I have a vote @Wendoverman and will make up my mind based on the deal rather than the 'fun'.
Sadly I don't think my vote will matter as the combination of a 75% threshold and a no vote meaning no will make it impossible to get over. I can't see how any investment opportunity can be cast iron so think we are going to be supporter owned until we get to find out how sustainable it actually is.
The debate around getting everyone allowed to vote to vote and getting them the best information is sadly lacking. This issue will hamper the club until it is.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
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.
Exactly. If you refuse to consider any would be investors because you believe that the previous investor was a mistake, you are never going to move from that position. Also, the way the Americans are proposing to invest is wholly different to the way Steve Hayes purchase of shares was structured.
In what way is it a loaded question to ask what we should do next in a likely scenario if the vote is a "no".
Feel free to amend the middle of the road scenario I have painted if you wish, but sooner or later we have to stop arguing about the past and focus on what is the realistic alternative option. If there is one, I think we would all be delighted.
'Every would be investor is different and should be judged on merit when all the facts are known.' @glasshalffull I fully agree....but this hasn't happened has it? We have one chosen investor and only one set of facts are coming to have their merits judged.
I am beginning to understand the invest option although there are more details still awaited.
I don't understand the "don't invest" option. That's why I asked someone to explain it to me.
I think the "don't invest" option means a highly likely slip down the leagues (at best). some seem to say I am wrong but I cant seem to find out what they believe that option is.
If in January I had a vote between a factual fully explained investment bid on the broad basis I am expecting and that i believe would likely lead to league survival and a vague alternative possibly based on no more than wishful thinking that seemed likely to lead to a fall down the leagues at best, I would have to vote to accept.
Give me a credible alternative that I believed gave a strong probability at remaining in the league (even in Lg2), I would probably change my mind.
Out of interest how many different people need to suggest methods of cost-cutting, revenue raising and encouraging or listening to other potential investors before people stop being asked why nobody has suggested an alternative?
You may not like the alternatives, you may not like the investment being offered but constantly ignoring other options and asking why nobody has any is just a bit weird unless it's deliberately misleading.
Like @Right_in_the_Middle I have a vote and want to see the plan and the safeguards before I commit. Not being a long-time resident and supporter perhaps I am feeling the pressure to make a decision more than some as I would like to think I'm doing the best thing for the future of the club despite having no history and with no guarantee of staying in the area. I'm not interested in running a club so I have great sympathy for those who do but while not wanting to chuck concrete at individuals or delve into conflicts of disinterest or add to crispgate I don;t like the fact that the choice is between THIS choice or damnation. It may be that our leaders have made a right hash...or have succeeded against the odds in terrible circumstance...or simply just want out...but the process could and should have been more transparent and we should have been informed about other offers and why they were rejected. Then people would have a clearer informed position of the decision making process of Trevor et al from which to take a view one way or the other on the bid on the table. As it is the waters are muddy which gives cause for concern for people who perhaps under other circumstances would have had a simple decision. That's my view at the moment. I have no idea what would happen if we didn't vote for the bid...but perhaps the ones rejected might be given another shot. Or it's the end of football as we know it in Wycombe.
Whatever happens I will of course say - as will many on here - I knew that would happen...
There is the better option . Stop painting it black and white . We have more options than sell to the Americans or die dialogue that is being bulldozed onto us .
The big problem is we don’t know all the options because they have either not been sought by our board or not tabled .
That just isn’t satisfactory at all .
It was admitted at the meeting that mr Horowitz is the only agent or “market” that has been canvassed with any real zest in terms of finding investors .
We haven’t “gone to market” at all on this .
I’m not against the “guys” , i’m Against the wasteful process of considering only a minute portion of available market when selling our club .
Yes We discuss one interested party who had not been given fair hearing but there are others , and that is only among a closed group of known : interested potential owners , we have discounted and dismissed those and haven’t even gone publicly to market in seeking interested parties ..,
By definition we have no clue as to the size of potential market interest and certainly haven’t tested it .
Until we have , any vote is redundant. If legacy members vote yes to the one option they are tabled without the board being able to demonstrate a thorough and robust process of having gone to market and sourced it for all credible options , they are not setting a High enough standard of our board .
