Third Press Release of Council/WWFC Commented

Looking at this press release it is more important to notice what it omits to say than to look at the presented content.

First:
There is no mention whatsoever of the proposed private, fenced, professional football academy on Green Belt land between two villages — the very project that underpins WWFC’s interest in taking control of the site. The football training academy is not incidental. It is the strategic driver. Its absence from the narrative is striking and certainly not a slip-up.

Second:
The release repeatedly promises “financial stability and sustainability”, yet provides no explanation of how income will be generated to fund the promised investment and improvements. There is extensive reference to expenditure. There is none to revenue modelling. The only verified financial signal so far is that a 9-hole round of golf will cost up to 92% more and an 18-hole round up to 135% more. While this creates more income per round, the question remains how many rounds will be played after this increase.

Only after recognising these omissions should the rest of the press release analysis be read.

What follows is a paragraph-by-paragraph examination.

1. Opening Framing

“Wycombe Wanderers Football Club (WWFC) and Buckinghamshire Council are progressing plans for the long-term future of Farnham Park Playing Fields and South Buckinghamshire Golf Course as a community sporting hub that will help more local people be active.”

This opening sentence does three things immediately:

Presents the project as settled and “progressing”.
Frames it as unquestionably positive.
Defines the site primarily as a “community sporting hub”.

What it does not do:

Acknowledge the legal complexities and constraints surrounding the land.
Recognise existing lawful sporting uses that already take place (including golf).
Explain how removing half the golf course increases overall participation.

The term “long-term future” implies security — yet no explanation is given as to why the current lawful and functioning 18 hole golf course is incompatible with that future.

2. Appointment of Architects

"As part of this work, KSS Design Group has now been appointed as the project’s architects to support the next stage of design and planning work, and the Club is also proposing changes to the operation of the golf course from 1 April 2026."

The appointment of architects suggests momentum and inevitability.

However:

Architectural development does not resolve legal constraints and land rights issues.
Design work does not override charity law duties.
Planning ambition does not equate to deliverability.

The public is presented with visible progress — but not with clarity about whether fundamental governance issues have been resolved.

Architects can draw plans. They cannot legalise what may not be permissible.

3. Reference to August 2025 “Partnership”

"In August 2025, WWFC and Buckinghamshire Council announced a new partnership to secure the site’s long-term future as a flagship sporting hub for the community, with a shared vision for a modern, multi-sports destination."

The word “partnership” sounds collaborative and community-led.

In reality:

The Council acts both as local authority and as sole trustee of the charity.
The Council in both roles (that should be separated) has made most decisions associated with leaseholder selection behind closed doors, without full public review of the information that lead to relevant decisions, which includes key land issues.
Long term existing users were not meaningfully included in the process prior to strategic direction of moving from an 18 hole to a 9 hole golf course.

The language implies consensus. None has been demonstrated.

4. “Inclusive Facilities” & “Shared Vision”

"The aim is to create inclusive facilities that significantly increase opportunities for people of all ages and backgrounds to play sport and be active. Read more about our vision in the slides below."

No evidence is provided that reducing an 18-hole golf course to 9 holes increases participation.

Key questions left unanswered:

What participation data supports the claim?
Has demand modelling been independently verified?
How does removing half the capacity of the golf course widen access?

“Inclusive” is a powerful word — but inclusion should not mean displacement of existing users.

5. Engagement & Early Stage Framing

"Since being selected as the preferred leaseholder, WWFC has been engaging with the clubs that use the playing fields and golf course, while also working with appointed architects on developing a vision for the site. KSS brings extensive experience in delivering complex sports and leisure projects and has been working closely with the (WWF) Club to build a detailed understanding of the site and help shape a practical, long-term approach. These plans remain at an early stage, and further details will be shared in due course."

It indicates plans are at an early stage.

At the same time in relation to an existing 18 hole golf course:

A reduced and revised 9 hole format is confirmed.
The other 9 holes are to be taken out of use.
Operational changes begin April 2026.

Operational change is not conceptual, it is structural. It is immediate and in practical terms being done to be irreversible.

Major change is planned to be implemented before presentation to and consultation with a wider array of existing users.

