Just read @EwanHoosaami post, and if his account it accurate, its very suprising that Mr Harmans vision for the club has not been paraded in front of the members.
Maybe he will come forward ? as he cetainly seems a rather more wholesome prospect than a group of unknown professional investors.
It's in times like this, you cant help but think what would be the thoughts of our great benefactor Frank Adams be ?
Maybe it's sentimental clap trap, but if the fans no longer have the financial clout to run the Football club at this level, then the next best thing is a local ex player who wants to incorporate the whole local community into getting behind the famous Wanderers from Wycombe.
Will Jim and Bill be at the meeting on the 28th? It's not explicitly clear from the article. Also, I think there was an informal meet and greet scheduled for the night after the vote - is that no longer happening?
"The purpose of the meeting is to present to members the proposal for investment into the Club, by Jim Collis and Bill Luby. " They are coming over specifically for this meeting.
The next night is our rearranged game away at Blackpool.
I have heard that Mr Harman does not want to show his hand until the American bid is defeated.
If his offer is as good as @EwanHoosami intimates then surely it is in his interest to make it public now so that we have a choice of potential owners.
If he decides not to do so, then surely there must be some concern that as a businessman he is waiting so that he can buy the club at a lower price (should he get sufficient votes)
The Trust have to pay back a vast sum to the Americans by a certain date if they choose another bidder.
They have bought more time in having the meeting later i.e on the 28th not the 14th.
It's all very well banging on about their preferred bidder (see AGM minutes on the Trust website etc) but based on what?
We haven't seen any details whatsoever while the creditors are rumoured to have settled on a debt for equity swap whereby they make even more when the Americans flip their investment.
Why do the creditors know what the deal is but the members don't?
Are there any planned talks with other investors or has the Chairman been told by his employer that this is his only option?
Andrew Harman is a local lad, who has played for Wycombe and supported the club for many years. This in my eyes is a plus.
Annodata was sold for £65million in December 2016 with Andrew receiving around £20-25million(after tax). His share holding in the business according to companies house was between 25-50%, though media reports put it at 50%. He still works for Kyocera who bought Annodata.
Interestingly he also owns a property development company with his brother Tim.
Personally I can't see any future bid for the club being accepted by the Legacy Members. To achieve 608 yes votes out of 810 is nigh on impossible.
I look forward to hearing the Americans pitch and then some time afterwards Andrew's throw of the dice.
"We haven't seen any details whatsoever while the creditors are rumoured to have settled on a debt for equity swap whereby they make even more when the Americans flip their investment."
So if there is any substance in these rumours, you would seriously have to question whether the primaily motive for steering the Club into the Americans hands, is in the best interests of the club or the creditors ??
The lack of transparency, leads to a lack of trust, hence why i can believe for one second that they will get the legal requirement of 75% of the eligible voters to back this option.
Among the many things I find incredibly disturbing about the way our club is going about all this, is the fact that in one paragraph of one gasroom post from @EwanHoosaami we have been presented with a more coherent vision for the future of the club, than the board have managed to present in a ton of emails, meetings and press releases.
If they want us to believe that the American bid is the best bid, they need to present a vision for the future that isn't just "we won't go out of business quite yet". If they can't do that, as it currently seems, then the American bid is clearly not the best bid and is being pushed to further some other agenda.
As things stand and without knowing a great deal about either the US bid or the Andrew Harman bid will legacy members be tempted to throw the US bid out in the hope that the rival bid from a local man might succeed? Thought provoking.
@LordMandeville said:
As things stand and without knowing a great deal about either the US bid or the Andrew Harman bid will legacy members be tempted to throw the US bid out in the hope that the rival bid from a local man might succeed? Thought provoking.
A risky move given that we haven't heard anything official about any Harman bid.
Agreed @Vince
Whilst Andrew Harman's interest in the club seems to be desirable there is a huge risk that it may never come to anything.
We need to see both bids to be able to make a valued judgement or it could be head or heart decision we have to make
I can unfortunately see a scenario where the club doesn't achieve the necessary 75% backing and we are subsequently unable to pay off the American's loan. They could then step in and control and manage the club without the need for a vote and do what they like with it's disposal. The only partial safeguard is that they couldn't get their hands on the stadium.
Hopefully Dev can assure me that this can't happen to put my mind at rest!
The club have decided this is the best bid...so we have to see it and then make a decision. I'm assuming if the bid is not voted for then the process opens again.
