Supporters' Trust could step forward to help fund Wanderers' Academy

The Bolton Wanderers Supporters’ Trust is in talks to help fund the academy next season.

Following fears the current category two status will be downgraded at Lostock next term to save money, a plan is now being discussed with the trust which could see them provide some funding, initially via player sponsorship.

The Bolton News understands the club is looking to save money on staff wages at the academy, with some staff asked to take a reduction in pay last week.

But following strong support from its members, the trust is now looking to find targeted areas it can provide financial help.

“Following a survey of our members we have found there is a real willingness to help out where we can at the academy and we have discussed the matter with the club’s ownership,” confirmed interim steering group chairman Ian Bridge.

Sixty four per cent of the 1,300 respondents gave their blessing to sponsorship of one or more players at academy level.

Other key findings in the “12th man” survey were that 80 per cent of fans would invest in the club under the trust’s umbrella, similar to Portsmouth or Hearts.

More than 85 per cent of fans expect the trust to be proactive. Forty-one per cent of the respondents feel their initial stance should be passive but that the trust should monitor the club’s actions and report back. A “significant number,” claims the report, also want the trust to adopt a stronger stance and attitude.

Source

Excuse me? But since the trust doesn't yet have an elected committee how can it be in talks with anyone about spending its members money?

I'm would sincerely doubt that the Trust under UK banking legislation can make expenditure from their bank account until an AGM is held (scheduled for August I believe) and a named treasurer and chair appointed and the bank is informed of their details.

The money collected from the legends game however was paid to the club so I suppose a donation could be made from that and the balance remaining paid into the Trust account but I don't know how legal that would be?

However as the club is half owned by someone who has previously been struck off as a company director for eight years and a non elected group of people without any mandate to do other than set up the ST's founding elections, I doubt such a technicality would worry them too much.

This could have read ST donate to Syrian child refugees and you'd have spun it into a bad thing Sluffy.

bwfc1874 wrote:This could have read ST donate to Syrian child refugees and you'd have spun it into a bad thing Sluffy.

As I've said in a previous post................


And the whale won in the end.

There is genuine disquiet about many aspects of the club at the moment, with little or no information coming out, and its the people who delve into the available/background information who are the most concerned, (not just on this forum either)

I'm not spinning anything mate, merely stating what I understand to be the facts.

I have been involved in setting up community bodies, albeit some years ago when bank accounts were much easier to open, and even back then they could not be activated until an AGM was held and a treasurer and chair appointed, with these people being named officers given authorisation to use the account only.

Since then the banking sector has been considerably tightened up to prevent money laundering and other fraud.

That is why the Steering Group had considerable problems even opening an account in the first place without having held an AGM to appoint its officers and even though they eventually obtained one from abroad (America) I would imagine that account currently functions simply to bank membership fees but unable to use the money for expenditure until authorised officers are appointed via the AGM.

The gate money and evening do was I believe collected by the club and should be paid to the promotors of the event (presumably after the club has deducted its prior agreed expenses) the ST and the Community Trust.

At the end of the day the 'Trust' is there to be a 'trustee' of other people's money, given for the purposes of setting up a democratically elected Trust and not to be spent by some unelected people with no remit to do so other than facilitate the founding election of the ST.

bwfc1874 wrote:This could have read ST donate to Syrian child refugees and you'd have spun it into a bad thing Sluffy.

While I understand your point I think it's only fair to point out that at this moment the Trust cannot legally spend any of the moneys it has collected either from membership fees or donations (such as proceeds from the Legends match) because it does not have legally appointed officers with the authority to do so. Even if they wanted to donate to say the NSPCC or some other charitable body they are not yet in a position to do so under UK law.

And it wasn't sluffy who raised that point but me. I once served as the Treasurer in a community trust in Blackburn and believe me when I tell you that the rules surrounding what the officers can and cannot do were pretty tight then and have only become even tighter since.

While I applaud the steering committee's intentions it must be stated they are currently acting well outside their remit. They are only permitted to act in one way, to set up elections for the posts of Chair, treasurer, secretary and committee. Until those people have been elected the steering committee can not commit to spending any of the money raised to date and should not be in talks about such matters at all.

