Andy Harman addressed a full Woodlands Lounge before kick-off. He gave a brief overview of his proposal and took questions.
I managed to get the last question in before wrapping up, asking about him being undecided whether his investment would be debt or equity, with debt being a concern to some supporters. He replied as on Wednesday, that he would need to look more closely at the financial state of the club before deciding. He needs to be sure that the club's finances are not much worse then he is being led to believe.
He spoke with some passion about what needs doing at the club, and about the Academy, which is going ahead regardless, and has a clear vision of integrating the club more closely with the local community, and getting businesses more involved. He is not going to throw money at it, he wants to transform the club to be more financially viable.
He admitted that the Americans may well have deeper pockets than himself, and was puzzled that their presentation has been cancelled. He is clearly frustrated at how he has been treated by the Trust, which caused him to arrange the presentation on Wednesday.
I don't doubt that he genuinely wants to get the club into a much better state, and has the drive and ability to achieve that. How his bid will compare to the Americans, time will tell. I really want to hear their presentation and it is frustrating that two meetings with them have been cancelled, and that details have yet to be circulated to members.
@Malone - There are a number of anti Stroud posts because he (and his fellow board members) have put the future of our club at risk. The security of Adams Park is at risk due to the charge being registered without the necessary member authorisation. The marketing for investment in the club has been amateurish in the extreme and quite simply an embarrassment.
The Board have authorised spending more money than we are getting in. We got promotion, but at a cost we can't afford, hence unsustainable losses have accrued. 18 months ago the Board said we were in a stable financial position despite making substantial repayments for 3 years to Hayes.
The Americans basically have us by the short and curlies as we don't have the funds to repay their loan. To believe that they can stabilise us and then sell us on as a Championship club is cloud cuckoo land.
The Andrew Harman bid is just as much pie in the sky. His investment, albeit initially a minority stake is probably via a substantial loan. Once we are deep in debt, I can see a Sharky situation arising where we will be forced to give him overall control or go out of business. Unless the money he has offered is equity, there is no way I would support this.
@mooneyman The difference though is that Andrew Harman is an ex-player with a very strong affinity for WWFC. He lives in Beaconsfield & will obviously have a very high-profile locally if he took over. That is something he’d not want to have under threat by not doing things properly.
Speaking to former Manager & Chairman Brian Lee after the game he was ringing in his endorsement of a bid by Andrew Harman. His vision for greater community & youth involvement is the only way forward for a club of Wycombe’s size.
Steve Hayes moved to Chorley Wood, he had got no affinity to the Wanderers until his pal Terry Evans signed. and then never he re-emerged until the 2001 Fa Cup Run. The fact that Harman and Kenny Wilson are ex players, and Barry Langdon, and his father were and are lifelong fans, gives me a lot more confidence than Sharky.
That is the nub I think. The equity issue. Yanks have the money and Andy so far seems a bit vague. As I say the fact that the yanks aren't saying sign up now or we're off suggests to me they have confidence in what they are offering. If Andy said I was loans but 'don't worry about it' I would worry about it.
I fully believe that Harman wants to improve the club and help the community, but I do have doubts over his long term financial clout compared to the Americans.
I'd be intrigued to know his response if he was asked about working as a large minority stake holder with the Americans as a majority stake holder, could I be naively optimistic in thinking that AH could still fund and own an academy affiliated to WWFC, and own a minority share, with the Americans having the majority and funding the infrastructure and playing side, and a shared effort to improve operations. I know egos get in the way, but if it worked this could be amazing for the club, m and give a return to both parties! Wishful thinking I know, but a man can dream
@Username said:
I fully believe that Harman wants to improve the club and help the community, but I do have doubts over his long term financial clout compared to the Americans.
Forgive me, but haven't the Americans already stated that theirs is a "short term fix & sell" proposal, or is their message getting blurred amid all the speculation and rumours on here?
