Some of the things you may not have picked up on at the ST meeting.

For reference the Bolton News blog link from where the bulk of the information is taken is given at the bottom of this post and the 'numbers' you see against many of the sentences refer as to what time these points were posted on the blog (so you can check the accuracy and context of what I have posted below).



1 The ST has no money.

The Portsmouth model had the ST putting £2.75 million in to buy a 48% of a partnership share with 16 other private investors who put in more money (just over £2.75 million I assume) for the other 52%. - 8.01/8.04

Crispy Cock suggested at the meeting was that if ST membership was 60,000 and each of these contributed £50 per year that would give them £10 million per year! - 8.42

(Please note 60,000 x £50 is actually only £3 million and that as for membership

The Portsmouth ST has about 4,000 members. - 8.03

and FC United ST have 1.000 members - 8.19

If Bolton had say 1,000 in the ST paying £50 each that would total just £50,000 and NOT £10 million per year - Sluffy)




2 - The ST would like to take over the club (sooner rather than later!) -

Many subtle and not so subtle references to this throughout the meeting from -  

Crispy Cock - 7.33

Pompey director - 8.05

Supporters Direct rep - 8.21

Crispy Cock - 8.24 and also again at 8.33

Pompey Chairman - 8.35

Crispy Cock - 9.18



3- A ST would limit the ambition of the club to the lower divisions only.

The biggest ST owned club is Portsmouth, the other large ST owned clubs are Wycombe, Exeter and Newport! - 7.12

Supporters trust struggle higher up the league - 7.23

Difficult for it to work at Championship level - (Pompey chairman!) - 8.47



4 - ST's can and DO fail.

Some trusts have lack of creditability - 9.13

Stockports ST failed (after 4 years) - 9.15


5 - The Steering Group

Crispy Cock

Mike Smith (the bloke who actually paid money to fuck our forum - true story - and the owner of the Mavis forum)

See public details about him here -

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and someone I don't know called  Ian Bridge from spie? (who apparently has done design work in the stadium) - 9.20



Summary-

It would seem at this early stage that those 'anonymous 8' behind the ST desire to own the club in the near future by means of jointly raising money from ST membership and finding 16 or so individuals willing to stump up a combined total of several million pounds.

In order to then run the club they would depend on financing it primarily on gate receipts which in effect places a glass ceiling on it to progress no further than the third tier of football because of financial constraints.

Finally two of the three Steering Group members are known or have had dealings with several members of Nuts and trying to pick my words carefully, are not people we would highly recommend to others.


Hope this is of some help in viewing what went on earlier tonight.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Very informative Sluffy. Particularly said bloke with linky. He dissolved quite a lot of businesses. I still think there's a bit of a smoke screen going on to hide the true agenda. But give them credit if they can find 60,000 members.

The 60,000 members putting in £50 was from one of the fans not Crispy.

Hi guys, (very) long time lurker here, sure I'll introduce myself properly somewhere else, but I was there last night and just before a hare gets running, the suggestion of ST membership at 60,000 and each contributing £50 per year to give £10 million per year absolutely did not come from Crispy or anyone else on the panel.

It came from a fans 'question', Chris Lythgoe I think his name was, who essentially went on an aimless rant whilst pulling figures from his arse. I honestly don't think he even got to asking an actual question, and most people on the tables round me were openly scoffing at him.

Whilst I'm here, I can appreciate the Nuts reticence around these current ST guys based on prior dealings, and I myself didn't especially warm to Crispy who strikes me very much as a typical politician (e.g. neatly dodging the 'what happens next' question twice over).

However, you have to hand it to them, they've clearly put in a hell of a lot of work just to get to that point last night, and even stumped up the fees for the room themselves. It's certainly more than I've done in recent weeks, I dunno about you.

I understood that ultimately all positions on the trust would be elected, and genuinely got the impression they ultimately have the best interests at the club at heart.

On that basis, I think the right spirit is there and so for the time being I'd very much argue we all need to get behind the trust, as it's our best chance of ever having a forceful and coherent voice to hold the club to account. Whether they ever choose to listen is another matter.

Sugar, im gonna have to learn to be brief cos I can waffle on, and BTID beat me to it. Forgive me, first post and I got excited.

don't worry about it Ivan we have some right wafflers on here (yes you Lusty and LPP  ). I agree with your comments as well. I know there are a lot of people not happy about Crispy Cock but fair play to the bloke for actually getting off his arse and doing something.
I actually thought he came across well from what i saw on the periscope link

What happens if we get taken over before the ST is properly set up and running?

