The Lounge
Home › Forums › WDSA Forum › The Lounge
- This topic has 1,492 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 11 months ago by
MacWomble.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 27, 2019 at 12:37 am #14537
Devon Womble
ParticipantHaving spent some time in commercial financing, I believe our problem has nothing to do with the Business Plan but everything to do with the failure by the FA to ensure Due Diligence of its member’s finances. Vis-a-Vis… With several major collapses already witnessed, and more than a few other clubs close to collapse and/or struggling to refinance, Banks see football clubs as high risk ventures. Thus, regardless of how resilient our Business Plan is, we were never likely to raise the necessary funding through the traditional routes. Personally, I would have expected the club to have seen this coming a long time ago. Perhaps Erik did?
The fait accompli is that our future is now de facto in the hands of private investors; the very thing we hoped to avoid.
I can see an almost unanimous desire to say “No” to outside investment at the SGM, but what is the alternative? Being sued by the builders? Having NPL turned into more apartments – the hallowed turf finally gone forever? Playing at Kingstonians with 4,500 fans, cash strapped and struggling in L1 or L2 for the rest of our days?
If these investors are the John Green’s and Richard Bransons of the world, we might be OK; but it’s hardly likely they will be that philanthropic. At best we might hope for a 51/49 control split, but that my friends, will not happen.
We stand to lose control of our club, or stand to lose our future. What a god awful shambolic mess.
Yet again, the unfit to govern FA has crapped all over our soccer boots. Perhaps it’s not the Premier League that should break away from the FA, but all the little clubs who play for the love of the game, and not for the love of a bulging back pocket.December 8, 2019 at 6:38 am #14538Singapore Don
ParticipantSo life is as depressing on the field as it is off it. Throwing away another two points through terrible defending again. And against the woeful bottom of the table team. As I wrote in the latest newsletter, this current squad lacks the fight and spirit to see games out. It’s so depressing. Gutless and incompetent. Supporting Wimbledon these days is seriously damaging to one’s mental well-being. A break from
all the crap on and off the field may be what the doctor would order. It’s tempting to escape the doom and gloom of all matters Wimbledon at the moment. Supporting the Dons is depressing. Fun lies elsewhere….December 9, 2019 at 4:58 am #14539Colum
ParticipantOn the face of it, a point away from home is a good result, especially when you look at our away form. But the manner by which we conceded both Bolton’s equalisers is a body blow that is tough to take. Thankfully there was no real damage done, as other teams failed to capitalise.
Now we can forget about on the field matters as Monday’s SGM puts our points tally into perspective. Kid yourself not, this is a watershed moment for the club. Get it wrong and at best we’ll have a Ryman Premier team. At worst, we could have no team at all. Whichever way it goes, this is likely to cause a gaping chasm of opinion.
As for my personal opinion, I’ve always felt that the fans owned model would come to an end sooner or later. I just didn’t foresee it happening just yet. Should we have taken relegation to League Two or the Conference on the chin, if it meant having a sound financial basis for the return to our spiritual home? Did we “do a Bury” and spend more than we could afford? Perhaps the biggest question of all is, just what level of accountability should Dons Trust members have over the club’s finances?
I just hope we get through it without too much bloodshed, but I can’t see a total absence of it. Tomorrow’s meeting won’t be a fun affair.
December 10, 2019 at 11:34 pm #14540Windlesham Don
ParticipantSo, the overall impression from last night is that we are right royally f*cked!
How we have arrived at this desperate situation I do not know, but at the moment if we do not accept outside investment then the numbers do not add up for the new stadium – we are around £11m short. The ‘bare bones’ stadium option was pretty well taken off the table as well, as apparently it would involve more than the £1m shortfall published with the SGM papers! How a single stand and three sides of tarmac can cost more than £22m I have no idea!!
The proposal, from 3 investors, is to take 30% of the shares for a stake of £7.5m, valuing the club at £25m. The proposed formation of the board (and I think the structure would be changed to only have one board?) would comprise 3 investor places, 3 DTB places, the CEO and 2 external directors nominated by the board. Thus, in theory the investors would not have control of the board.
I’ll not go into the technical side of the proposal, as this is available to DT members, but an overall impression of the meeting, chaired by Mark Davis and accompanied by Ed Leek for the financials, was that outside investment is the preferred and possibly only route being pursued by the DTB. Interestingly, the only other DTB members who spoke, Luke McKenzie and Hannah Kitcher, both favoured retaining control and Luke expressed his view that all other avenues of funding have not been exhausted. There is obviously contention within the DT board…
Unsurprisingly, there was no sign of these potential investors, who are apparently Wimbledon-based businessmen, but not supporters. In my view the next move has to be for their identities to be revealed and for them to put themselves forward for scrutiny.