Wendoverman is right. If you elect a board on the basis that they will make decisions that safeguard the club’s best interests, then you surely have to trust them to do just that. The Trust board have said repeatedly that they consider the American bid to be the most favourable and a show of hands among Legacy members gave them a mandate to investigate that bid further. Nothing has changed and won’t change until full details are revealed.
Anything else is just rumour and speculation.
Is it possible that the Trust, in their concern about member apathy, could legally apply a little 'engineering' to the voting process by turning round the wording of the vote to state something like...
"Do you wish the club to remain 100% fan-owned?
If so, vote YES.
If you are in favour of the American bid, vote NO."
...thus ensuring that any non-voters would actually be voting for the takeover?
Wendoverman is right. If you elect a board on the basis that they will make decisions that safeguard the club’s best interests, then you surely have to trust them to do just that. The Trust board have said repeatedly that they consider the American bid to be the most favourable and a show of hands among Legacy members gave them a mandate to investigate that bid further. Nothing has changed and won’t change until full details are revealed.
Anything else is just rumour and speculation.
Ah, but things have changed. T"'s & C''s are not the same as 12 months ago so the legacy members are entitled to be told ,as this is for WWFC of "Brexit" proportions. What I am interested in is: was the bidding conditions the same for.all interested parties & if not, why not? Also why are legacy members not informed about those terms?
I understand that it's a difficult job for the trust but I will need assurances that whatever deal is.proposed is the very best for the LONG TERM future, not.short term glory, or in other words boom & bust!
@micra said:
Should you not be addressing your questions to the club/Trust Board @NiceCarrots ?
That might actually require a bit of effort on his part, possibly even personal interaction.
Much easier to just chuck out ominous questions from the comfort of his bedsit anonymously.> @NewburyWanderer said:
Just a mischievous thought...
Is it possible that the Trust, in their concern about member apathy, could legally apply a little 'engineering' to the voting process by turning round the wording of the vote to state something like...
"Do you wish the club to remain 100% fan-owned?
If so, vote YES.
If you are in favour of the American bid, vote NO."
...thus ensuring that any non-voters would actually be voting for the takeover?
Well no, it's not. And I'm sure @NewburyWanderer was just being mischievous as he suggested. Engineering the question in this way would immediately rule out looking for alternative outside investment were the American bid to fail.
Anyway, I'm all for just blindly trusting the board to be doing absolutely everything by the book (such as borrowing significant sums of money off their "preferred bidder" before the bid has been scrutinised in any way by the members) and not asking any questions. Seems perfectly sensible to me.
@drcongo I assume your " They can" is related to the £700,000+ debt owed by the trust to WWFC. Although this is not included in the assets regarding the recovery of the loan to the Americans. Are you suggesting this is an issue if they did acquire control of the Club by default? They could then use the Trust Debt as a means of acquiring the Stadium from FALL as the Trust have no assets other than FALL to fund any claim for repayment. It is certainly a question that needs an answer.
There's huge risks with taking outside investment. I don't think we should blindly trust anyone.
The point I am getting at is there are beneficial ways of asking difficult questions to those in a position to answer them, and then there is NiceCarrots endlessly listing questions towards the wrong people who can't possibly answer them.
Anyway, I'm all for just blindly trusting the board to be doing absolutely everything by the book (such as borrowing significant sums of money off their "preferred bidder" before the bid has been scrutinised in any way by the members) and not asking any questions. Seems perfectly sensible to me.
Just about sums up my feelings on this matter. Well said.
Whilst I’m not personally convinced that the substance to the rumours around the AH bid is as solid as some are suggesting, we are probably at the stage where the Trust does need to be more upfront about their rationale for choosing their preferred bidder.
There is some merit in @glasshalffull’s view that we vote the Trust Board in to make these decisions on our behalf but if these rumours aren’t addressed there is a risk that they become accepted ‘fact’ and that sufficient legacy members take the view that it is better to wait for a mythical ’better’ deal to come along, that then never materialises or is found to be (as the Trust Board presumably think) a ‘worse’ deal.
@SamB said: @drcongo I assume your " They can" is related to the £700,000+ debt owed by the trust to WWFC. Although this is not included in the assets regarding the recovery of the loan to the Americans. Are you suggesting this is an issue if they did acquire control of the Club by default? They could then use the Trust Debt as a means of acquiring the Stadium from FALL as the Trust have no assets other than FALL to fund any claim for repayment. It is certainly a question that needs an answer.