@StrongestTeam
I would prefer to remain fan owned if it can sustain a high probability of league status. While obviously lg1 is desirable, lg2 is fine. I haven't seen any realistic plans to cut costs or raise revenues that at the moment would lead me to believe that this is possible. Cant say I have read every post though, so I may have missed them. Could you list what you think are the key ones.
@Wendoverman
I think you are right to want to see the details before you commit. I think you then need to consider carefully that proposal against the realistic alternatives. Are you confident that a better bid really exists - the trust board working on our behalf all of whom presumably would prefer to remain fan owned if possible all don't think there is - or are you confident that league football can be maintained under fan ownership - or are you happy to slip down the leagues if that is the price of fan ownership. Unless you can say yes to one of those alternatives, voting no would seem to be a massive risk
@marlowchair
it would appear that you are now advocating an alternative owner rather than retaining the existing model. I believe you have claimed to operate in the football investment market. What evidence do you have that a better bid exists beyond vague hope value. obviously we will not know until we have seen the detail, but given their history both here and in the US, if investment must be sought at all, the Americans struck me as a pretty good fit. Do I take it your vision if the vote is no is that someone new (perhaps yourself) looks around in the hope that he may find a better deal or do you have evidence that that better offer already exists?
Your appetite for expansion / regurgitation is impressive yet wearying @DevC . If you really don't think there are any costs that can be cut or areas of untapped revenue then any new owner is really up against it.
Anyway the point wasn't really wether you find alternatives realistic or better rather than that they exist.
It sounds like the proposed new owners have made a decent case so though it is clear they are short-termers, I don't believe necessarily that they are chancer carpet-baggers, but by the same token I don't buy the idea that we're necessarily doomed to park football by a No vote. @DevC can you provide proof that everyone involved from the club acted in good faith, that all bids were considered equally and that personal animosity did not play a part in a viable bid being ignored?
Can I ask what you mean by "shorttermers" @Wendoverman and why you believe that the American proposal is that. I was quite impressed by the history to the contrary.
Proving a negative is very difficult, but nobody including the fabled mr Harman has gone public with details of a rejected bid. If I felt wronged in that way, I think I would have done by now. The trust board are all elected by us, all fans of the club, all seemingly bright people, all presumably prefer fan ownership, all presumably give up their time for no reward to further the best interests of WWFC and none of whom stand to make any personal gain. I guess on this one you have to decide whether you are minded to believe the 10ish guys you elected to work on your behalf who all believe this is the best bidder or Marlow or carrots who seem to be motivated by a grudge.
I don't believe anyone asked the question about whether there were alternate firm bids and if so why they were rejected. If that is a major concern in your decision, that's a shame.
Obviously we don't know the details of this proposal yet, but may I ask what you are hoping to get from an alternative theoretical bid that is not present in this one?
I don't buy the argument that the club hasn't touted itself to the wider market. If you are in the realm of football investment and don't know Wycombe is an option then you aren't really that interested.
Now we know the club has had numerous expressions of interest. Remember the meeting a couple of years ago and the non apprearance of some investors? One thing I expect the club and Trust boards to do is sort out the viable investors. They currently have one. We just need to vote to accept them or not. A no vote opens other options but reduces our options by one known one.
I do though think the pool of possible investors decreases by more than one with a No vote. It will give a message to others that it is a tough hurdle to get over.
As a final aside I am finding @DevC 's rude demands to people to answer his questions when they don't have to or have in numerous similar posts a real blight on the general debate.
I think RIM has got it right. The Trust board clearly said at the September 12 meeting that they had met and had dialogue with more than one proposed investor. They were given a mandate by a show of hands to continue this dialogue and duly arrived at the conclusion that the Americans were the best choice.
Comments
Oh no. It's loaded question with made up scenario time.
excruciating stuff
I have a vote @Wendoverman and will make up my mind based on the deal rather than the 'fun'.
Sadly I don't think my vote will matter as the combination of a 75% threshold and a no vote meaning no will make it impossible to get over. I can't see how any investment opportunity can be cast iron so think we are going to be supporter owned until we get to find out how sustainable it actually is.
The debate around getting everyone allowed to vote to vote and getting them the best information is sadly lacking. This issue will hamper the club until it is.
Beeks's historical involvement is hardly irrelevant to the future when he keeps popping up every time you think he's finally waning his involvement.