I still don't get it that we couldn't have listened to their proposals/presentation on the 28th? Surely it should make no difference? The only obvious reason to a mere mortal like me is that they are reviewing their proposal in the light of the trust being forced to allow Andy Harman a voice. In which case, maybe their proposal wasn't as good as it could have been in the first place. I really don't know, but as I see it, one potential bidder can't give a definite bid or plan, as surely he needs to see the books to make sure that the trust aren't covering bigger losses than they really are. The other bidder now won't reveal their hand for whatever reason and that surely will only add to more speculation of "dark arts" at play by them and or the trust?
This really is a shitefest and a clear example of how poor communication just adds fuel to a fire.
However much a shambles our current Board have made of off-the field issues (and I concede it seems damning in the handling of the loan/sale) it’s probably worth reflecting that it certainly hasn’t permeated down to the on-field side of things.
The only obvious reason to a mere mortal like me is that they are reviewing their proposal in the light of the trust being forced to allow Andy Harman a voice. In which case, maybe their proposal wasn't as good as it could have been in the first place.
There is another obvious alternative. Keeping their powder dry.
If there is a rival offer coming in, why would they want to release there offer, knowing the other party has time modify there’s to counter act it.
A clear and fair process would be for both bids to be submitted/presented in full and at the same time.
If they were to be presented privately you could get away with a staggered approach. I think we are beyond things being done privately now.
@Steve_Peart said:
Andy Harman addressed a full Woodlands Lounge before kick-off. He gave a brief overview of his proposal and took questions.
I managed to get the last question in before wrapping up, asking about him being undecided whether his investment would be debt or equity, with debt being a concern to some supporters. He replied as on Wednesday, that he would need to look more closely at the financial state of the club before deciding. He needs to be sure that the club's finances are not much worse then he is being led to believe.
Thanks Steve.
This still doesn’t feel good to me. I do get what gems saying and he is trying to protect is money however, what would be wrong with confirming/denying that “the bid is on the basis the information I have at this time is correct and accurate and my full intention is for it to be equity (or debt).
Even if his bid were to progress all the way through to final due diligence stages (when he actually finally gets to look under the hood and through the books) any bid he (or any party) makes is subject to that due dil. If at that point his bid was based on false information he has the legal mechanism to back out or proceed with the investment.
This wishy washy approach to confining or denying his intended approach doesn’t fill me with confidence.
Lastly - if the finances are worse than he is told, why would he switch from equity to debt approach to, essentially, make the situation for the club worse? The logical conclusion, to me, he is that he is protecting his money. And he is going to want it all back at some point and still hedging his bet on the best way to get it back.
As you say, both sides should present their bids, after being allowed unencumbered access to all financial areas of the club, at the same time, and presented openly . Surely this will be the fairest way?
I would be surprised/shocked/concerned if either said get unencumbered access to all financial areas of the club until the very end of the process. Limited access yes, not full.
It is commercially sensitive information. And even the largest of business takeovers and acquisitions have it at the end of the process for that reason. All bids are made on the basis nothing comes up in due dil that you were told is inaccurate.
@Steve_Peart said:
Andy Harman addressed a full Woodlands Lounge before kick-off. He gave a brief overview of his proposal and took questions...
I don't doubt that he genuinely wants to get the club into a much better state, and has the drive and ability to achieve that. How his bid will compare to the Americans, time will tell. I really want to hear their presentation and it is frustrating that two meetings with them have been cancelled, and that details have yet to be circulated to members.
Apparently time won't tell though as we still won't be in a position to compare the two bids and make a realistic appraisal of them.
@TheDancingYak why wouldn't any investor in WWFC want their money back at some stage? The figures we are talking about don't suggest people who can afford to lose millions and millions - are we expecting them to?
@peterparrotface said: @TheDancingYak why wouldn't any investor in WWFC want their money back at some stage? The figures we are talking about don't suggest people who can afford to lose millions and millions - are we expecting them to?
If your bidding for a club expecting never to see you money back, why would you be undecided if it was equity or debt? Surely you would right that off as a loss, accept it and then pick the option least damaging to the club?
I would expect any investor to realise very few people make money from club investment. It’s a very high risk investment. I would expect they expect to lose the majority of there money.
To expect a ROI or indeed any profit from a club at our level should be marked under unlikely. Citation: every other FL club.
Given that, I would hope a successful business team accept they are likely to lose the initial investment and bid accordingly.