I'm not sure if that is what I'm talking about actually. I believe there's also a lot of money owed by FALL to WWFC. If both parties are in hock to WWFC, any potential new owner can do what they want, there are no guarantees.
@bookertease said:
Whilst I’m not personally convinced that the substance to the rumours around the AH bid is as solid as some are suggesting, we are probably at the stage where the Trust does need to be more upfront about their rationale for choosing their preferred bidder.
I can absolutely assure you that there is substance to the "rumour". Only wish the trust could/would be less clandestine and more open with the legacy members. It is apparently our club isn't it?
Comments
Just read @EwanHoosaami post, and if his account it accurate, its very suprising that Mr Harmans vision for the club has not been paraded in front of the members.
Maybe he will come forward ? as he cetainly seems a rather more wholesome prospect than a group of unknown professional investors.
It's in times like this, you cant help but think what would be the thoughts of our great benefactor Frank Adams be ?
Maybe it's sentimental clap trap, but if the fans no longer have the financial clout to run the Football club at this level, then the next best thing is a local ex player who wants to incorporate the whole local community into getting behind the famous Wanderers from Wycombe.
"The purpose of the meeting is to present to members the proposal for investment into the Club, by Jim Collis and Bill Luby. " They are coming over specifically for this meeting.
The next night is our rearranged game away at Blackpool.
I have heard that Mr Harman does not want to show his hand until the American bid is defeated.
If his offer is as good as @EwanHoosami intimates then surely it is in his interest to make it public now so that we have a choice of potential owners.
If he decides not to do so, then surely there must be some concern that as a businessman he is waiting so that he can buy the club at a lower price (should he get sufficient votes)
The Trust have to pay back a vast sum to the Americans by a certain date if they choose another bidder.
They have bought more time in having the meeting later i.e on the 28th not the 14th.
It's all very well banging on about their preferred bidder (see AGM minutes on the Trust website etc) but based on what?
We haven't seen any details whatsoever while the creditors are rumoured to have settled on a debt for equity swap whereby they make even more when the Americans flip their investment.
Why do the creditors know what the deal is but the members don't?
Are there any planned talks with other investors or has the Chairman been told by his employer that this is his only option?
Andrew Harman is a local lad, who has played for Wycombe and supported the club for many years. This in my eyes is a plus.
Annodata was sold for £65million in December 2016 with Andrew receiving around £20-25million(after tax). His share holding in the business according to companies house was between 25-50%, though media reports put it at 50%. He still works for Kyocera who bought Annodata.
Interestingly he also owns a property development company with his brother Tim.
Personally I can't see any future bid for the club being accepted by the Legacy Members. To achieve 608 yes votes out of 810 is nigh on impossible.
I look forward to hearing the Americans pitch and then some time afterwards Andrew's throw of the dice.
@NiceCarrots
"We haven't seen any details whatsoever while the creditors are rumoured to have settled on a debt for equity swap whereby they make even more when the Americans flip their investment."
So if there is any substance in these rumours, you would seriously have to question whether the primaily motive for steering the Club into the Americans hands, is in the best interests of the club or the creditors ??
The lack of transparency, leads to a lack of trust, hence why i can believe for one second that they will get the legal requirement of 75% of the eligible voters to back this option.
I assume this will also apply if the 75% figure is not reached?
Among the many things I find incredibly disturbing about the way our club is going about all this, is the fact that in one paragraph of one gasroom post from @EwanHoosaami we have been presented with a more coherent vision for the future of the club, than the board have managed to present in a ton of emails, meetings and press releases.
If they want us to believe that the American bid is the best bid, they need to present a vision for the future that isn't just "we won't go out of business quite yet". If they can't do that, as it currently seems, then the American bid is clearly not the best bid and is being pushed to further some other agenda.
As things stand and without knowing a great deal about either the US bid or the Andrew Harman bid will legacy members be tempted to throw the US bid out in the hope that the rival bid from a local man might succeed? Thought provoking.
A risky move given that we haven't heard anything official about any Harman bid.
Agreed @Vince
Whilst Andrew Harman's interest in the club seems to be desirable there is a huge risk that it may never come to anything.
