@StrongestTeam, actually your second ;paragraph is relatively easy to answer
> The Fall status is a serious issue, how is it ever supposed to make money
It isn't. It is intended to do little more than hold the asset and some debt.
is it responsible for the upkeep of the ground
I am pretty sure it is a fully repairing lease, whereby the tenant (the football club) maintains the asset. a detail to be understood in the proposed deal.
does it charge sufficient rent to the club to meet its requirements?
The intention is for FALL to just have the funds it needs, so yes I understand the rent is set at the level it needs to repay its debts to Chairboys funders as they fall due.
How does it owe money to the club or anyone else,
When the restructuring took place post trust acquisition, certain debts including to Hayes were put into FALL so that FALL could offer security. When the Ibe transfer went through, transfer fee was paid to WWFC but FALL had to pay back Hayes. Accounting is for WWFC to loan money to FALL. While businesses are all owned by same people, intercompany debts don't have any real significance. I understand if Luby deal passes part of the transaction will be to clear indebtedness between club and FALL (but that is a detail that needs to be understood).
and did this status lead to us losing rights regarding repurchase of the training ground that could subsequently make people who supposedly have the club at heart money personally.
No nothing to do with FALL/WWFC structure. Training ground deal has been discussed to death but certainly structure no relevance here and reality is not necessarily how you now interpret it but suggest we don't go there again.
@DevC said: @StrongestTeam, actually your second ;paragraph is relatively easy to answer
> The Fall status is a serious issue, how is it ever supposed to make money
It isn't. It is intended to do little more than hold the asset and some debt.
is it responsible for the upkeep of the ground
I am pretty sure it is a fully repairing lease, whereby the tenant (the football club) maintains the asset. a detail to be understood in the proposed deal.
does it charge sufficient rent to the club to meet its requirements?
The intention is for FALL to just have the funds it needs, so yes I understand the rent is set at the level it needs to repay its debts to Chairboys funders as they fall due.
How does it owe money to the club or anyone else,
When the restructuring took place post trust acquisition, certain debts including to Hayes were put into FALL so that FALL could offer security. When the Ibe transfer went through, transfer fee was paid to WWFC but FALL had to pay back Hayes. Accounting is for WWFC to loan money to FALL. While businesses are all owned by same people, intercompany debts don't have any real significance. I understand if Luby deal passes part of the transaction will be to clear indebtedness between club and FALL (but that is a detail that needs to be understood).
and did this status lead to us losing rights regarding repurchase of the training ground that could subsequently make people who supposedly have the club at heart money personally.
No nothing to do with FALL/WWFC structure. Training ground deal has been discussed to death but certainly structure no relevance here and reality is not necessarily how you now interpret it but suggest we don't go there again.
If anyone who actually knows wants to answer then that would probably be more helpful.
Anyway on your last part, which entity failed to pay the rent and why were they unable to do so? You maynot wish to go there again, which is most unusual but I must have missed the satisfactory "official" answer.
@StrongestTeam , given that I took the time to answer questions you had to the best of my ability, answers which you appear to have casually dismissed, I can’t say I am overly motivated to answer your next ones.
@DevC said: @StrongestTeam , given that I took the time to answer questions you had to the best of my ability, answers which you appear to have casually dismissed, I can’t say I am overly motivated to answer your next ones.
I was wondering if anyone knew what the reality was rather than asking for outline descriptions of the fairly basic concepts involved, I'll survive, don't you worry.
So what was learned tonight !!!
In voting the Americans bid, it carries 6 options, what they are, we weren’t informed.
There is a plan B but with no options to it.
There was an interest of another majority investment before Xmas but nothing has materialised when further enquires were made, so don’t just vote NO thinking there is another white knight coming!
The discovery of the first charge against the stadium by the gasroom poster reminds me of the time when a gasroom poster discovered the land registry details about the ahem, 'anonymous' training ground consortium of Beeks, Kane and Keizner.
You're not telling me that in the last two years of swapping Heads of Terms the future of the training ground hasn't been discussed.
It is the same people who stood to make money under Steve Hayes, the same people on the board who couldn't differentiate between a gift and a loan and the same people who own the training ground who are driving the deal -a debt for equity swap and cashing in once the Americans flip the investment.
The entire process is about the transfer of assets out of the hands of the many into the hands of the few.
