@DevC - I will BRIEFLY respond to your earlier post.
I believe there is a reasonable chance that the club can survive without investment from the Americans. However, nobody can accurately foresee the future (excepting your good self perhaps). We have managed to survive and indeed improve our league standing DESPITE at the same time paying off a significant debt to Sharkie. Money, whilst obviously helpful isn't the only ingredient to success. A good manager with contacts is more important. A prime example is Notts County who have had a far higher playing budget over the years than us but are now teetering on dropping out of the league.
I confirm I have doubts regarding the competency of the Board. In my view it is potentially suicidal to accept a sizeable loan from a potential investor. This has put the Americans at a distinct advantage in subsequent negotiations.
@NiceCarrots - The simple way round not achieving the 75% vote is not being in a position to repay the American's loan and they subsequently pursue their legal remedies for non payment and then get awarded possession of the club.
firstly to be clear, I have not intended any suggestion that @EwanHoosaami views are not held sincerely in what he considers the best interests of the club. I apologise if I have inadvertently suggested otherwise.
@moneyman, if you genuinely are pretty certain in your own mind that the club can retain league status without external investment (not necessarily from the americans but that looks the most likely), then you can safely reject the investment proposal. you better be proven right though. Those who have a better understanding than you or I about the clubs finances disagree and if you are proven wrong, the consequences would be catastrophic. perhaps (with respect) it might be worth reconsidering whether your view is based on logic or wishful thinking.
None of us presumably know the details of the loan agreement between club and investors or terms for its repayment. Absolutely worst case legally unless there is a specific clause in their loan agreement (which is unlikely), they just become an unsecured creditor with no or less rights than other unsecured creditors (with much larger debts as I understand it). Worst case they MAY be able to force the club into administration at which time the administrators would seek to sell the club to the highest bidder, which may or may not be them. They can't just be "awarded" the club. That all of course assumes that the US investors would want to throw away their long established reputation as decent investors into sports clubs for (in their terms) a small sum of money in order to acquire what would then be a very damaged lower league football club. That worry feels to me like the latest in an army of red herring become "social media fact".
@DevC Regarding your comments that the American bidders will "just become an unsecured creditor" in the event of default on the conditions associated with the loan facility that has been agreed with them, I am not sure that is the case. There is a document publicly available in the WWFC information at Companies House which, to my untrained eye, appears to provide them with security. To view it, click on the following link, then click on the pdf link alongside the 19 Nov 2018 "Registration of charge" entry: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05132509/filing-history
I have no expertise in this type of thing, and don't claim to understand the detail of the document or what actually would happen if default occurred. However, given that no similar document appears to have been recorded with Companies House for any other of WWFC's creditors, it does make me suspect that there is a difference in legal status between the loan agreement that is in place with the American bidders and loan agreements with other creditors.
@DevC - Why do you think that the American's investment is some magic long term panacea to the clubs future success? They are not going to pump millions into the club year on year, they are not going to miraculously increase attendances and I don't think it is likely they will significantly increase sponsorship income.
You also haven't responded to the point I made as to how the club has achieved it current position despite making significant annual repayments to Sharkie and according to a Trust statement a year or so ago had more or less become debt free. The current annual losses are due to financial mismanagement by the Board in spending more than we can afford. I accept it is unlikely we would have got promotion without this extra money, but I see no reason why we wouldn't have a reasonable chance of surviving in the second division. Notts County have invested far more heavily than us and where has it got them?
You continually profess to be a financial wizard on football matters, but you are totally wrong with regard to the loan agreement. Their charge was registered at Companies House on 19/11/2018 ( ref 051325090008). Clause 12 of the Charge contains the usual statutory power of sale in the event we are unable to discharge our liabilities. As has been disclosed previously, the facility loan is up to the sum of £500k.
One of the great pleasures in life is the silence that follows when @DevC gets exposed as little more than an enthusiastic amateur googler through the presentation of actual facts.