6. Financial Viability Narrative

"WWFC has also reviewed the future operation of the golf course, which the (WWF) Club will be responsible for shortly. In recent years, the golf course has seen declining usage and has become financially unviable to operate in its current form. A key part of the long-term vision is to bring financial stability and sustainability to the site, and to do this the (WWF) Club is proposing some changes to the golf course and overall operating model."

This is one of the most consequential statements in the entire press release from WWFC.

The assertion that the golf course is financially unviable in current form is central.

Yet:

No financial data is provided.
No breakdown of income vs expenditure is provided.
No explanation of the management decisions that lead to declining usage and how this negatively affected golf course usage.
No comparison to other similar types of golf courses was provided.

Decline can result from:

Underinvestment.
Uncertainty created by redevelopment plans.
Strategic positioning ahead of lease transfer.

A review of relevant information should demonstrate that a lack of proper golf course management, chronic underfunding and uncertainty has been present for years and has rendered a predominately pay to play golf course not being played as much as it could have been played if managed appropriately.

7. Reduction to 9 Holes

"From April 2026, the course will operate in a revised format, with 9 holes in play and the remaining holes taken out of use, as well as the addition of a putting green and golf academy."

This is not a consultation proposal.
It is a declared operational decision.

Questions arising:

On what authority is the change being made?
Has the charity formally approved disposal or alteration of recreational land?
What impact assessment has been undertaken related to long-time existing golf clubs and other players that have used the golf course for generations?

Half the course removed before the “wider consultation” even begins.

Capacity drops. Flexibility drops.
Ability to conduct Golf Competitions is being phased out or at best an afterthought.
Golf Club viability was annihilated.

This was presented as stabilising the future. No modelling is shown to support that conclusion.

8. Participation & Widening Access

"We believe these changes will help secure the club’s (golf course’s) long-term future by widening access to golf and supporting participation across all ages and abilities, alongside upgraded facilities for wider sport and recreation. "

These phrases are attractive and uncontroversial.

They are also generic.

The site is already a green space.
The playing fields already exist.
Walking routes already exist.

The release contains aspiration, not measurable commitments.

Reducing available holes would:

Reduce tee time and golf course capacity.
Limit competition formats, if they are even able to be held.
Diminishes golf club viability.
Impacts England Golf status and ability for all players to use handicap systems.

If widening access is the goal, evidence is needed that a 9 hole golf course delivers greater participation than 18 holes.

No such evidence is presented.

9. Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability

"The proposals also improve walking and running routes, strengthen sustainable travel options, create jobs, and embed long-term environmental stewardship."

These are attractive concepts.

But:

Farnham Park Charity Trust area already contains walking routes.
The Playing Fields already contain 11 football pitches.
The golf course is already green space.

Environmental stewardship requires measurable commitments — not general language.

This is being done to help ensure irreversible reduction and destruction of parts of a long time existing golf course.

Once 18 becomes 9, restoration becomes highly unlikely.
Phasing can be a method of incremental transformation.

How can golf become more affordable when playing 9 holes will cost about as much as 18 holes before?

10 “First Step” Framing

"This will be the first step towards widening participation in golf, making phased improvements to the facilities, and putting the course on a more affordable and sustainable footing for the future."

The “first step” is the removal of half of an existing golf course.

Once reduced:

Reinstatement becomes less likely.
The character of the site permanently changes.
Precedent is established for further reconfiguration.

Phasing can be a method of incremental transformation.

Someone please explain "more affordable" as prices rise up to 135% for a round of golf!

11. Future Consultation

"In the next three months, there will be a wider public consultation on the longer-term proposals for the whole site. This consultation will give local residents, site users and stakeholders the opportunity to view the emerging proposals, ask questions and share feedback before any planning application is submitted."

Important distinction:

The 9-hole reduction preceded consultation.
Operational change is separated from planning consent.
Consultation applies to “longer-term proposals”, not the immediate reduction.

The sequencing matters.

Consultation after strategic direction and operational change is not the same as what would be considered a fair normal practice, which should be relevant consultation and engagement with the public before decision-making.

We leave it to the readers to judge for themselves whether the Council/WWFC partnership is acting as they should in the face of the public: open, fair, trustworthy, inclusive, following due process, and with solid legal and factual arguments.