@Right_in_the_Middle said:
I was very surprised there was no apology on the night for what was an awful comment. It would be frightening if this lady had a vote with decision making like that.
Paying £10 a year to the Trust and possessing a season ticket to watch football isn't likely to guarantee the most cerebral of electorates.
So. Positives; profit not their sole and primary motive; apparent genuine interest in, and knowledge of UK football; willingness to be in for the long haul.
Concerns; we already owe them money, when does that have to be paid back? Without owning the ground any increased revenue must come from direct football activity (am I right that any events such as Christmas parties or hosting England ladies or similar held at AP generate income for FALL not WWFC?). Do they have a belief they will significantly increase bums on seats and is such a belief naive and based on ideas that may only work in other sports?
Reflecting on it all, I am yet to be convinced and genuinely don’t know which way I will vote. I am saddened that I may end up voting yes because to vote no will result in a sudden collapse - debts called in, board resignations without experienced replacements. I hope we receive enough credible information so that if I feel
I cannot vote no, I will have more confidence in ‘yes’ than I do right now.
The whole situation with the Americans seems very strange to me. Why would we even consider a 5 year plan for investment? Surely we should be looking at something permanent or there will never be any stability. If the Ameicans expect attendances to rise significantly to raise income, they are most probably in for quite a shock. Do they really expect fans to continue to do all the voluntry work around the club? their brilliant efforts have saved us so much money and will they expect donations from fans? Before the season started, club 500 was disbanded as there was enough money for the playing budget. Investors in the share scheme were informed that there will no longer be any tax relief, is this because if we sell, we will no longer have the charity status? If we had kept these going, would we have "needed" to have a loan from the potential investors? To take on more paid staff this season seems to me that the desicion to sell has already been made by the board and are now trying to force this on fans due to the increased spending.
Good post Chairgirl, the whole thing just doesn't quite add up does it?
And now with the revelation the club has accepted money (does anyone actually know how much?) in loans from the potential new owners, makes it seem all slightly dubious...
Agreed Mr Bandito, The same person who is chairman of both the Trust and WWFC has allowed the debt to spiral out of control, so much that we are taking loans from potential investers before they have even been presented to the members.
I disagree that it’s a good post because it contains several inaccuracies and assumptions. They did not limit their involvement to five years, they placed no time limit on it at all; it’s impossible to find someone willing to ‘permanently’ invest in any club, no one can ever guarantee that; they said they hoped, not expected, attendances to rise- a perfectly understandable and achievable ambition; they did not say that they expected fans to continue doing voluntary work for the club; the investor scheme was comprised by changes in the tax laws, nothing to do with the club; the board can’t decide to sell, that’s up to the legacy members.
@glasshalffull - Do you honestly feel the club has any chance whatsoever of getting the 75% approval? If not, how are we going to repay the American's loan?
When you start borrowing money from individuals who have had no previous connection or emotional attachment to the club. Means one thing, The gun is loaded and its only a matter of time before its pointed at your head.
The very same tactic your old mate Sharky used to wrestle control of the club @glasshalffull .
@mooneyman said: @glasshalffull - Do you honestly feel the club has any chance whatsoever of getting the 75% approval? If not, how are we going to repay the American's loan?
You’ve raised a different issue but I have to answer ‘I don’t know’ to both your questions.
The issue with the share scheme is that it didn’t raise anywhere near enough cash. Circa 30% of the £2m target wasn’t it across 5 years? Not enough to keep a League One side going.
With a board and management as open , transparent , and diversely skilled as clubs such as Wimbledon afc , it can be done .
Our share scheme and fundraising efforts have sadly always had the cloud of political stigma and questions hanging over them which always leads to measured and cautious donation / investment behaviour by supporters .
The questions around how Hayes was ushered into the club , the questions over the running of the club under Woodward etc , the questions around transfer dealings at that time , the questions around the training ground transaction , the questions around his how Howard was ushered into the club and given autonomy, the questions around the constant presence of Beeks across all of the above , the questions around Stroud beckoning chair shortly after going to work for Beechdean , the lack of declaration and transparency around the above , the lack of information the trust board is provided by the football club board , the questions around how this proposed sale has been handled and how we decided to go into debt with a proposed buyer prior to legacy members voting on accepting them or not ...
This isn’t to judge each of the above issues , but to point out why we have not made the supporter model work , I don’t believe our governors have provide the right environment , culture or character to encourage optimal goodwill leading to confident investment .
“They’re not spending my money in that way “ is the attitude consistent questions of leadership creates
I have it on good authority that AFC Wimbledon are also finding the supporters-owned model very difficult to sustain although, unlike some posters on here, I must point out that I don’t have hard evidence to support this.
@marlowchair with the exception of the first paragraph, given that there is no evidence to support it either way, I agree with the rest of your post. All good questions.
