buy a majority share of a very good league one club that is firmly fan owned , with minimal up front capital and only an “under writing “ plan going forward is very cheeky and they are taking a Liberty . That is of course their right, it’s hard to blame them and is the fault of those who allow them to pinch our club cheaply “ for a bit of fun “
I’ve no idea what your inferring re Stroud but I’ve no dealings with him not have in the past
who isn't keen to do that?
@marlowchair didn't you say the other week that Burrell should be "wholly applauded" for stepping down recently? Now a few weeks later he's a "judas"?
I think he should be applauded , his colleagues of the time probably take the Judas view.
Just for the record and to save me having to look through a million pages what is the level of the debt tbey will not be paying off? No business brain me but surely the start of the fun and making the club sustainable would be starting on a level playing field? Am I missing something?