I don't know. I would expect anyone investing or loaning between 800k and 5 million to a lower league football club to want or need some of it back eventually.
I disagree. Common practice and something we should expect both bids to do is add any cash they put into the club as directors loans.
It has benefits , tax mainly. If we have an enormous cup or player sale windfall and don’t have any liabilities by way of loans it would be a shame to give a late chunk of that to hmrc by banking a Lare annual profit.
But also , the investors should be first in line to retrieve their monies , if they choose to , in such an event . Whilst there is a chance of them getting money back for propping up the cash flow shortfall we have , it is only fair they can take it back in loans if they wish should the club ever be able to afford it.
The key will be the terms . Many directors loans are labelled non callable , meaning they can dictate when and how they are repaid, thus avoiding a nasty owner winding up a club if they fall out with fans or fall into non related financial difficulties .
As with everything , the terms and protections negotiated in this area will be he important detail not the loan/equity situation itself .
I would guess the ambiguity from harman aroind this is due to none of that negotiation taking place as yet .
There is no ambiguity from statements by the Americans - all their investment will be in loan form outside of the £500k loan which will convert to equity if they are sucesful.
Obviously we should be rather concerned that such crucial terms,detail , and protective measures will be negotiated by our same representatives that have guided us to the weak and dubious position we currently find ourselves in, THAT alone is the strongest and most clear case for a vote of no confidence as soon as possible in my opinion .
As understand it and its not often i.undetstand business ndas were signed to protect both sides financial.information becoming public...so the yanks have probably seen the full books and I suppose Andy will do the same as his bid progresses. I assume what marlowchair is saying is that whatever the merits of either bid we cannot depend on the trust to get the best one.
I think the trust have shown a disappointing lack of transparency regarding the loan and would like to see new a new more open policy where as much information as possible is given to members. If this is requires a vote of no confidence then so be it. But I understand cash was needed and there were limited options for the board in order to ensure that everyone got paid. I don't consider this an excuse for not putting it to members first. We must be more democratic and open going forwards. This isn't the first time we have not been given key information.
But it does seem odd how volunteers can be given such a hard time. What is in it for them apart from perhaps helping Stroud get a job which seems fair enough, if I did it I would hope to bolster my CV and contact list. They are giving up a lot of time, is it worth all the abuse? No one else stood for election. I couldn't give enough time to it myself so I have to let someone else do it. Where is this more competent board that Marlowchair keeps talking about? Where were they for the election? As someone else said GA mentioned that TS played a key role in securing the Luke Bolton loan, he only has so much time to devote to all footballing and financial matters. With such an organisation there will be people politics and it seems Marlowchair has been on the wrong end of this to be so constantly negative regarding what is an over performing club.
I am as disappointed as anyone by the apparent need for investment and would like to see other options explored. But we have been kept afloat by some good people offering loans on generous terms, if they can't keep offering this facility it is fair enough, for people like Andrew Howard who put money in to get abuse seems unfair. I am sure we could improve the financial side of things but perhaps there is no volunteer who can do this, maybe we need the expertise and time of the Americans or Andy Harman more than their money. If someone invests money they will be more committed than volunteers.
Well Notts County is now up for sale after their owner and chairman accidentally tweeted a photo of his penis on twitter today.
Maybe the Americans might fancy that !
@colonel_splaffy said:
I think the trust have shown a disappointing lack of transparency regarding the loan and would like to see new a new more open policy where as much information as possible is given to members. If this is requires a vote of no confidence then so be it. But I understand cash was needed and there were limited options for the board in order to ensure that everyone got paid. I don't consider this an excuse for not putting it to members first. We must be more democratic and open going forwards. This isn't the first time we have not been given key information.
But it does seem odd how volunteers can be given such a hard time. What is in it for them apart from perhaps helping Stroud get a job which seems fair enough, if I did it I would hope to bolster my CV and contact list. They are giving up a lot of time, is it worth all the abuse? No one else stood for election. I couldn't give enough time to it myself so I have to let someone else do it. Where is this more competent board that Marlowchair keeps talking about? Where were they for the election? As someone else said GA mentioned that TS played a key role in securing the Luke Bolton loan, he only has so much time to devote to all footballing and financial matters. With such an organisation there will be people politics and it seems Marlowchair has been on the wrong end of this to be so constantly negative regarding what is an over performing club.