The trust board and board are made up of our fans. I honestly believe what is currently is done out of best interests for the club, yes some nievity has occur on the behalf which they’ve put there hands up to. But there certainly is no agend. As for the past. We need to move on
Last night at the Fans Council meeting the board members' attention was drawn to Trust Rule 102.
The Trust may borrow money on such terms as the Trust Board shall authorise save that any borrowing that would require a significant proportion of the Trust's turnover to be apportioned to repaying such borrowing, or that would use the assets of the Trust (and/or any subsidiaries) as security for such borrowing, shall require the approval of the Trust in general meeting.
@NiceCarrots , I have no knowledge of whether or not existing debt owing to Howard and others will be swapped for equity under the deal. you have suggested at least twice that it may be and suggested this is a bad thing.
As I understand it this is their own personal cash that they have loaned into WWFC to keep it in business through difficult financial times. In theory at least while it is a loan, the club must one day pay it back in full.
If the proposal is as you suggest, they will swap a loan for shares. Those shares in a loss making financially strapped lower league football club with no assets would surely by any measure currently have extremely limited value. the obligation on the club to repay the loans is wiped out as a result.
pretty much the only way those shares could gain significant value such that these guys would have any hope of even getting their money back let alone making a profit would be if the Americans created a successful financially strong club almost certainly stable in a higher division. While unlikely, if achieved that surely would be a desirable thing. if the club remains a lower league financially challenged club with limited assets, hard to see those shares ever having any significant value
I am struggling to see your objections in principle to such an arrangement. Could you explain what I have missed?
@DevC - How do you square the fact over the Rule that the Trust cannot borrow money which "would use the assets of the Trust (and or any of its subsidiaries) as security for such borrowing without the approval of the Trust in general meeting" I assume that your argument would be that FALL is not a subsidiary?
@mooneyman . I wouldn't - see pages above. I am surprised the stadium was charged although I cant tbh decipher the nature of the rights granted under the charge. Nor do i have knowledge of trust rules. FALL is a subsidiary isn't it?
@TruBlu, I could be wrong but I took Plan B to mean talking to other parties, but negotiations with those are not as well developed as with the Americans. Also, a no vote does not mean the end for the Americans, further negotiations could take place it was said.
A new party had approached the club just before Christmas, interested in investment. When the Trust went back to them, they said they were busy talking to another club, so they were dropped.
Tony Hector led the discussions on the takeover, aided by other Trust Directors Lawrie Read and Bob Massie. There were about 20 people present (good to see @bluntphil there for the first time) and Tony was very open when managing an audience with clearly strong feelings. Transparency is what we are short of at the moment.
A list of questions was compiled for answer by Trevor Stroud at the forthcoming presentation evening. One of those was about rule 102, as per @LordMandeville, with fans wanting to know whether directors of the Boards were aware of this rule when the loan and charge decisions were taken. For me, whether or not "significent" applied to the loan, the rule clearly applies to using Adams Park as security.
Another question for the Chairman was the exact timetable of meetings by the three boards taking the decisions on the loan and the charge. It was confirmed that the FALL Board unanimously agreed to the charge on Adams Park, in advance of its registration. It was pointed out that Karen Robinson (nee Adams) is one of the five FALL directors.
The loan is repayable over 12 months, so about 10 to go. That term still applies in the event of a "no" vote. Most of the loan has been spent.
The charge on AP generated a lot of heated comment, that the Chairman had gone back on his word that AP was not at risk and not on the table, as stated at the meeting with the Americans. There was incredulity that the club had not communicated about the charge in advance, allowing the charge details to be discovered online. There was a general feeling that it had pushed some people towards the "no" side, and that the Chairman and the Trust had suffered a loss of credibility as a result. It was pointed out that the charge had a mistake in it, saying FALL was responsible for upkeep of ground, when it is the club's responsibility.
Tony did acknowledge that the Trust's communication has been poor recently, although the reason members were not informed of the postponement before the 14 day notice period, was because the 14 day rule does not apply to an informal meeting. Right up to the day the postponement email was sent, the Trust were still hopeful of the meeting going ahead as planned on the 14th.
Fans were asked whether the club should phone members who had not voted, feedback was a firm "no" as that would come across as potentially intimidating, only the ERS should contact members.
Some were concerned at people going around saying that, if you don't vote yes, the club would go into administration. This was considered to be contributing to an unhealthy atmosphere.