The audience had several members of The Wimbledon Way group, who are vocally against the investment, and they made themselves heard regularly throughout the meeting.
Sadly for me, Mark Davis did not come across as someone who had presided over the worst crisis in the history of AFC Wimbledon – there was no remorse, no apology and no admission that they had got anything wrong. There was also no acceptance that taking outside investment would be an anathema to some supporters. Thus for some there now appears to be a lack of trust in those who are leading us.
The management of the meeting was once again poor. No actions were taken and no follow-up work identified. With timescales as tight as ours (Buckingham’s need a final contract and the funds to finance it by around end January) things need to move quickly and people need to be working together on a set of tasks – there appears to be no way this is going to happen.
Mark Davis appears to have thrown all of our eggs into the external investment basket and to hell with what the members want, and to hell with our history – no wonder there was some friction in the room.
In conclusion, the meeting expressed an interest in the board pursuing further bond and donation options, also a sale and lease back of the new stadium. However, it is unlikely that any of these routes will cover the £11m shortfall. Other than these there were no real conclusions.
Personally, I feel that we need to meet these potential investors before they become the only game in town. No one asked what is to me the vital question: if you are investors with no interest in our football club, then what are you expecting to get in return for investing £7.5m in a struggling and loss-making football club?December 11, 2019 at 12:09 am #14541Colum
ParticipantThere were three questions at the back of my mind as I attended last nights Dons Trust SGM:
• Just how had things escalated so quickly to the current situation?
• Why is there such a disconnect between the fans and the Dons Trust Board?
• What type of club do we want to be going forward?The overwhelming feeling of those in the room last night was the Board had not stated the seriousness of our predicament until the 11th hour. To howls of laughter and derision, the Dons Trust Chair Mark Davis, said he’d made it abundantly clear to all concerned at past Dons Trust meetings and before the Seedrs crowdfunding campaign.
Armed with the status quo, Mark is trying his best. He clearly believes that external investment is the golden panacea that will get us a new stadium. Maybe he’s right, but what would be the cost to what we currently have? Unfortunately the scant details he was able to provide as to who the investors are, did little to appease the masses. It didn’t help that when faced with folk asking whether he’d explored the various options put forward by members in the open letter, his response was honest but expressed the reality of what he could achieve. He’s doing his best, but appears overwhelmed with the task in hand. Let’s not forget that he’s fitting this in around a full time job.
Mark did a pretty good job at remaining impartial and allowing discussion, but the cracks showed. Some of Mark’s language grated. It wasn’t what he said, more the way he said it. I don’t think this was deliberate on his part, it is just the way civil servants are taught to communicate. When dealing with an emotive issue, it doesn’t help talking diplomatically. This may well be what has caused the disconnect between the Board and the members. He may well believe that what he said demonstrated the seriousness of our financial situation. The problem is, that just didn’t translate to the membership.
As if to back up this argument, the AFCW Board Chair Iain McNay put forward the view that the current Dons Trust Board structure was unsustainable and has been for some time. If we are to even maintain our current league position, that structure must change. This wasn’t meant to be a criticism of Mark or the Dons Trust Board, but his contribution was telling.
Hannah Kitcher, a Dons Trust Board member, stated her opposition to external investment. It was interesting to see so few Dons Trust Board members at the meeting, and precious few saying anything approaching support for Mark. Having such a split on the very body tasked with sorting out this mess is not helpful to say the least.
What was abundantly clear, was that if we went down the road of outside investment, we’d hand over 30% of the club and three seats on the Dons Trust Board. These investors could freely sell their shares to anyone at any time without the Dons Trust Board being able to do due diligence. Will these investors be around in 5 or 10 years time? Probably not, which makes this a real problem.
So what can we take away from the meeting?
• There are a lot of folk who believe we need more time to explore other funding opportunities that don’t involve outside investors.
• If we don’t sign the construction contract before January or early February, the Plough Lane site will be closed and we’ll be responsible for the costs of servicing it.
• Due diligence on the external investors has not been completed, so it is possible they may not even be accepted by the Dons trust Board.
• There’s a deep level of distrust of the Dons Trust Board, and particularly the Chair.
• Although no one mentioned this last night (surprisingly) costs will almost definitely increase.
• Whichever path we end up taking, we’re screwed.December 11, 2019 at 12:17 am #14542Singapore Don
ParticipantExcellent summary of the SGM Windlesham. I went to the meeting last night in gloomy mood, and left more depressed than when I went. My takeout is that the club is seemingly irreparably split down the middle on external investment vs fan ownership. The situation is as fundamentally divisive as Brexit. Such is the deeply entrenched passion and belief on both sides, I fear we’ll lose a swathe of fans whichever way the vote on our future goes. The differences seem irreconcilable over our very identity – who we are and where we’re going as a club. This really does feel like an existential moment for AFC Wimbledon. Dark days.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.