@mooneyman if I have understood anything their track record suggests the investors will spend a period of time and money stablising the club with a view to selling it on as a better investment. Although in this case they are using their own money so it may be different. An encouraging point is that they do seem to have experience of sporting clubs of a similar size (admittedly in the US, but also NOT just a Mike Ashley/erratic foreigner with a lot of spare cash) so though worried about the deal and needing to see the details I am not sure that they are a return to the Shark years. It may be they want us in the Championship so they can then sell on to Mike Ashley/an erratic foreigner with a load of cash. I agree though that I don;t think it is the end of world if they lose the vote and more avenues are explored...they may even change their offer. To my mind @DevC is a supporter of the deal (whatever it may be) though like Piers Morgan and Trump he plays some lip service to impartiality and it's rather a waste of time arguing with him.
@Wendoverman - So they spend money stabilising the club (whatever that means) and if successful they then sell it on to any Tom Dick or Harry of their liking. So we could end up with an owner on a par with Oyston or the porn kings of West Ham. I accept that is the situation with any majority sale.
Thanks @Uncle_T. I hadn't seen that document. I have now read it and it means as follows.
The investors loan is secured against any current debts due to the football club excluding intercompany debt (I believe there are none) and future revenue (eg next seasons season ticket sales).
There is a standard receivership clause as I said above at which time if exercised the receiver would have responsibility for collecting against the specific assets above. Alternatively the lenders could go for a standard insolvency procedure. There is no way under this charge or standard receivership law that the investors could be "awarded" the club - nor as I said above is it likely in the real world they would want to be in such circumstances.
Obviously @drcongo I apologise for taking over 33 minutes to respond to a post. Outrageous behaviour I confess.
@mooneyman , I don't see the American's (or indeed anyone else's) investment as the guaranteed panacea to the clubs survival in the league. private ownership didn't save Chesterfield and Barnet from relegation out of the league last year. There are no guarantees I am afraid. But the facts are that the club has been losing £600k per year every year for an extended period. It therefore has to either earn more revenue or spend less cost or secure cash investment or borrowings to cover the gap. The americans have a demonstrable record of improving the financial position of sports clubs and may provide that cash cover for a period at least.
Its a barking financial model I agree with you, but its the one that exists in lg1 and Lg2. It would be far better if all clubs lived within their means (which probably means part time football for the lower leagues. ) fact is though, that is not the situation in lg21 or lg2 or in the conference either.
The club has indeed survived (and indeed prospered) this far under trust ownership. It has done so partly by outstanding management (you are right money does not guarantee success), partly by good fortune (transfer receipts from players sold on largely from the hayes era and FA cup runs) and partly by borrowing money from its directors (Howard and I believe Beeks). As of now those who have previously lent money have said "no more" as is their right. looking around there are potential transfer receipts from hause and harris and possibly but unlikely Ingram, maybe even Onien one day but much smaller than before and you would be stupid to rely on cup runs if administration would be the result of a first round knock out at Accrington next season.
Last season and the season before etc etc we lost £600k in League 2. If we cant borrow that money, cant rely on transfer income and cant be certain of cup runs, we would have to either earn £600k more in revenue or spend £600k less in cost than we did last season in Lg2 despite no longer having available free of charge the considerable sponsorship and administration skills that howard brought to the club. £600k at this level is equivalent to 6-10 senior players less than we could afford last season despite already having one of the lowest budgets in the league. If you think that is achievable, then you can safely conclude that we have a strong chance of surviving in Lg2 and hence safely vote against investment. Do you honestly believe that though, those we elected to manage the club on our behalf don't agree with you. Are you sure you are not engaging in wishful thinking.
Last season and the season before etc etc we lost £600k in League 2. If we cant borrow that money, cant rely on transfer income and cant be certain of cup runs, we would have to either earn £600k more in revenue or spend £600k less in cost than we did last season in Lg2 despite no longer having available free of charge the considerable sponsorship and administration skills that howard brought to the club.
Using that analogy, without Howard, we would be losing even more than the quoted figure, surely?
Think I might have missed what has changed in the last seven days to support so many posts since the weekend. My quick skim read shows a rehash of previous hopes/fears/panics.
Has anything new happened?
I agree @EwanHoosaami , without Howard free of charge, I suspect we would have had an even bigger loss than the one we did have. going forward, with or without investment, that expertise will presumably need top be replaced and paid for unless the new investors provide that experience themselves.
In direct answer to your question @eric_plant , it would rob me of an interest and for reasons I cant explain something I care deeply about. It would also rob me of my last tangible link to the town I grew up and I suspect deep down to my father who I enjoyed happy times with at LP and AP. In practical terms on most Saturday afternoons though not much. If I understand your sub text correctly, I agree logically I shouldn't really care much - I do though.