Ivancamposhair wrote:Sugar, im gonna have to learn to be brief cos I can waffle on, and BTID beat me to it. Forgive me, first post and I got excited.

Another lurker steps out of the shadows! 

Hope we see a lot more of you in time to come mate.

i hope the supporters trust works, i really do, even if there is a takeover, having a fan on the board will hopefully help give the club a kick up the arse when needed.

HOWEVER, the integrity of a couple of the people involved is very questionable.  Would we be at this stage debating a supporters club without them?  Maybe not, so that is to be applauded, my only worry is not everyone will be fully informed enough regards these people to elect the CORRECT candidate to represent the fans at board level.

Kane had a pop last night on the chat thing when i mentioned it and i think this "clique" that have started the ball rolling should only be considered after proper and reasoned debate.

Barb Dwyer wrote:What happens if we get taken over before the ST is properly set up and running?

From what i could gather it wouldn't really make a difference to anything. 

I think the question was asked last night and they are urged to press on with the trust regardless. 

No matter who owns the club you can still get into a position to give the supporters a voice and would maybe be in a position to propose some sort of takeover of the club ever found itself in this position again. If we already had a supporters trust established who knows what might have been in recent months.

Cheers gents, thought now was as good a time as any to pipe up!

My understanding was that the Trust would still be set up, and would try to engage with whoever the new owners are as a mouthpiece for the fans, ideally looking to secure a more formal position in which they could influence the club.

It was stressed repeatedly last night that the sole aim of the Trust is not simply to take over / have a proper role in running the club, although it's evidently something Crispy wants to try. That step is only a possibility that can be considered and come in due course after forming a trust.

y2johnny wrote:

HOWEVER, the integrity of a couple of the people involved is very questionable.  Would we be at this stage debating a supporters club without them?  Maybe not, so that is to be applauded, my only worry is not everyone will be fully informed enough regards these people to elect the CORRECT candidate to represent the fans at board level.

Kane had a pop last night on the chat thing when i mentioned it and i think this "clique" that have started the ball rolling should only be considered after proper and reasoned debate.

This is true but the majority of people won't have a clue as to the background and personality of these people and will have to judge them off appearances like last night and will probably take them at face value. 

I know nothing about them except for what Sluffy has eluded to and it's all a little vague. 

If they talk the talk is likely they'll be elected and from there you can only hope for the best. The best being they have the clubs and the supporters interests at heart rather than personal gain and trying to raise their own profile to further their own agenda, whatever that might be. 

Does anybody have specific reasons why certain people shouldn't be elected because as i said before, it's all a bit vague. Lots of mentions of questionable integrity and saying maybe they shouldn't be trusted with no actual evidence of why. 

Can anyone shed any light?

Crispy did say last night he wasn't looking to be the leader of the Trust and was encouraging people to put their names forward so they can elect a board. You can't say fairer than that i suppose.

Bwfc1958 wrote:

y2johnny wrote:

HOWEVER, the integrity of a couple of the people involved is very questionable.  Would we be at this stage debating a supporters club without them?  Maybe not, so that is to be applauded, my only worry is not everyone will be fully informed enough regards these people to elect the CORRECT candidate to represent the fans at board level.

Kane had a pop last night on the chat thing when i mentioned it and i think this "clique" that have started the ball rolling should only be considered after proper and reasoned debate.

This is true but the majority of people won't have a clue as to the background and personality of these people and will have to judge them off appearances like last night and will probably take them at face value. 

I know nothing about them except for what Sluffy has eluded to and it's all a little vague. 

If they talk the talk is likely they'll be elected and from there you can only hope for the best. The best being they have the clubs and the supporters interests at heart rather than personal gain and trying to raise their own profile to further their own agenda, whatever that might be. 

Does anybody have specific reasons why certain people shouldn't be elected because as i said before, it's all a bit vague. Lots of mentions of questionable integrity and saying maybe they shouldn't be trusted with no actual evidence of why. 

Can anyone shed any light?

I too only have Sluffys information to go of.



I don't like the idea of the supporters trust owning the club -



having a small minority stake, fine, but fully owning no.