Unfortunately it seems that the Steering Committee either does not know or does not care about this rather crucial point of law and unless they are careful could find themselves being forced to either retract their current actions or worse close down entirely and refund all money so far collected. While I do share some of sluffy's antipathy for the current group that are 'in charge' of the ST I feel that would be a terrible shame for the club as a whole. A well run Supporter's Trust that truly represents the fans interests can be a terrific boon to a club, especially one in the lower leagues. Personally I hope that the current leadership of the trust wake up and smell that coffee before they do something that gets them and the trust into real trouble but I'm not sanguine about that. There seems to be an institutional arrogance about them that makes them believe they are somehow above the law.

So no group is allowed to make a donation unless they have a legally appointed officer to do so? Whilst I have absolutely no idea if that's correct or not, but surely the financial professionals involved in the ST would know this? 

Do you really think this is a rogue organisation so arrogant they believe themselves to be above the law, or do you think it's a bunch of amateurs who are still working out what's clearly 'unchartered territory' for them? Or maybe they are acting within the law and you're mistaken on this one?

Sluffy is definitely not mistaken, even if he categorically is.

bwfc1874 wrote:So no group is allowed to make a donation unless they have a legally appointed officer to do so? Whilst I have absolutely no idea if that's correct or not, but surely the financial professionals involved in the ST would know this? 

Do you really think this is a rogue organisation so arrogant they believe themselves to be above the law, or do you think it's a bunch of amateurs who are still working out what's clearly 'unchartered territory' for them? Or maybe they are acting within the law and you're mistaken on this one?

honestly mate? Yes I do think they're that arrogant. Don't forget this is the group that bemoaned the fact opening a bank account turned out to be more complex than simply walking into the bank and saying "We'd like to open an account please" and posted they were seeking "preferred bidder" status before they'd even got an account or collected any actual membership fees.

I think the problem here is that by and large they mean well but they're going off half cocked and operating on an assumption that they themselves will be the committee once elections are held. The fact they accepted Birch's 'invitation' to seek preferred bidder status when they should have known they were legally unable to do so should be ringing alarm bells.

Sadly in this case where they're talking about funding an academy player they simply do not have the right to do so as yet. If and when the committee and officers are elected then disbursement of ST funds can be discussed and decided. The steering committee simply cannot spend or commit to spend anything. It's only remit is to gather funds and hold the elections. That's it. They may not act on the ST's behalf in any other way. I suspect they don't fully realise this because several of them have no business experience at all and those that do are used to dealing with privately owned or shareholder owned enterprises.

There's a world of difference between a plc (or PLC) and a community organisation and the rules of governance are vastly different. The steering committee for whatever reason (I don't necessarily believe they all have sinister motives or are in it for an ego trip) have gone well beyond what a community funded and led organisations is permitted to do at this stage in its existence. In fact technically speaking (if you want to be really anal about it) the Supporter's Trust does not exist yet and will not do so until the elections have been held and the Articles Of Association have been ratified by the full membership and it's elected committee.

I personally think they want what is best for the club but they are going about it very much the wrong way and right now the cart is in front of the horse.

personally speaking i believe the people involved in the Trust are doing it for the benefit of the club and the supporters but i can see why people are nervous and don't trust them, they need to get this election done and dusted then all this legal stuff can be put to one side.

Norpig wrote:personally speaking i believe the people involved in the Trust are doing it for the benefit of the club and the supporters but i can see why people are nervous and don't trust them, they need to get this election done and dusted then all this legal stuff can be put to one side.

Agreed. I think once the elections have been held and they have legally appointed officers who are answerable to the membership as a whole we'll also see a lot fewer of these rather silly mistakes they've made. In some ways right now they're what my dad would call "playing at it" and trying to rush ahead before they're ready and hopefully the formation of a true committee and real accountability will make them think a little more carefully about how to proceed. Personally I would hope some of that committee comes from outside the current Steering Committee if only to ensure a a broader viewpoint and wider consensus that will benefit both the members and club in the long term.

bwfc1874 wrote:So no group is allowed to make a donation unless they have a legally appointed officer to do so? Whilst I have absolutely no idea if that's correct or not, but surely the financial professionals involved in the ST would know this? 

Do you really think this is a rogue organisation so arrogant they believe themselves to be above the law, or do you think it's a bunch of amateurs who are still working out what's clearly 'unchartered territory' for them? Or maybe they are acting within the law and you're mistaken on this one?

Or maybe they have opened a bank account which permits the deposit of membership funds but cannot access these funds until authorised officers are elected at the inaugural AGM.

In other words just as I have said several times previously.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:So no group is allowed to make a donation unless they have a legally appointed officer to do so? Whilst I have absolutely no idea if that's correct or not, but surely the financial professionals involved in the ST would know this? 