I am as disappointed as anyone by the apparent need for investment and would like to see other options explored. But we have been kept afloat by some good people offering loans on generous terms, if they can't keep offering this facility it is fair enough, for people like Andrew Howard who put money in to get abuse seems unfair. I am sure we could improve the financial side of things but perhaps there is no volunteer who can do this, maybe we need the expertise and time of the Americans or Andy Harman more than their money. If someone invests money they will be more committed than volunteers.
More than one candidate for the board has been privately spoken to over recent years prior to the AGM and been discouraged from proceeding by the chairman and his supporters.
GA simply mentioned TS because the board had to approve the release of funds to secure Luke Bolton. Gareth’s friend and mentor Mr Howard also suggested TS could use a little positive press.
Comments
Andy Harman addressed a full Woodlands Lounge before kick-off. He gave a brief overview of his proposal and took questions.
I managed to get the last question in before wrapping up, asking about him being undecided whether his investment would be debt or equity, with debt being a concern to some supporters. He replied as on Wednesday, that he would need to look more closely at the financial state of the club before deciding. He needs to be sure that the club's finances are not much worse then he is being led to believe.
He spoke with some passion about what needs doing at the club, and about the Academy, which is going ahead regardless, and has a clear vision of integrating the club more closely with the local community, and getting businesses more involved. He is not going to throw money at it, he wants to transform the club to be more financially viable.
He admitted that the Americans may well have deeper pockets than himself, and was puzzled that their presentation has been cancelled. He is clearly frustrated at how he has been treated by the Trust, which caused him to arrange the presentation on Wednesday.
I don't doubt that he genuinely wants to get the club into a much better state, and has the drive and ability to achieve that. How his bid will compare to the Americans, time will tell. I really want to hear their presentation and it is frustrating that two meetings with them have been cancelled, and that details have yet to be circulated to members.
@Malone - There are a number of anti Stroud posts because he (and his fellow board members) have put the future of our club at risk. The security of Adams Park is at risk due to the charge being registered without the necessary member authorisation. The marketing for investment in the club has been amateurish in the extreme and quite simply an embarrassment.
The Board have authorised spending more money than we are getting in. We got promotion, but at a cost we can't afford, hence unsustainable losses have accrued. 18 months ago the Board said we were in a stable financial position despite making substantial repayments for 3 years to Hayes.
The Americans basically have us by the short and curlies as we don't have the funds to repay their loan. To believe that they can stabilise us and then sell us on as a Championship club is cloud cuckoo land.
The Andrew Harman bid is just as much pie in the sky. His investment, albeit initially a minority stake is probably via a substantial loan. Once we are deep in debt, I can see a Sharky situation arising where we will be forced to give him overall control or go out of business. Unless the money he has offered is equity, there is no way I would support this.
@mooneyman The difference though is that Andrew Harman is an ex-player with a very strong affinity for WWFC. He lives in Beaconsfield & will obviously have a very high-profile locally if he took over. That is something he’d not want to have under threat by not doing things properly.
Speaking to former Manager & Chairman Brian Lee after the game he was ringing in his endorsement of a bid by Andrew Harman. His vision for greater community & youth involvement is the only way forward for a club of Wycombe’s size.
@A_Worboys - I believe Steve Hayes lives or lived relatively locally. He didn't seem to be overly concerned with the fall out from his ownership!
@mooneyman But he’s a shithouse, Harman appears human.
Steve Hayes moved to Chorley Wood, he had got no affinity to the Wanderers until his pal Terry Evans signed. and then never he re-emerged until the 2001 Fa Cup Run. The fact that Harman and Kenny Wilson are ex players, and Barry Langdon, and his father were and are lifelong fans, gives me a lot more confidence than Sharky.
That is the nub I think. The equity issue. Yanks have the money and Andy so far seems a bit vague. As I say the fact that the yanks aren't saying sign up now or we're off suggests to me they have confidence in what they are offering. If Andy said I was loans but 'don't worry about it' I would worry about it.