Other items - a guy from ABM Catering spoke very well. Burgers are now delivered cooked and frozen, so no more raw ones. New hot dog now available, an inch longer. Queues in FA kiosks are due to only having one of the two kiosks able to serve hot food (although it can do pies and pasties), due to flood damage not repaired yet. He is keen to iron out problems one by one and thinks things are improving all the time. Chips will always be a problem, particularly keeping them hot, and it is rare these days to get chips at a football ground, but they are very popular at AP. He wants to see much higher usage of the marquee, putting a TV screen in there was discussed as some fans go to bars just for the TV.
A new big screen will be installed over the summer, in the same location and provided by a company who will manage the adverts. Three companies have now bid. It will show a live feed of the match.
The General Manager said season tickets are not transferable, he would ideally like a photo on them.
The Council Committee apologised for not advertising the meeting on social media, and for last meeting minutes not produced yet. It's been a busy few weeks for them. Next meeting is 21 Feb, and not on Valentines Day.
I hope I have not misrepresented anything, let me know otherwise.
@Steve_Peart - Many thanks for the outline of the meeting Steve.
So around £500,000 will need to be repaid to the Americans in 10 months time if we don't vote for the takeover? In that event and if we are unable to find the money, then the Americans can simply walk in and take possession of Adams Park.
If that is true we have been well and truly stitched up by Stroud to ensure the vote succeeds.
Really appreciate the excellent summary @Steve_Peart. Very interesting that Karen Robinson agreed with the charge on Adams Park so perhaps we are reading too much into it.
The non transferring of season tickets is a classic distraction. It's been going on for years, is impractical to enforce on many levels, and is as likely to lead to some not being season tickets.
@Steve_Peart said:
The loan is repayable over 12 months, so about 10 to go. That term still applies in the event of a "no" vote. Most of the loan has been spent.
If the majority of the £500k loan has now been spent then the club will almost certainly need another one before too long, especially with no cup games and the (always slight) possibility of the play offs now receded. What security will the club offer next time it needs money and who will it approach for a loan this time?
I find it very hard to believe Karen Robinson (Adams) would have willingly agreed to this charge despite what people have been told. I would like to see the minutes of the meeting to prove this was the case.
"Some were concerned at people going around saying that, if you don't vote yes, the club would go into administration. This was considered to be contributing to an unhealthy atmosphere."
Did you get a sense in the room that this was the only "phrase / stand point" that was causing concern or was there any kind of acknowledgement that comments are coming from both the Yes and No camps that aren't always helpful?
Thanks @Steve_Peart very helpful summary. Communication has been appalling and so we fill the vacuum with investigations and conjecture that just cause more doubt and mistrust. A bit more candour from the club would have helped as both pro and anti investment get more and more entrenched. I will continue to wade through the information and factoids on offer and try and work out what I think until somebody mentions an Irish backstop or a big beautiful wall...then I'm out!!
Photos on season tickets! Incredible!
That'd be a quick way to cheese a lot of people off.
But bearing in mind I don't think my ticket has even been scanned all season, the kid in the booth just "looks" at it, I dare say the same kid isn't going to want the hassle of telling people they don't look like the person on the pic, when to them it doesn't matter to them, and can't be proven they haven't done their job anyway.
Unless there's going to be a designated marshal whose job it is pre-turnstile entry?
I think every season ticket holder should have to lodge £1000 in the club's bank and only get it back at the end of the season if we finish higher than sixth. Anyone else got any ideas to improve ST sales and motivate the team?
I'm just imagining having to select people on being similar looking for future season ticket loans
On another note, I was slightly concerned that the last time I collected tickets pre game the kid serving didn't even ask a security question - address/postcode etc.
You can see names as they're rifling through the box, so wouldn't take much of a blag.
A couple of times last season when I was ill, I lent my season ticket to my brother in law (who is unfortunately an Arsenal fan). Strictly, I know you are not meant to do this, but the club lost nothing, in fact he bought food and beer so they gained, all be it not a great amount. He has subsequently bought a ticket for a few games this season which he probably would not have done so had he not visited last season.
Thanks @Steve_Peart nice to have a, (what appears to be), good communication/summary of the evening events. Sadly work commitments dictated my non attendance.
