West Somerset Railway General Discussion

worth a read:


https://news.railbusinessdaily.com/wsr-launches-new-1-million-emergency-sos-survival-fund/

 

It's Baldrick with another cunning plan .............. (thank you)

 

That was Baldrick who regularly had a cunning plan, they were never quite as cunning as a fox who’d just been appointed professor of cunning at Oxford University though

 

Meanwhile AIUI the Plc takes on the cost of maintaining the station at Washford, yet that station apparently will remain closed until further notice and so no passengers will be using it.

 

So they've gone from being £800,000 in the black, and received £1.4m in donations, yet still need another £1m? I'm confused. Where's it all going?!

 

The other confusing bit is that:

"The WSR Plc Board is also actively researching the costs and feasibility of issuing another Share Issue appeal"
​

whereas

"the Plc Board decided recently too that it had no choice but to defer and pause any further developmental work and incurring costs on changing its structure and creating a new over-arching charity for the time being as suggested in last year’s Bailey Report."
​

So spending money on a share issue is apparently OK, but not on a recommended restructure that is widely considered to be one of the keys to unlocking the potential for fundraising. Go figure ...

Tom

 

Not just a million pounds this year, but a million pounds every year thereafter!

 

Maybe the 'active researching' (presumably at nil or minimal cost?) will determine in due course that another Share Issue is not cost-effective and/or feasible after all? Will there be a Plan C ?

 

Certain legalities apply to making a share issue, or even inviting individuals to buy shares in a company. The word 'prospectus' may prove important.

 

As already pointed out, money to thrown at any reorganisation is apparently in short supply, so any right thinking individual would soon realise that issuing additional shares is not a goer.

Lets see.

1) Issuing shares costs money. It also has ongoing costs involved because of the necessary admin and communications involved in keeping shareholders updated.

2) Charity based reorganisation costs money. But it has almost immediate returns in opening more funding options and allowing tax efficient giving.

So if option two is out of reach, option one is surely not even visible on the horizon, let alone out of reach...

 

I have been involved with several share issues by small companies (not railway related) and they are a nightmare to prepare the legally required paperwork for - and costs are very high. Don't go that way!

 

We assume that the share issue in question will be a public issue. The hurdles may seem less intimidating if the fund raising is amongst a narrower circle, and there may be other perceived advantages to that approach which dilute the still considerable costs associated with it.

 

I completely accept your observations, simply because I know no better. I can see that if potential new shareholders were the target then that may be a problem.
However, if the plan was to encourage existing shareholders to increase their shareholding (a situation which I took on at the start of the pandemic) would that be so problematic?

 

I think it'd be wildly optimistic to think asking your existing base to cough up more would be enough given the WSR to my knowledge has never raised even close to a million pounds before, it needs to find new sources of cash.

 

Still not looking good down Minehead way, Eh? Am I the only outsider utterly bemused by events which, unless involving some some hidden agenda to rid the entire line of viable heritage operations, seems simply inexplicable?

I've tried to remain resolutely impartial over past weeks (indeed, past months and years), but that stance is being rendered increasingly untenable with every utterance from a board who, to put it bluntly, seem to have lost the plot ... and that's the more charitable of two interpretations. Such good news as still comes from the WSR comes from the coal-face and seems to do so in spite of the board, not because of it.

Nothing I've seen from the board comes close to outlining any coherent policy, if such exists, much less justifying a stance which looks guaranteed, if not actually intended, to alienate as large a cross section of the heritage community as possible. That's the very community to whom they now address unconvincingly vague appeals to chuck money into a pit of unknown size, with no detail as to precisely how such funds can be hoped to stave off an inevitable, if unwelcome conclusion.

Concerning the frankly inexcusable behaviour in respect of the S&D Trust, the 'what' is far more evident than any 'why'. Ditto whatever is now going on with the QB, for so long a jewel in the WSR crown. In lieu of credible pronouncements, each time someone touches a nerve, we're treated to an unhelpful broadside. No structured, reasoned vision, merely petulant vitriol. I can speak for no other, but that does the opposite of reassuring me that the board has the slightest handle on whatever the true situation is and have demonstrated no reason for any misplaced hope that things are other than what they appear on the surface .... and that is "irredeemably shambolic".

Last time I was on this thread, I opined that the staff, volunteers and supporters deserve far better, as indeed they do. They're sure as hell not getting that from the current WSR board, who IMHO need to pi##, or get off the potty, while there's still a railway to save.