I mat admit to never having thought or worried about a lot of the questions you present as common fact @marlowchair . Given your opinions as the defacto history of the club is very misleading.
Running a supporter owned model in the current economic and political environment is tough. People don't have spare cash and if they do the options for it are greater. To transition a club from the Hayes tenure to where we are today has to have involved plenty of right decisions. Lack of actual cash has been a big driver but we are a League One side capable of competing.
I have never expected total transparency. We elect boards for a reason.
I have never invested in the club but has never been based on your assumptions.
To be honest @bookertease , I am surprised you see @marlowchair's latest round as mud-slinging as good questions. They almost all seem seem utterly irrelevant to me.
Those who can vote will need to choose between two competing options a) the investment option and b) the as yet illdefined reject the americans option. Those choices should be made based on the facts as they currently are, not some idealised facts as you would prefer them to be.
The era of hayes has long passed - he has no relevance to the two choices going forward from here
The era of woodward has passed - yes he made some errors (particularly the Phillips deal) but they are done. He has no relevance to the choice now to be made
Training ground decision in the past - no relevance to the decision that needs to be made now
Howard appointment - done. Although many would say what a great contribution he has made, whether or not he should have been appointed is irrelevant now.
Beeks's historical involvement - irrelevant to the future
Stroud appointment as chair - in the past, irrelevant to the decision now
Marlow would prefer us not to accept this investor. he is entitled to that view. I would find his opinion much more persuasive if rather than throwing mud and pursuing grudges, he presented a positive credible vision of an alternative for the future from this point. There may well be one. If there is, time to let those who will vote know what it is.
Correct @DevC , to believe the trumped up list of accusations Marlow regularly floats will influence the vast majority of voters, let alone minor investors and fans is reaching. There are concerns, many were raised at the meeting, they left to big applause.
@DevC is right. If history has taught us anything it is that we should never look back and see what mistakes have been made and who made them before deciding to do it all again. It is all irrelevant. Use your brains people...white pearly smiles of rich people who only want the best for you. By the same token to add to what @Right_in_the_Middle is saying...even the most optimistic slightly racist jolly millionaire who says pish-posh to Europe is accepting the economy is going to take a 'bit of a blip' post March 2019. And a blip to them may be a f*********************************************************!!!!! for the rest of us. I doubt there is going to be much spare cash for most of us for a while!
Not a reason to vote for...but may have an implication for fan ownership as we see it.
@DevC - Unusually, I actually agree with most of your points above.
Without Howard's professional and commercial involvement, I doubt whether we would have got to First Division level. We owe him a great debt.
However Beeks's previous involvement is relevant as he is still on the Board. He was the leading player in Sharky's sorry acquisition and currently part owner of the training ground having seen a potential development opportunity. It is also rumoured that one potential wealthy investor has been totally ignored due to Beeks's personal dislike.
@glasshalffull hang on...surely that means we should have been offered the chance to judge the merits of every would-be investor. At the moment it seems we have to choose between the one they've already decided on and taken cash from or the cliff edge...
@glasshalffull said:
Of course it has no relevance. Every would be investor is different and should be judged on merit when all the facts are known.
No relevance is too far, it informs concerns as it should, hopefully we will have a lot more information before people are asked to vote, if not then scaremongering will continue.
Have to say they batted most things away well, Trevor was obviously expecting the conflict of interest question for example, no response yet from Marlow i dont think. Accepting the loan was a bit of an own goal though. I'm not overly concerned about repayment directly as i believe the trust have said before they have borrowed in the quieter times to be paid back later. It does look wrong though and lends to the idea that maybe the reason we aren't breaking even is because we don't want to limit our spending appropriately.
Pretty sure history doesn't always repeat itself @Malone . Learn from it but don't pigeon hole every event into to massive boxes to dismiss anything slightly what might have gone wrong before. The current supporter ownership and rules around it are a direct result of that part of our history. That is a learning and gives the current potential investors a different set of obstacles to Hayes.
How many people on the gasroom actually have a vote? For all we know they may easily reach the 75% threshold of Legacy members with or without our frank exchanges of views or our yes or no votes. Whisper it...we may have no influence at all!!
Could someone who is currently minded to vote against this investment spell out the alternative as they see it.
Lets set a credible mid ground scenario (not a forecast, not the best it may be, not the worst, somewhere in between).
The vote takes place in early January, it fails to pass, the Americans walk away but are prepared to leave their debt in to be repaid from future transfer fees. Stroud resigns leaving the football club board without the there most active recent players Burrell, Stroud and Howard, we lost before rd3 of the cup but are doing OK (17th) in the league. No interest so far in Ainsworth. No other bidders. the club is losing around £500k per year.
Comments
@floyd - I could not agree more! Dayton was built on a foundation of sadness, sorrow, and tears of boredom.