"I care deeply about" hilarious, you never attend games, invest in the club and you cared that much in the 80's, you deserted the Wanderers when they were going through a difficult patch, to start following Watford.
Words fail me !!
All this bickering is so tiresome and unproductive. Can we please just wait to hear what the Americans have to offer before predicting either Armageddon or Valhalla?
And here is the problem for me. I have a legacy vote and take that responsibility seriously. I want to know if there are any new bits of information so feel I should scan this thread to see.
Trouble is my four day catch up this morning found nothing despite a volume of posts suggesting otherwise.
I know people want to fill the information void but really?
Don't know how you can say that @glasshalffull the Gasroom is read by fans far and wide. As far as Devonshire I understand. Hardly 'Tiresome'!
Unproductive though? The jury is out...I'll give you that.
@Wendoverman said:
Don't know how you can say that @glasshalffull the Gasroom is read by fans far and wide. As far as Devonshire I understand. Hardly 'Tiresome'!
Unproductive though? The jury is out...I'll give you that.
I have no problem with the debate, even though much of the opinions are based on rumours, but the sniping at posters like DevC is tiresome.
Last season and the season before etc etc we lost £600k in League 2.
According to the accounts filed at Companies House WWFC made a loss in 2017/18 of circa £660K having been profitable for each of the previous 3 years. It is the loss shown in just 1 year, attributed by the Trust as a lack of 'football fortune', which has given rise to the perceived need for outside investment.
@mooneyman
"If it is so tiresome why read it? You are not the moderator of this forum thankfully."
Perhaps MrglasshalfParry forget's he's no longer the bully boy with the mic, like when he was Championing his old paymaster Sharky.
It's all equal, on this site, everyone can have there say.
Comments
@DevC - I will BRIEFLY respond to your earlier post.
I believe there is a reasonable chance that the club can survive without investment from the Americans. However, nobody can accurately foresee the future (excepting your good self perhaps). We have managed to survive and indeed improve our league standing DESPITE at the same time paying off a significant debt to Sharkie. Money, whilst obviously helpful isn't the only ingredient to success. A good manager with contacts is more important. A prime example is Notts County who have had a far higher playing budget over the years than us but are now teetering on dropping out of the league.
I confirm I have doubts regarding the competency of the Board. In my view it is potentially suicidal to accept a sizeable loan from a potential investor. This has put the Americans at a distinct advantage in subsequent negotiations.
@NiceCarrots - The simple way round not achieving the 75% vote is not being in a position to repay the American's loan and they subsequently pursue their legal remedies for non payment and then get awarded possession of the club.
If I had no vote no football to watch but plenty of time on my hands can gasroomers suggest how I could best fill my empty hours?
That Bros documentary was very good.
firstly to be clear, I have not intended any suggestion that @EwanHoosaami views are not held sincerely in what he considers the best interests of the club. I apologise if I have inadvertently suggested otherwise.
@moneyman, if you genuinely are pretty certain in your own mind that the club can retain league status without external investment (not necessarily from the americans but that looks the most likely), then you can safely reject the investment proposal. you better be proven right though. Those who have a better understanding than you or I about the clubs finances disagree and if you are proven wrong, the consequences would be catastrophic. perhaps (with respect) it might be worth reconsidering whether your view is based on logic or wishful thinking.
None of us presumably know the details of the loan agreement between club and investors or terms for its repayment. Absolutely worst case legally unless there is a specific clause in their loan agreement (which is unlikely), they just become an unsecured creditor with no or less rights than other unsecured creditors (with much larger debts as I understand it). Worst case they MAY be able to force the club into administration at which time the administrators would seek to sell the club to the highest bidder, which may or may not be them. They can't just be "awarded" the club. That all of course assumes that the US investors would want to throw away their long established reputation as decent investors into sports clubs for (in their terms) a small sum of money in order to acquire what would then be a very damaged lower league football club. That worry feels to me like the latest in an army of red herring become "social media fact".
@MindlessDrugHoover indeed. A laugh a minute. And I absolutely hated them at the time!