I am seriously concerned re the charge/security on AP/FALL. It certainly gives me the impression that it's a Yank deal or no deal, with no option, unless somebody can find a benefactor who wants to just donate the debt and I really can't see that happening.
It would be very helpful if the trust could explain if & how they have investigated thoroughly all options, before settling with the USA as that is the impression I am getting, happy to be proven wrong though. The only positive I see atm, is the Derby fans in general have been fairly upbeat about their involvement.
Can anyone see a positive when they wish no longer to be involved, will/can we have any assurance that AP will not be under any threat post USA?
1) Time to explore alternative investors & a different route forward.
2) “Non-transferable” season-tickets is another ludicrous idea. Doesn’t happen at other clubs. Simply then put your season-ticket in your own business/employers name. Who dreams up this tosh?
Comments
@StrongestTeam, actually your second ;paragraph is relatively easy to answer
> The Fall status is a serious issue, how is it ever supposed to make money
It isn't. It is intended to do little more than hold the asset and some debt.
is it responsible for the upkeep of the ground
I am pretty sure it is a fully repairing lease, whereby the tenant (the football club) maintains the asset. a detail to be understood in the proposed deal.
does it charge sufficient rent to the club to meet its requirements?
The intention is for FALL to just have the funds it needs, so yes I understand the rent is set at the level it needs to repay its debts to Chairboys funders as they fall due.
How does it owe money to the club or anyone else,
When the restructuring took place post trust acquisition, certain debts including to Hayes were put into FALL so that FALL could offer security. When the Ibe transfer went through, transfer fee was paid to WWFC but FALL had to pay back Hayes. Accounting is for WWFC to loan money to FALL. While businesses are all owned by same people, intercompany debts don't have any real significance. I understand if Luby deal passes part of the transaction will be to clear indebtedness between club and FALL (but that is a detail that needs to be understood).
and did this status lead to us losing rights regarding repurchase of the training ground that could subsequently make people who supposedly have the club at heart money personally.
No nothing to do with FALL/WWFC structure. Training ground deal has been discussed to death but certainly structure no relevance here and reality is not necessarily how you now interpret it but suggest we don't go there again.
I don’t know LordM. I know sometimes things are spoken about and asked not to be minuted
If anyone who actually knows wants to answer then that would probably be more helpful.
Anyway on your last part, which entity failed to pay the rent and why were they unable to do so? You maynot wish to go there again, which is most unusual but I must have missed the satisfactory "official" answer.
@StrongestTeam , given that I took the time to answer questions you had to the best of my ability, answers which you appear to have casually dismissed, I can’t say I am overly motivated to answer your next ones.
I was wondering if anyone knew what the reality was rather than asking for outline descriptions of the fairly basic concepts involved, I'll survive, don't you worry.
So what was learned tonight !!!
In voting the Americans bid, it carries 6 options, what they are, we weren’t informed.
There is a plan B but with no options to it.
There was an interest of another majority investment before Xmas but nothing has materialised when further enquires were made, so don’t just vote NO thinking there is another white knight coming!
The discovery of the first charge against the stadium by the gasroom poster reminds me of the time when a gasroom poster discovered the land registry details about the ahem, 'anonymous' training ground consortium of Beeks, Kane and Keizner.
You're not telling me that in the last two years of swapping Heads of Terms the future of the training ground hasn't been discussed.
It is the same people who stood to make money under Steve Hayes, the same people on the board who couldn't differentiate between a gift and a loan and the same people who own the training ground who are driving the deal -a debt for equity swap and cashing in once the Americans flip the investment.
The entire process is about the transfer of assets out of the hands of the many into the hands of the few.
The trust board and board are made up of our fans. I honestly believe what is currently is done out of best interests for the club, yes some nievity has occur on the behalf which they’ve put there hands up to. But there certainly is no agend. As for the past. We need to move on
Last night at the Fans Council meeting the board members' attention was drawn to Trust Rule 102.
A debate about the word 'significant' ensued.
@NiceCarrots , I have no knowledge of whether or not existing debt owing to Howard and others will be swapped for equity under the deal. you have suggested at least twice that it may be and suggested this is a bad thing.
As I understand it this is their own personal cash that they have loaned into WWFC to keep it in business through difficult financial times. In theory at least while it is a loan, the club must one day pay it back in full.