Paying £10 a year to the Trust and possessing a season ticket to watch football isn't likely to guarantee the most cerebral of electorates.
So. Positives; profit not their sole and primary motive; apparent genuine interest in, and knowledge of UK football; willingness to be in for the long haul.
Concerns; we already owe them money, when does that have to be paid back? Without owning the ground any increased revenue must come from direct football activity (am I right that any events such as Christmas parties or hosting England ladies or similar held at AP generate income for FALL not WWFC?). Do they have a belief they will significantly increase bums on seats and is such a belief naive and based on ideas that may only work in other sports?
Reflecting on it all, I am yet to be convinced and genuinely don’t know which way I will vote. I am saddened that I may end up voting yes because to vote no will result in a sudden collapse - debts called in, board resignations without experienced replacements. I hope we receive enough credible information so that if I feel
I cannot vote no, I will have more confidence in ‘yes’ than I do right now.
Sounds a lot like WWFC
The whole situation with the Americans seems very strange to me. Why would we even consider a 5 year plan for investment? Surely we should be looking at something permanent or there will never be any stability. If the Ameicans expect attendances to rise significantly to raise income, they are most probably in for quite a shock. Do they really expect fans to continue to do all the voluntry work around the club? their brilliant efforts have saved us so much money and will they expect donations from fans? Before the season started, club 500 was disbanded as there was enough money for the playing budget. Investors in the share scheme were informed that there will no longer be any tax relief, is this because if we sell, we will no longer have the charity status? If we had kept these going, would we have "needed" to have a loan from the potential investors? To take on more paid staff this season seems to me that the desicion to sell has already been made by the board and are now trying to force this on fans due to the increased spending.
Good post Chairgirl, the whole thing just doesn't quite add up does it?
And now with the revelation the club has accepted money (does anyone actually know how much?) in loans from the potential new owners, makes it seem all slightly dubious...
Agreed Mr Bandito, The same person who is chairman of both the Trust and WWFC has allowed the debt to spiral out of control, so much that we are taking loans from potential investers before they have even been presented to the members.
I disagree that it’s a good post because it contains several inaccuracies and assumptions. They did not limit their involvement to five years, they placed no time limit on it at all; it’s impossible to find someone willing to ‘permanently’ invest in any club, no one can ever guarantee that; they said they hoped, not expected, attendances to rise- a perfectly understandable and achievable ambition; they did not say that they expected fans to continue doing voluntary work for the club; the investor scheme was comprised by changes in the tax laws, nothing to do with the club; the board can’t decide to sell, that’s up to the legacy members.
@glasshalffull - Do you honestly feel the club has any chance whatsoever of getting the 75% approval? If not, how are we going to repay the American's loan?
When you start borrowing money from individuals who have had no previous connection or emotional attachment to the club. Means one thing, The gun is loaded and its only a matter of time before its pointed at your head.
The very same tactic your old mate Sharky used to wrestle control of the club @glasshalffull .
You’ve raised a different issue but I have to answer ‘I don’t know’ to both your questions.
The issue with the share scheme is that it didn’t raise anywhere near enough cash. Circa 30% of the £2m target wasn’t it across 5 years? Not enough to keep a League One side going.
With a board and management as open , transparent , and diversely skilled as clubs such as Wimbledon afc , it can be done .
Our share scheme and fundraising efforts have sadly always had the cloud of political stigma and questions hanging over them which always leads to measured and cautious donation / investment behaviour by supporters .
The questions around how Hayes was ushered into the club , the questions over the running of the club under Woodward etc , the questions around transfer dealings at that time , the questions around the training ground transaction , the questions around his how Howard was ushered into the club and given autonomy, the questions around the constant presence of Beeks across all of the above , the questions around Stroud beckoning chair shortly after going to work for Beechdean , the lack of declaration and transparency around the above , the lack of information the trust board is provided by the football club board , the questions around how this proposed sale has been handled and how we decided to go into debt with a proposed buyer prior to legacy members voting on accepting them or not ...
This isn’t to judge each of the above issues , but to point out why we have not made the supporter model work , I don’t believe our governors have provide the right environment , culture or character to encourage optimal goodwill leading to confident investment .
“They’re not spending my money in that way “ is the attitude consistent questions of leadership creates
I have it on good authority that AFC Wimbledon are also finding the supporters-owned model very difficult to sustain although, unlike some posters on here, I must point out that I don’t have hard evidence to support this.
@marlowchair with the exception of the first paragraph, given that there is no evidence to support it either way, I agree with the rest of your post. All good questions.
I mat admit to never having thought or worried about a lot of the questions you present as common fact @marlowchair . Given your opinions as the defacto history of the club is very misleading.