This would limit the capacity for BWFC to improve it's business as fans want spare cash to go on players and players only and BWFC needs a better business plan than depending on ticket admissions and selling regalia. Facilities at the club need to be used 24/7, not just at Macron, but at Lostock and Euxton if we still hold these after takeover. They need events at Macron, Euxton and Lostock - how about allowing local people to play footie on the Lostock academy pitch for a tenner?

Perhaps getting rid of that ridiculous club shop and selling the regalia from carts on match days would be better. More appropriate would be to turn it into a café or bar.

But the organisers didn't pay for the venue. The attendees were asked to chuck into a bucket and anything over would be placed in a trust fund. Laudable effort but we are still in the dark.

FullofSprite wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:

y2johnny wrote:

HOWEVER, the integrity of a couple of the people involved is very questionable.  Would we be at this stage debating a supporters club without them?  Maybe not, so that is to be applauded, my only worry is not everyone will be fully informed enough regards these people to elect the CORRECT candidate to represent the fans at board level.

Kane had a pop last night on the chat thing when i mentioned it and i think this "clique" that have started the ball rolling should only be considered after proper and reasoned debate.

This is true but the majority of people won't have a clue as to the background and personality of these people and will have to judge them off appearances like last night and will probably take them at face value. 

I know nothing about them except for what Sluffy has eluded to and it's all a little vague. 

If they talk the talk is likely they'll be elected and from there you can only hope for the best. The best being they have the clubs and the supporters interests at heart rather than personal gain and trying to raise their own profile to further their own agenda, whatever that might be. 

Does anybody have specific reasons why certain people shouldn't be elected because as i said before, it's all a bit vague. Lots of mentions of questionable integrity and saying maybe they shouldn't be trusted with no actual evidence of why. 

Can anyone shed any light?

I too only have Sluffys information to go of.



I don't like the idea of the supporters trust owning the club -



having a small minority stake, fine, but fully owning no.

Only two out of 140 supporters trusts in the UK (in rugby and football) own or have a majority share in their clubs. The rest have an equity stake which gives supporters Board representation.

I like the idea of fans being represented on the board, but wouldn't want outright ownership by a trust as it would limit potential and present problems if potential investors wanted to come in and take the club to the next level.

"Only two out of 140 supporters trusts...(etc)"


Did you do that on purpose to set me off?

wanderlust wrote:

FullofSprite wrote:

Bwfc1958 wrote:

y2johnny wrote:

HOWEVER, the integrity of a couple of the people involved is very questionable.  Would we be at this stage debating a supporters club without them?  Maybe not, so that is to be applauded, my only worry is not everyone will be fully informed enough regards these people to elect the CORRECT candidate to represent the fans at board level.

Kane had a pop last night on the chat thing when i mentioned it and i think this "clique" that have started the ball rolling should only be considered after proper and reasoned debate.

This is true but the majority of people won't have a clue as to the background and personality of these people and will have to judge them off appearances like last night and will probably take them at face value. 

I know nothing about them except for what Sluffy has eluded to and it's all a little vague. 

If they talk the talk is likely they'll be elected and from there you can only hope for the best. The best being they have the clubs and the supporters interests at heart rather than personal gain and trying to raise their own profile to further their own agenda, whatever that might be. 

Does anybody have specific reasons why certain people shouldn't be elected because as i said before, it's all a bit vague. Lots of mentions of questionable integrity and saying maybe they shouldn't be trusted with no actual evidence of why. 

Can anyone shed any light?

I too only have Sluffys information to go of.



I don't like the idea of the supporters trust owning the club -



having a small minority stake, fine, but fully owning no.

Only two out of 140 supporters trusts in the UK (in rugby and football) own or have a majority share in their clubs. The rest have an equity stake which gives supporters Board representation.

I like the idea of fans being represented on the board, but wouldn't want outright ownership by a trust as it would limit potential and present problems if potential investors wanted to come in and take the club to the next level.

Better way of saying it - thank you Wanderlust - but my understanding from what has been put is this Supporters Trust wants outright ownership as it's long term goal, which as you say limits potential.

It's tin pot simple as that, I appreciate the passion of these people but thats where it ends.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:It's tin pot simple as that, I appreciate the passion of these people but thats where it ends.

It's only tin pot if anybody thinks this is a serious attempt to takeover the club. 

If it provides a clearer source of communication with the club then that's a big positive.