If the proposal is as you suggest, they will swap a loan for shares. Those shares in a loss making financially strapped lower league football club with no assets would surely by any measure currently have extremely limited value. the obligation on the club to repay the loans is wiped out as a result.
pretty much the only way those shares could gain significant value such that these guys would have any hope of even getting their money back let alone making a profit would be if the Americans created a successful financially strong club almost certainly stable in a higher division. While unlikely, if achieved that surely would be a desirable thing. if the club remains a lower league financially challenged club with limited assets, hard to see those shares ever having any significant value
I am struggling to see your objections in principle to such an arrangement. Could you explain what I have missed?
@DevC - How do you square the fact over the Rule that the Trust cannot borrow money which "would use the assets of the Trust (and or any of its subsidiaries) as security for such borrowing without the approval of the Trust in general meeting" I assume that your argument would be that FALL is not a subsidiary?
@mooneyman . I wouldn't - see pages above. I am surprised the stadium was charged although I cant tbh decipher the nature of the rights granted under the charge. Nor do i have knowledge of trust rules. FALL is a subsidiary isn't it?
@TruBlu, I could be wrong but I took Plan B to mean talking to other parties, but negotiations with those are not as well developed as with the Americans. Also, a no vote does not mean the end for the Americans, further negotiations could take place it was said.
A new party had approached the club just before Christmas, interested in investment. When the Trust went back to them, they said they were busy talking to another club, so they were dropped.
Tony Hector led the discussions on the takeover, aided by other Trust Directors Lawrie Read and Bob Massie. There were about 20 people present (good to see @bluntphil there for the first time) and Tony was very open when managing an audience with clearly strong feelings. Transparency is what we are short of at the moment.
A list of questions was compiled for answer by Trevor Stroud at the forthcoming presentation evening. One of those was about rule 102, as per @LordMandeville, with fans wanting to know whether directors of the Boards were aware of this rule when the loan and charge decisions were taken. For me, whether or not "significent" applied to the loan, the rule clearly applies to using Adams Park as security.
Another question for the Chairman was the exact timetable of meetings by the three boards taking the decisions on the loan and the charge. It was confirmed that the FALL Board unanimously agreed to the charge on Adams Park, in advance of its registration. It was pointed out that Karen Robinson (nee Adams) is one of the five FALL directors.
The loan is repayable over 12 months, so about 10 to go. That term still applies in the event of a "no" vote. Most of the loan has been spent.
The charge on AP generated a lot of heated comment, that the Chairman had gone back on his word that AP was not at risk and not on the table, as stated at the meeting with the Americans. There was incredulity that the club had not communicated about the charge in advance, allowing the charge details to be discovered online. There was a general feeling that it had pushed some people towards the "no" side, and that the Chairman and the Trust had suffered a loss of credibility as a result. It was pointed out that the charge had a mistake in it, saying FALL was responsible for upkeep of ground, when it is the club's responsibility.
Tony did acknowledge that the Trust's communication has been poor recently, although the reason members were not informed of the postponement before the 14 day notice period, was because the 14 day rule does not apply to an informal meeting. Right up to the day the postponement email was sent, the Trust were still hopeful of the meeting going ahead as planned on the 14th.
Fans were asked whether the club should phone members who had not voted, feedback was a firm "no" as that would come across as potentially intimidating, only the ERS should contact members.
Some were concerned at people going around saying that, if you don't vote yes, the club would go into administration. This was considered to be contributing to an unhealthy atmosphere.
Other items - a guy from ABM Catering spoke very well. Burgers are now delivered cooked and frozen, so no more raw ones. New hot dog now available, an inch longer. Queues in FA kiosks are due to only having one of the two kiosks able to serve hot food (although it can do pies and pasties), due to flood damage not repaired yet. He is keen to iron out problems one by one and thinks things are improving all the time. Chips will always be a problem, particularly keeping them hot, and it is rare these days to get chips at a football ground, but they are very popular at AP. He wants to see much higher usage of the marquee, putting a TV screen in there was discussed as some fans go to bars just for the TV.
A new big screen will be installed over the summer, in the same location and provided by a company who will manage the adverts. Three companies have now bid. It will show a live feed of the match.
The General Manager said season tickets are not transferable, he would ideally like a photo on them.
The Council Committee apologised for not advertising the meeting on social media, and for last meeting minutes not produced yet. It's been a busy few weeks for them. Next meeting is 21 Feb, and not on Valentines Day.