@DevC Regarding your comments that the American bidders will "just become an unsecured creditor" in the event of default on the conditions associated with the loan facility that has been agreed with them, I am not sure that is the case. There is a document publicly available in the WWFC information at Companies House which, to my untrained eye, appears to provide them with security. To view it, click on the following link, then click on the pdf link alongside the 19 Nov 2018 "Registration of charge" entry: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05132509/filing-history
I have no expertise in this type of thing, and don't claim to understand the detail of the document or what actually would happen if default occurred. However, given that no similar document appears to have been recorded with Companies House for any other of WWFC's creditors, it does make me suspect that there is a difference in legal status between the loan agreement that is in place with the American bidders and loan agreements with other creditors.
@DevC - Why do you think that the American's investment is some magic long term panacea to the clubs future success? They are not going to pump millions into the club year on year, they are not going to miraculously increase attendances and I don't think it is likely they will significantly increase sponsorship income.
You also haven't responded to the point I made as to how the club has achieved it current position despite making significant annual repayments to Sharkie and according to a Trust statement a year or so ago had more or less become debt free. The current annual losses are due to financial mismanagement by the Board in spending more than we can afford. I accept it is unlikely we would have got promotion without this extra money, but I see no reason why we wouldn't have a reasonable chance of surviving in the second division. Notts County have invested far more heavily than us and where has it got them?
You continually profess to be a financial wizard on football matters, but you are totally wrong with regard to the loan agreement. Their charge was registered at Companies House on 19/11/2018 ( ref 051325090008). Clause 12 of the Charge contains the usual statutory power of sale in the event we are unable to discharge our liabilities. As has been disclosed previously, the facility loan is up to the sum of £500k.
One of the great pleasures in life is the silence that follows when @DevC gets exposed as little more than an enthusiastic amateur googler through the presentation of actual facts.
@mooneyman if I have understood anything their track record suggests the investors will spend a period of time and money stablising the club with a view to selling it on as a better investment. Although in this case they are using their own money so it may be different. An encouraging point is that they do seem to have experience of sporting clubs of a similar size (admittedly in the US, but also NOT just a Mike Ashley/erratic foreigner with a lot of spare cash) so though worried about the deal and needing to see the details I am not sure that they are a return to the Shark years. It may be they want us in the Championship so they can then sell on to Mike Ashley/an erratic foreigner with a load of cash. I agree though that I don;t think it is the end of world if they lose the vote and more avenues are explored...they may even change their offer. To my mind @DevC is a supporter of the deal (whatever it may be) though like Piers Morgan and Trump he plays some lip service to impartiality and it's rather a waste of time arguing with him.
@Wendoverman - So they spend money stabilising the club (whatever that means) and if successful they then sell it on to any Tom Dick or Harry of their liking. So we could end up with an owner on a par with Oyston or the porn kings of West Ham. I accept that is the situation with any majority sale.
Thanks @Uncle_T. I hadn't seen that document. I have now read it and it means as follows.
The investors loan is secured against any current debts due to the football club excluding intercompany debt (I believe there are none) and future revenue (eg next seasons season ticket sales).
There is a standard receivership clause as I said above at which time if exercised the receiver would have responsibility for collecting against the specific assets above. Alternatively the lenders could go for a standard insolvency procedure. There is no way under this charge or standard receivership law that the investors could be "awarded" the club - nor as I said above is it likely in the real world they would want to be in such circumstances.
Obviously @drcongo I apologise for taking over 33 minutes to respond to a post. Outrageous behaviour I confess.
@mooneyman , I don't see the American's (or indeed anyone else's) investment as the guaranteed panacea to the clubs survival in the league. private ownership didn't save Chesterfield and Barnet from relegation out of the league last year. There are no guarantees I am afraid. But the facts are that the club has been losing £600k per year every year for an extended period. It therefore has to either earn more revenue or spend less cost or secure cash investment or borrowings to cover the gap. The americans have a demonstrable record of improving the financial position of sports clubs and may provide that cash cover for a period at least.
Its a barking financial model I agree with you, but its the one that exists in lg1 and Lg2. It would be far better if all clubs lived within their means (which probably means part time football for the lower leagues. ) fact is though, that is not the situation in lg21 or lg2 or in the conference either.