Running a supporter owned model in the current economic and political environment is tough. People don't have spare cash and if they do the options for it are greater. To transition a club from the Hayes tenure to where we are today has to have involved plenty of right decisions. Lack of actual cash has been a big driver but we are a League One side capable of competing.
I have never expected total transparency. We elect boards for a reason.
I have never invested in the club but has never been based on your assumptions.
Well said RIM. Theories are easy to produce, results are a lot more difficult.
To be honest @bookertease , I am surprised you see @marlowchair's latest round as mud-slinging as good questions. They almost all seem seem utterly irrelevant to me.
Those who can vote will need to choose between two competing options a) the investment option and b) the as yet illdefined reject the americans option. Those choices should be made based on the facts as they currently are, not some idealised facts as you would prefer them to be.
The era of hayes has long passed - he has no relevance to the two choices going forward from here
The era of woodward has passed - yes he made some errors (particularly the Phillips deal) but they are done. He has no relevance to the choice now to be made
Training ground decision in the past - no relevance to the decision that needs to be made now
Howard appointment - done. Although many would say what a great contribution he has made, whether or not he should have been appointed is irrelevant now.
Beeks's historical involvement - irrelevant to the future
Stroud appointment as chair - in the past, irrelevant to the decision now
Marlow would prefer us not to accept this investor. he is entitled to that view. I would find his opinion much more persuasive if rather than throwing mud and pursuing grudges, he presented a positive credible vision of an alternative for the future from this point. There may well be one. If there is, time to let those who will vote know what it is.
Correct @DevC , to believe the trumped up list of accusations Marlow regularly floats will influence the vast majority of voters, let alone minor investors and fans is reaching. There are concerns, many were raised at the meeting, they left to big applause.
@DevC is right. If history has taught us anything it is that we should never look back and see what mistakes have been made and who made them before deciding to do it all again. It is all irrelevant. Use your brains people...white pearly smiles of rich people who only want the best for you. By the same token to add to what @Right_in_the_Middle is saying...even the most optimistic slightly racist jolly millionaire who says pish-posh to Europe is accepting the economy is going to take a 'bit of a blip' post March 2019. And a blip to them may be a f*********************************************************!!!!! for the rest of us. I doubt there is going to be much spare cash for most of us for a while!
Not a reason to vote for...but may have an implication for fan ownership as we see it.
@DevC - Unusually, I actually agree with most of your points above.
Without Howard's professional and commercial involvement, I doubt whether we would have got to First Division level. We owe him a great debt.
However Beeks's previous involvement is relevant as he is still on the Board. He was the leading player in Sharky's sorry acquisition and currently part owner of the training ground having seen a potential development opportunity. It is also rumoured that one potential wealthy investor has been totally ignored due to Beeks's personal dislike.
Incredible to say the near disastrous Hayes era has no "relevance" to a future choice.
They say history repeats itself as memories fade, but not normally within less than a decade!
Of course it has no relevance. Every would be investor is different and should be judged on merit when all the facts are known.
@mooneyman - who is the potential wealthy investor that has been ignored to date?
@glasshalffull hang on...surely that means we should have been offered the chance to judge the merits of every would-be investor. At the moment it seems we have to choose between the one they've already decided on and taken cash from or the cliff edge...
Andy Harman?
No relevance is too far, it informs concerns as it should, hopefully we will have a lot more information before people are asked to vote, if not then scaremongering will continue.
Have to say they batted most things away well, Trevor was obviously expecting the conflict of interest question for example, no response yet from Marlow i dont think. Accepting the loan was a bit of an own goal though. I'm not overly concerned about repayment directly as i believe the trust have said before they have borrowed in the quieter times to be paid back later. It does look wrong though and lends to the idea that maybe the reason we aren't breaking even is because we don't want to limit our spending appropriately.
Pretty sure history doesn't always repeat itself @Malone . Learn from it but don't pigeon hole every event into to massive boxes to dismiss anything slightly what might have gone wrong before. The current supporter ownership and rules around it are a direct result of that part of our history. That is a learning and gives the current potential investors a different set of obstacles to Hayes.
How many people on the gasroom actually have a vote? For all we know they may easily reach the 75% threshold of Legacy members with or without our frank exchanges of views or our yes or no votes. Whisper it...we may have no influence at all!!
Could someone who is currently minded to vote against this investment spell out the alternative as they see it.
Lets set a credible mid ground scenario (not a forecast, not the best it may be, not the worst, somewhere in between).
The vote takes place in early January, it fails to pass, the Americans walk away but are prepared to leave their debt in to be repaid from future transfer fees. Stroud resigns leaving the football club board without the there most active recent players Burrell, Stroud and Howard, we lost before rd3 of the cup but are doing OK (17th) in the league. No interest so far in Ainsworth. No other bidders. the club is losing around £500k per year.
What should happen next?