Do you really think this is a rogue organisation so arrogant they believe themselves to be above the law, or do you think it's a bunch of amateurs who are still working out what's clearly 'unchartered territory' for them? Or maybe they are acting within the law and you're mistaken on this one?

honestly mate? Yes I do think they're that arrogant. Don't forget this is the group that bemoaned the fact opening a bank account turned out to be more complex than simply walking into the bank and saying "We'd like to open an account please" and posted they were seeking "preferred bidder" status before they'd even got an account or collected any actual membership fees.

I think the problem here is that by and large they mean well but they're going off half cocked and operating on an assumption that they themselves will be the committee once elections are held. The fact they accepted Birch's 'invitation' to seek preferred bidder status when they should have known they were legally unable to do so should be ringing alarm bells.

Sadly in this case where they're talking about funding an academy player they simply do not have the right to do so as yet. If and when the committee and officers are elected then disbursement of ST funds can be discussed and decided. The steering committee simply cannot spend or commit to spend anything. It's only remit is to gather funds and hold the elections. That's it. They may not act on the ST's behalf in any other way. I suspect they don't fully realise this because several of them have no business experience at all and those that do are used to dealing with privately owned or shareholder owned enterprises.

There's a world of difference between a plc (or PLC) and a community organisation and the rules of governance are vastly different. The steering committee for whatever reason (I don't necessarily believe they all have sinister motives or are in it for an ego trip) have gone well beyond what a community funded and led organisations is permitted to do at this stage in its existence. In fact technically speaking (if you want to be really anal about it) the Supporter's Trust does not exist yet and will not do so until the elections have been held and the Articles Of Association have been ratified by the full membership and it's elected committee.

I personally think they want what is best for the club but they are going about it very much the wrong way and right now the cart is in front of the horse.

Hi all
I've been reading this site for a while now and cant believe the utter tripe and simply made up stuff that is spouted by certain posters, have any of you thought of visiting their website and reading the rules ?

Model Rules for a Supporters Community

CONSTITUTION OF BOARD


56.The Society shall have a Board of Directors comprising not less than six and not more than twelve persons.

57.The initial Directors of the Society from registration until the first Annual General Meeting shall be appointed by the members on whose
application the Society is registered.
(That's the 3 founding members)

POWERS


5.The Society may achieve these objects in whole or in part through an interest or interests in companies or societies provided that the objects
of the companies or societies are consistent with the Society’s objects. In particular, in pursuit of these objects (but not otherwise) the Society may:

5.1. acquire an interest in or ownership of the Club;

    5.2. secure democratic and accountable representation on the Club’s   Board;

5.3. take any other steps in relation to the Club which enable it to exercise the greatest possible influence in the ownership, governance and management of the Club.
 

Also if you attended their last meeting and opened your lugholes you'd have found out that their bank account was opened by Natwest, not some 'American Bank'

Why do you keep saying "their" when you obviously mean "our"?

Anyone, whether in an individual capacity or on behalf of a group or business can provide player sponsorship and in our predicament it's very welcome so I don't see the problem.

Hello and welcome Blaster.

The bottom line for me (and plenty others too not simply on Nuts) is that the Steering Group was set up to bring about the elections.

Yes they may have had powers to act as thy have but they are unelected and have no mandate from others to do what they did.

You wouldn't be the first one (nor the last) to think I spout shite but then again I didn't mount a challenge to buy the club on the behest of the club owners agent Trevor Birch, in direct competition to the current owners!

Neither am I the ones grovelling at their feet now trying to earn 'mutual respect' from them and being denied of any meaningful involvement with the club because of it.

Nor have I just fixed up a feel good Legends match just before I stand for election to the full ST.

It is interesting to see that Iles survey that he is currently running shows that 70% of those who have taken part so far (it was over 1,000 people over 24 hours ago) are not in the ST of which the vast majority of them (50%) said they had no intention of joining either.

Not just us 'utter tripe and made up stuffers' from here then!

Who's put their name to the Legends match in order to win votes?

bwfc1874 wrote:Who's put their name to the Legends match in order to win votes?

I think this was the clue you missed in your haste to have a pop -

Sluffy wrote:Nor have I just fixed up a feel good Legends match just before I [they] stand for election to the full ST.

Anyway we've already done this as you know.

Elections have been called.

Legend match played.

Nominations now to come.



Anyone willing to bet none of the Steering Group wont stand?

A landslide for anyone of them that do I predict.