Exactly. If you refuse to consider any would be investors because you believe that the previous investor was a mistake, you are never going to move from that position. Also, the way the Americans are proposing to invest is wholly different to the way Steve Hayes purchase of shares was structured.
In what way is it a loaded question to ask what we should do next in a likely scenario if the vote is a "no".
Feel free to amend the middle of the road scenario I have painted if you wish, but sooner or later we have to stop arguing about the past and focus on what is the realistic alternative option. If there is one, I think we would all be delighted.
Thanks for the reply - is the question mark in there as you aren't sure and that's your best guess at this stage?
Which way would you vote if you had one @DevC ? I find it hard to work out from your posts...
'Every would be investor is different and should be judged on merit when all the facts are known.' @glasshalffull I fully agree....but this hasn't happened has it? We have one chosen investor and only one set of facts are coming to have their merits judged.
I don't know at this stage, Wendover.
I am beginning to understand the invest option although there are more details still awaited.
I don't understand the "don't invest" option. That's why I asked someone to explain it to me.
I think the "don't invest" option means a highly likely slip down the leagues (at best). some seem to say I am wrong but I cant seem to find out what they believe that option is.
If in January I had a vote between a factual fully explained investment bid on the broad basis I am expecting and that i believe would likely lead to league survival and a vague alternative possibly based on no more than wishful thinking that seemed likely to lead to a fall down the leagues at best, I would have to vote to accept.
Give me a credible alternative that I believed gave a strong probability at remaining in the league (even in Lg2), I would probably change my mind.
You?
Out of interest how many different people need to suggest methods of cost-cutting, revenue raising and encouraging or listening to other potential investors before people stop being asked why nobody has suggested an alternative?
You may not like the alternatives, you may not like the investment being offered but constantly ignoring other options and asking why nobody has any is just a bit weird unless it's deliberately misleading.
Like @Right_in_the_Middle I have a vote and want to see the plan and the safeguards before I commit. Not being a long-time resident and supporter perhaps I am feeling the pressure to make a decision more than some as I would like to think I'm doing the best thing for the future of the club despite having no history and with no guarantee of staying in the area. I'm not interested in running a club so I have great sympathy for those who do but while not wanting to chuck concrete at individuals or delve into conflicts of disinterest or add to crispgate I don;t like the fact that the choice is between THIS choice or damnation. It may be that our leaders have made a right hash...or have succeeded against the odds in terrible circumstance...or simply just want out...but the process could and should have been more transparent and we should have been informed about other offers and why they were rejected. Then people would have a clearer informed position of the decision making process of Trevor et al from which to take a view one way or the other on the bid on the table. As it is the waters are muddy which gives cause for concern for people who perhaps under other circumstances would have had a simple decision. That's my view at the moment. I have no idea what would happen if we didn't vote for the bid...but perhaps the ones rejected might be given another shot. Or it's the end of football as we know it in Wycombe.
Whatever happens I will of course say - as will many on here - I knew that would happen...
There is the better option . Stop painting it black and white . We have more options than sell to the Americans or die dialogue that is being bulldozed onto us .
The big problem is we don’t know all the options because they have either not been sought by our board or not tabled .
That just isn’t satisfactory at all .
It was admitted at the meeting that mr Horowitz is the only agent or “market” that has been canvassed with any real zest in terms of finding investors .
We haven’t “gone to market” at all on this .
I’m not against the “guys” , i’m Against the wasteful process of considering only a minute portion of available market when selling our club .
Yes We discuss one interested party who had not been given fair hearing but there are others , and that is only among a closed group of known : interested potential owners , we have discounted and dismissed those and haven’t even gone publicly to market in seeking interested parties ..,
By definition we have no clue as to the size of potential market interest and certainly haven’t tested it .
Until we have , any vote is redundant. If legacy members vote yes to the one option they are tabled without the board being able to demonstrate a thorough and robust process of having gone to market and sourced it for all credible options , they are not setting a High enough standard of our board .
You see @marlowchair, when you keep the personal garbage out of it, you're one of the most valuable contributors on here.
@StrongestTeam
I would prefer to remain fan owned if it can sustain a high probability of league status. While obviously lg1 is desirable, lg2 is fine. I haven't seen any realistic plans to cut costs or raise revenues that at the moment would lead me to believe that this is possible. Cant say I have read every post though, so I may have missed them. Could you list what you think are the key ones.