The club has indeed survived (and indeed prospered) this far under trust ownership. It has done so partly by outstanding management (you are right money does not guarantee success), partly by good fortune (transfer receipts from players sold on largely from the hayes era and FA cup runs) and partly by borrowing money from its directors (Howard and I believe Beeks). As of now those who have previously lent money have said "no more" as is their right. looking around there are potential transfer receipts from hause and harris and possibly but unlikely Ingram, maybe even Onien one day but much smaller than before and you would be stupid to rely on cup runs if administration would be the result of a first round knock out at Accrington next season.
Last season and the season before etc etc we lost £600k in League 2. If we cant borrow that money, cant rely on transfer income and cant be certain of cup runs, we would have to either earn £600k more in revenue or spend £600k less in cost than we did last season in Lg2 despite no longer having available free of charge the considerable sponsorship and administration skills that howard brought to the club. £600k at this level is equivalent to 6-10 senior players less than we could afford last season despite already having one of the lowest budgets in the league. If you think that is achievable, then you can safely conclude that we have a strong chance of surviving in Lg2 and hence safely vote against investment. Do you honestly believe that though, those we elected to manage the club on our behalf don't agree with you. Are you sure you are not engaging in wishful thinking.
Last season and the season before etc etc we lost £600k in League 2. If we cant borrow that money, cant rely on transfer income and cant be certain of cup runs, we would have to either earn £600k more in revenue or spend £600k less in cost than we did last season in Lg2 despite no longer having available free of charge the considerable sponsorship and administration skills that howard brought to the club.
Using that analogy, without Howard, we would be losing even more than the quoted figure, surely?
Think I might have missed what has changed in the last seven days to support so many posts since the weekend. My quick skim read shows a rehash of previous hopes/fears/panics.
Has anything new happened?
Don't feed the troll, he just likes to argue with people without checking his facts.
@Right_in_the_Middle half the new posts are just @DevC pasting his one and only opinion in over and over again.
I agree @EwanHoosaami , without Howard free of charge, I suspect we would have had an even bigger loss than the one we did have. going forward, with or without investment, that expertise will presumably need top be replaced and paid for unless the new investors provide that experience themselves.
Dev, if Wycombe ceased to exist what tangible difference would it make to your life other than freeing up the time you spend on here?
@mooneyman aye there's the rub. Football ownership in a nutshell. The question is...can we carry on as we are...if we can excellent.
In direct answer to your question @eric_plant , it would rob me of an interest and for reasons I cant explain something I care deeply about. It would also rob me of my last tangible link to the town I grew up and I suspect deep down to my father who I enjoyed happy times with at LP and AP. In practical terms on most Saturday afternoons though not much. If I understand your sub text correctly, I agree logically I shouldn't really care much - I do though.
"I care deeply about" hilarious, you never attend games, invest in the club and you cared that much in the 80's, you deserted the Wanderers when they were going through a difficult patch, to start following Watford.
Words fail me !!
All this bickering is so tiresome and unproductive. Can we please just wait to hear what the Americans have to offer before predicting either Armageddon or Valhalla?
If it is so tiresome why read it? You are not the moderator of this forum thankfully.
And here is the problem for me. I have a legacy vote and take that responsibility seriously. I want to know if there are any new bits of information so feel I should scan this thread to see.
Trouble is my four day catch up this morning found nothing despite a volume of posts suggesting otherwise.
I know people want to fill the information void but really?
Don't know how you can say that @glasshalffull the Gasroom is read by fans far and wide. As far as Devonshire I understand. Hardly 'Tiresome'!
Unproductive though? The jury is out...I'll give you that.
I was expressing an opinion on an opinion forum. Why not take your own advice and don’t don’t read it if you don’t like it?
Nobody should read anything in case they don't like it.
Nothing new then...
But usual Dev stuff.
I have no problem with the debate, even though much of the opinions are based on rumours, but the sniping at posters like DevC is tiresome.
At the risk of boring all and sundry, a point which IMHO is worth clarifying:
Last season and the season before etc etc we lost £600k in League 2.
According to the accounts filed at Companies House WWFC made a loss in 2017/18 of circa £660K having been profitable for each of the previous 3 years. It is the loss shown in just 1 year, attributed by the Trust as a lack of 'football fortune', which has given rise to the perceived need for outside investment.
@mooneyman
"If it is so tiresome why read it? You are not the moderator of this forum thankfully."
Perhaps MrglasshalfParry forget's he's no longer the bully boy with the mic, like when he was Championing his old paymaster Sharky.
It's all equal, on this site, everyone can have there say.