@drcongo Hindsight is a wonderful thing
I fully believe that Harman wants to improve the club and help the community, but I do have doubts over his long term financial clout compared to the Americans.
I'd be intrigued to know his response if he was asked about working as a large minority stake holder with the Americans as a majority stake holder, could I be naively optimistic in thinking that AH could still fund and own an academy affiliated to WWFC, and own a minority share, with the Americans having the majority and funding the infrastructure and playing side, and a shared effort to improve operations. I know egos get in the way, but if it worked this could be amazing for the club, m and give a return to both parties! Wishful thinking I know, but a man can dream
Forgive me, but haven't the Americans already stated that theirs is a "short term fix & sell" proposal, or is their message getting blurred amid all the speculation and rumours on here?
I still don't get it that we couldn't have listened to their proposals/presentation on the 28th? Surely it should make no difference? The only obvious reason to a mere mortal like me is that they are reviewing their proposal in the light of the trust being forced to allow Andy Harman a voice. In which case, maybe their proposal wasn't as good as it could have been in the first place. I really don't know, but as I see it, one potential bidder can't give a definite bid or plan, as surely he needs to see the books to make sure that the trust aren't covering bigger losses than they really are. The other bidder now won't reveal their hand for whatever reason and that surely will only add to more speculation of "dark arts" at play by them and or the trust?
This really is a shitefest and a clear example of how poor communication just adds fuel to a fire.
Not sure where this link belongs but an interesting and salutary tale about misguided owners:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/jan/26/alan-hardy-notts-county-league-two-football-league?
However much a shambles our current Board have made of off-the field issues (and I concede it seems damning in the handling of the loan/sale) it’s probably worth reflecting that it certainly hasn’t permeated down to the on-field side of things.
The only obvious reason to a mere mortal like me is that they are reviewing their proposal in the light of the trust being forced to allow Andy Harman a voice. In which case, maybe their proposal wasn't as good as it could have been in the first place.
There is another obvious alternative. Keeping their powder dry.
If there is a rival offer coming in, why would they want to release there offer, knowing the other party has time modify there’s to counter act it.
A clear and fair process would be for both bids to be submitted/presented in full and at the same time.
If they were to be presented privately you could get away with a staggered approach. I think we are beyond things being done privately now.
Thanks Steve.
This still doesn’t feel good to me. I do get what gems saying and he is trying to protect is money however, what would be wrong with confirming/denying that “the bid is on the basis the information I have at this time is correct and accurate and my full intention is for it to be equity (or debt).
Even if his bid were to progress all the way through to final due diligence stages (when he actually finally gets to look under the hood and through the books) any bid he (or any party) makes is subject to that due dil. If at that point his bid was based on false information he has the legal mechanism to back out or proceed with the investment.
This wishy washy approach to confining or denying his intended approach doesn’t fill me with confidence.
Lastly - if the finances are worse than he is told, why would he switch from equity to debt approach to, essentially, make the situation for the club worse? The logical conclusion, to me, he is that he is protecting his money. And he is going to want it all back at some point and still hedging his bet on the best way to get it back.
As you say, both sides should present their bids, after being allowed unencumbered access to all financial areas of the club, at the same time, and presented openly . Surely this will be the fairest way?
I would be surprised/shocked/concerned if either said get unencumbered access to all financial areas of the club until the very end of the process. Limited access yes, not full.
It is commercially sensitive information. And even the largest of business takeovers and acquisitions have it at the end of the process for that reason. All bids are made on the basis nothing comes up in due dil that you were told is inaccurate.
Apparently time won't tell though as we still won't be in a position to compare the two bids and make a realistic appraisal of them.
@TheDancingYak why wouldn't any investor in WWFC want their money back at some stage? The figures we are talking about don't suggest people who can afford to lose millions and millions - are we expecting them to?
@TheDancingYak, on Wednesday, Andy Harman said he is not expecting to get his money back.
If your bidding for a club expecting never to see you money back, why would you be undecided if it was equity or debt? Surely you would right that off as a loss, accept it and then pick the option least damaging to the club?
@peterparrotface - think I quoted the wrong reply!