@Wendoverman
I think you are right to want to see the details before you commit. I think you then need to consider carefully that proposal against the realistic alternatives. Are you confident that a better bid really exists - the trust board working on our behalf all of whom presumably would prefer to remain fan owned if possible all don't think there is - or are you confident that league football can be maintained under fan ownership - or are you happy to slip down the leagues if that is the price of fan ownership. Unless you can say yes to one of those alternatives, voting no would seem to be a massive risk
@marlowchair
it would appear that you are now advocating an alternative owner rather than retaining the existing model. I believe you have claimed to operate in the football investment market. What evidence do you have that a better bid exists beyond vague hope value. obviously we will not know until we have seen the detail, but given their history both here and in the US, if investment must be sought at all, the Americans struck me as a pretty good fit. Do I take it your vision if the vote is no is that someone new (perhaps yourself) looks around in the hope that he may find a better deal or do you have evidence that that better offer already exists?
Your appetite for expansion / regurgitation is impressive yet wearying @DevC . If you really don't think there are any costs that can be cut or areas of untapped revenue then any new owner is really up against it.
Anyway the point wasn't really wether you find alternatives realistic or better rather than that they exist.
quick reminder that no gasroom poster contributes less financially to WWFC than Dev
I ask you again, @StrongestTeam , what are they?
I'd check replies to the last dozen times you asked the question or alternatively have a look round on matchdays..
Either that or you could just stop avoiding the question.....
Are you suggesting that the answer to all our problems is better stock control of crisps?
Do your own digging, my whole point was that it's annoying that you keep asking.
It sounds like the proposed new owners have made a decent case so though it is clear they are short-termers, I don't believe necessarily that they are chancer carpet-baggers, but by the same token I don't buy the idea that we're necessarily doomed to park football by a No vote. @DevC can you provide proof that everyone involved from the club acted in good faith, that all bids were considered equally and that personal animosity did not play a part in a viable bid being ignored?
Has Dev ever visited Adams Park?
Can I ask what you mean by "shorttermers" @Wendoverman and why you believe that the American proposal is that. I was quite impressed by the history to the contrary.
Proving a negative is very difficult, but nobody including the fabled mr Harman has gone public with details of a rejected bid. If I felt wronged in that way, I think I would have done by now. The trust board are all elected by us, all fans of the club, all seemingly bright people, all presumably prefer fan ownership, all presumably give up their time for no reward to further the best interests of WWFC and none of whom stand to make any personal gain. I guess on this one you have to decide whether you are minded to believe the 10ish guys you elected to work on your behalf who all believe this is the best bidder or Marlow or carrots who seem to be motivated by a grudge.
I don't believe anyone asked the question about whether there were alternate firm bids and if so why they were rejected. If that is a major concern in your decision, that's a shame.
Obviously we don't know the details of this proposal yet, but may I ask what you are hoping to get from an alternative theoretical bid that is not present in this one?
I don't buy the argument that the club hasn't touted itself to the wider market. If you are in the realm of football investment and don't know Wycombe is an option then you aren't really that interested.
Now we know the club has had numerous expressions of interest. Remember the meeting a couple of years ago and the non apprearance of some investors? One thing I expect the club and Trust boards to do is sort out the viable investors. They currently have one. We just need to vote to accept them or not. A no vote opens other options but reduces our options by one known one.
I do though think the pool of possible investors decreases by more than one with a No vote. It will give a message to others that it is a tough hurdle to get over.
As a final aside I am finding @DevC 's rude demands to people to answer his questions when they don't have to or have in numerous similar posts a real blight on the general debate.
@DevC
short - small/limited/tichy
term- period of time.
No you cannot ask me anything anymore.
I think RIM has got it right. The Trust board clearly said at the September 12 meeting that they had met and had dialogue with more than one proposed investor. They were given a mandate by a show of hands to continue this dialogue and duly arrived at the conclusion that the Americans were the best choice.
titchy?
@mooneyman a bit harsh. I've had a hard life. Ask the fabled Mr Harman.
Other investors have always been led to believe minority ownership was the only option at Wwfc and have understandably spent elsewhere .
Majority option has only been made known by board , well as late as 12th September ....
Dev, all suitors signed non disclosure agreements which survive the term of actual negotiation , you see them publicly state their views.