We need to see both bids to be able to make a valued judgement or it could be head or heart decision we have to make
I can unfortunately see a scenario where the club doesn't achieve the necessary 75% backing and we are subsequently unable to pay off the American's loan. They could then step in and control and manage the club without the need for a vote and do what they like with it's disposal. The only partial safeguard is that they couldn't get their hands on the stadium.
Hopefully Dev can assure me that this can't happen to put my mind at rest!
They can.
The club have decided this is the best bid...so we have to see it and then make a decision. I'm assuming if the bid is not voted for then the process opens again.
Wendoverman is right. If you elect a board on the basis that they will make decisions that safeguard the club’s best interests, then you surely have to trust them to do just that. The Trust board have said repeatedly that they consider the American bid to be the most favourable and a show of hands among Legacy members gave them a mandate to investigate that bid further. Nothing has changed and won’t change until full details are revealed.
Anything else is just rumour and speculation.
Just a mischievous thought...
Is it possible that the Trust, in their concern about member apathy, could legally apply a little 'engineering' to the voting process by turning round the wording of the vote to state something like...
"Do you wish the club to remain 100% fan-owned?
If so, vote YES.
If you are in favour of the American bid, vote NO."
...thus ensuring that any non-voters would actually be voting for the takeover?
For any takeover it needs 75% of all legacy members to vote in favour. 608 out of 810 legacy members need to vote yes for it to happen.
So difficult for me to be impart> @glasshalffull said:
Ah, but things have changed. T"'s & C''s are not the same as 12 months ago so the legacy members are entitled to be told ,as this is for WWFC of "Brexit" proportions. What I am interested in is: was the bidding conditions the same for.all interested parties & if not, why not? Also why are legacy members not informed about those terms?
I understand that it's a difficult job for the trust but I will need assurances that whatever deal is.proposed is the very best for the LONG TERM future, not.short term glory, or in other words boom & bust!
That might actually require a bit of effort on his part, possibly even personal interaction.
Much easier to just chuck out ominous questions from the comfort of his bedsit anonymously.> @NewburyWanderer said:
This is actually quite a good idea in my opinion.
Well no, it's not. And I'm sure @NewburyWanderer was just being mischievous as he suggested. Engineering the question in this way would immediately rule out looking for alternative outside investment were the American bid to fail.
Anyway, I'm all for just blindly trusting the board to be doing absolutely everything by the book (such as borrowing significant sums of money off their "preferred bidder" before the bid has been scrutinised in any way by the members) and not asking any questions. Seems perfectly sensible to me.
Sorry if I'm ominously anonymous.
@drcongo I assume your " They can" is related to the £700,000+ debt owed by the trust to WWFC. Although this is not included in the assets regarding the recovery of the loan to the Americans. Are you suggesting this is an issue if they did acquire control of the Club by default? They could then use the Trust Debt as a means of acquiring the Stadium from FALL as the Trust have no assets other than FALL to fund any claim for repayment. It is certainly a question that needs an answer.
you're right @YorkExile what's the worse that can happen?
There's huge risks with taking outside investment. I don't think we should blindly trust anyone.
The point I am getting at is there are beneficial ways of asking difficult questions to those in a position to answer them, and then there is NiceCarrots endlessly listing questions towards the wrong people who can't possibly answer them.
Just about sums up my feelings on this matter. Well said.
Whilst I’m not personally convinced that the substance to the rumours around the AH bid is as solid as some are suggesting, we are probably at the stage where the Trust does need to be more upfront about their rationale for choosing their preferred bidder.
There is some merit in @glasshalffull’s view that we vote the Trust Board in to make these decisions on our behalf but if these rumours aren’t addressed there is a risk that they become accepted ‘fact’ and that sufficient legacy members take the view that it is better to wait for a mythical ’better’ deal to come along, that then never materialises or is found to be (as the Trust Board presumably think) a ‘worse’ deal.
@LordMandeville I could be wrong...but I thought @YorkExile was joking.
I'm not sure if that is what I'm talking about actually. I believe there's also a lot of money owed by FALL to WWFC. If both parties are in hock to WWFC, any potential new owner can do what they want, there are no guarantees.
As I’ve suspected for some time, irony is dead. No offence intended.
I never liked irony anyway @micra it was always a bit up itself.
I can absolutely assure you that there is substance to the "rumour". Only wish the trust could/would be less clandestine and more open with the legacy members. It is apparently our club isn't it?