I would expect any investor to realise very few people make money from club investment. It’s a very high risk investment. I would expect they expect to lose the majority of there money.
To expect a ROI or indeed any profit from a club at our level should be marked under unlikely. Citation: every other FL club.
Given that, I would hope a successful business team accept they are likely to lose the initial investment and bid accordingly.
I don't know. I would expect anyone investing or loaning between 800k and 5 million to a lower league football club to want or need some of it back eventually.
I disagree. Common practice and something we should expect both bids to do is add any cash they put into the club as directors loans.
It has benefits , tax mainly. If we have an enormous cup or player sale windfall and don’t have any liabilities by way of loans it would be a shame to give a late chunk of that to hmrc by banking a Lare annual profit.
But also , the investors should be first in line to retrieve their monies , if they choose to , in such an event . Whilst there is a chance of them getting money back for propping up the cash flow shortfall we have , it is only fair they can take it back in loans if they wish should the club ever be able to afford it.
The key will be the terms . Many directors loans are labelled non callable , meaning they can dictate when and how they are repaid, thus avoiding a nasty owner winding up a club if they fall out with fans or fall into non related financial difficulties .
As with everything , the terms and protections negotiated in this area will be he important detail not the loan/equity situation itself .
I would guess the ambiguity from harman aroind this is due to none of that negotiation taking place as yet .
There is no ambiguity from statements by the Americans - all their investment will be in loan form outside of the £500k loan which will convert to equity if they are sucesful.
Obviously we should be rather concerned that such crucial terms,detail , and protective measures will be negotiated by our same representatives that have guided us to the weak and dubious position we currently find ourselves in, THAT alone is the strongest and most clear case for a vote of no confidence as soon as possible in my opinion .
We were told once before not to worry about the money as well
@eric_plant, yes, lesson learnt and the Trust need to negotiate accordingly.
@marlowchair
I'm waiting for a response to my question of last night.
Statements like yours are very simple to make without examples. Can you please provide these
As understand it and its not often i.undetstand business ndas were signed to protect both sides financial.information becoming public...so the yanks have probably seen the full books and I suppose Andy will do the same as his bid progresses. I assume what marlowchair is saying is that whatever the merits of either bid we cannot depend on the trust to get the best one.
Not without publicly embarrassing paid staff, so no. It this time .
I think the trust have shown a disappointing lack of transparency regarding the loan and would like to see new a new more open policy where as much information as possible is given to members. If this is requires a vote of no confidence then so be it. But I understand cash was needed and there were limited options for the board in order to ensure that everyone got paid. I don't consider this an excuse for not putting it to members first. We must be more democratic and open going forwards. This isn't the first time we have not been given key information.
But it does seem odd how volunteers can be given such a hard time. What is in it for them apart from perhaps helping Stroud get a job which seems fair enough, if I did it I would hope to bolster my CV and contact list. They are giving up a lot of time, is it worth all the abuse? No one else stood for election. I couldn't give enough time to it myself so I have to let someone else do it. Where is this more competent board that Marlowchair keeps talking about? Where were they for the election? As someone else said GA mentioned that TS played a key role in securing the Luke Bolton loan, he only has so much time to devote to all footballing and financial matters. With such an organisation there will be people politics and it seems Marlowchair has been on the wrong end of this to be so constantly negative regarding what is an over performing club.
I am as disappointed as anyone by the apparent need for investment and would like to see other options explored. But we have been kept afloat by some good people offering loans on generous terms, if they can't keep offering this facility it is fair enough, for people like Andrew Howard who put money in to get abuse seems unfair. I am sure we could improve the financial side of things but perhaps there is no volunteer who can do this, maybe we need the expertise and time of the Americans or Andy Harman more than their money. If someone invests money they will be more committed than volunteers.
Well Notts County is now up for sale after their owner and chairman accidentally tweeted a photo of his penis on twitter today.
Maybe the Americans might fancy that !
More than one candidate for the board has been privately spoken to over recent years prior to the AGM and been discouraged from proceeding by the chairman and his supporters.
GA simply mentioned TS because the board had to approve the release of funds to secure Luke Bolton. Gareth’s friend and mentor Mr Howard also suggested TS could use a little positive press.