I hope I have not misrepresented anything, let me know otherwise.
@Steve_Peart - Many thanks for the outline of the meeting Steve.
So around £500,000 will need to be repaid to the Americans in 10 months time if we don't vote for the takeover? In that event and if we are unable to find the money, then the Americans can simply walk in and take possession of Adams Park.
If that is true we have been well and truly stitched up by Stroud to ensure the vote succeeds.
Photos on season tickets??
The cost of Photos on Season tickets would be more costly than the lost income arising from transferable season tickets. It's a non starter
Really appreciate the excellent summary @Steve_Peart. Very interesting that Karen Robinson agreed with the charge on Adams Park so perhaps we are reading too much into it.
The non transferring of season tickets is a classic distraction. It's been going on for years, is impractical to enforce on many levels, and is as likely to lead to some not being season tickets.
If the majority of the £500k loan has now been spent then the club will almost certainly need another one before too long, especially with no cup games and the (always slight) possibility of the play offs now receded. What security will the club offer next time it needs money and who will it approach for a loan this time?
I find it very hard to believe Karen Robinson (Adams) would have willingly agreed to this charge despite what people have been told. I would like to see the minutes of the meeting to prove this was the case.
Yes, thank @Steve_Peart - really helpful!
In terms of the below paragraph -
"Some were concerned at people going around saying that, if you don't vote yes, the club would go into administration. This was considered to be contributing to an unhealthy atmosphere."
Did you get a sense in the room that this was the only "phrase / stand point" that was causing concern or was there any kind of acknowledgement that comments are coming from both the Yes and No camps that aren't always helpful?
Thanks @Steve_Peart very helpful summary. Communication has been appalling and so we fill the vacuum with investigations and conjecture that just cause more doubt and mistrust. A bit more candour from the club would have helped as both pro and anti investment get more and more entrenched. I will continue to wade through the information and factoids on offer and try and work out what I think until somebody mentions an Irish backstop or a big beautiful wall...then I'm out!!
Really appreciate it @Steve_Peart .. can't make these meetings so very useful to have such an in depth summary
Photos on season tickets! Incredible!
That'd be a quick way to cheese a lot of people off.
But bearing in mind I don't think my ticket has even been scanned all season, the kid in the booth just "looks" at it, I dare say the same kid isn't going to want the hassle of telling people they don't look like the person on the pic, when to them it doesn't matter to them, and can't be proven they haven't done their job anyway.
Unless there's going to be a designated marshal whose job it is pre-turnstile entry?
I think every season ticket holder should have to lodge £1000 in the club's bank and only get it back at the end of the season if we finish higher than sixth. Anyone else got any ideas to improve ST sales and motivate the team?
I'm just imagining having to select people on being similar looking for future season ticket loans
On another note, I was slightly concerned that the last time I collected tickets pre game the kid serving didn't even ask a security question - address/postcode etc.
You can see names as they're rifling through the box, so wouldn't take much of a blag.
A couple of times last season when I was ill, I lent my season ticket to my brother in law (who is unfortunately an Arsenal fan). Strictly, I know you are not meant to do this, but the club lost nothing, in fact he bought food and beer so they gained, all be it not a great amount. He has subsequently bought a ticket for a few games this season which he probably would not have done so had he not visited last season.
Thanks @Steve_Peart nice to have a, (what appears to be), good communication/summary of the evening events. Sadly work commitments dictated my non attendance.
I am seriously concerned re the charge/security on AP/FALL. It certainly gives me the impression that it's a Yank deal or no deal, with no option, unless somebody can find a benefactor who wants to just donate the debt and I really can't see that happening.
It would be very helpful if the trust could explain if & how they have investigated thoroughly all options, before settling with the USA as that is the impression I am getting, happy to be proven wrong though. The only positive I see atm, is the Derby fans in general have been fairly upbeat about their involvement.
Can anyone see a positive when they wish no longer to be involved, will/can we have any assurance that AP will not be under any threat post USA?
If the summary is
1)We've taken a chunky loan off the Americans
2)Before we've even decided if they're coming in
3)If we default on the loan, they own Adams Park
then erm...that's very worrying indeed.
1) Time to explore alternative investors & a different route forward.
2) “Non-transferable” season-tickets is another ludicrous idea. Doesn’t happen at other clubs. Simply then put your season-ticket in your own business/employers name. Who dreams up this tosh?