Wanderers in £2.5m funding hole but "players will be paid" insists co-owner Ken Anderson

The article's makes some fair arguments, very similar to how I feel about the ST, but I'm willing to hold out until their agreed elections in July.

It absolutely does not reflect the views you've been peddling on here Sluffy! You must be joking, the article's quite objective I don't see any claims of purdah and a conspiracy behind the legends match there do you? You've lost the plot on the ST, you won't find many regular contributors who'd argue otherwise.

bwfc1874 wrote:The article's makes some fair arguments, very similar to how I feel about the ST, but I'm willing to hold out until their agreed elections in July.

It absolutely does not reflect the views you've been peddling on here Sluffy! You must be joking, the article's quite objective I don't see any claims of purdah and a conspiracy behind the legends match there do you? You've lost the plot on the ST, you won't find many regular contributors who'd argue otherwise.

Do you know mate I really think you try so hard to argue for arguments sake that you actually forget some of the exchanges we've had in the past - particularly on this matter.

The article above says things like "I don't like the running of the trust thus far", "another massive decision made without the elected board we were promised", "people have very vocally disagreed with previous big calls made by the Trust – 2,200 members from 6,000 pledges remember", "Let’s get the elections sorted first. Crawl, Walk, Run. Do it properly...".

In fact nothing at all different to what I (and others on here) have been saying.

As for purdah and the legends match - this is what I said -

Sluffy wrote:Yes I know a local town's elections for a ST is not on the same scale of importance as national and/or local public elections but never the less I would have thought it would be in everybody's interest (including any potential candidates from the serving Steering Group) to use best practice and observe purdah during the period between the elections being called and the elections being held.

I don't think that to be unreasonable.

And I still don't think that to be unreasonable.

All they had to do was get the elections done then hold the match, or hold the match then call their elections - either way was not that difficult to have been done.

But please feel free to keep on arguing until the cows come home as I expect you will.

1874 loves to argue, loves to argue on a Saturday night.

Sluffy, the only reason I keep replying to you is because everytime there's any news from LoV, the owners or the ST, you put an anti ST spin on it and decide it somehow justifies your ramblings. I find it intensely irritating to be honest, you've been incapable of being in any way objective throughout clearly because of your own personal history. 

But you're right we could go round in circles all day and never agree with eachother. So let's leave it there and see what happens in the coming months.

blasterbolton wrote:I've copied and pasted a few relevant pieces from the Supporters Trust model rule, which are posted on their website and are legally binding and recognised by the FSA in the setting up of a ST.

For the one or two of you who are struggling interpreting these rules, I've added a comment to try and simplify them

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 (This means the 3 founder members) of the Society from registration until the first Annual General Meeting shall be appointed by the members on whose application the Society is registered. (This bit means until the first elections in July)


59. Members of the Board of Directors will normally serve for periods of two years, according to the Society’s Board Membership and Conduct Policy.

The ST is a Limited Liability Company isn't it?
To incorporate the ST as a limited business there has to be at least one shareholder who may or may not be a Director which is fair enough however that Director's raison d'etre should be to organise elections and get himself off the Board as fast as possible (unless he's elected) because that's what the role is - Acting Director of Elections effectively. Any more than one Director at this stage is above and beyond the brief.

Although the "Supporter's Trust Model Rules" are very interesting, they carry no weight whatsoever with Companies House other than a company must act within the bounds of it's own Memoranda and Articles of Association and it is questionable as to whether the current Directors are doing that. Whether or not the ST incorporated the "Supporter's Trust Model Rules" into their Mem and Arts I can't say, but as a stand alone document it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard and has no legal status whatsoever.

From a purely commercial perspective, if the ST wants to thrive it needs to start doing what was promised and deliver the very transparency it was set up to deliver otherwise it will sink without a trace.

All the Steering group needed to do was to get professional help in setting up their elections - which to be fair to them they did by appointing an experienced professional who volunteered his services - and let him get on with the job.

This again they did by the election officer being completely independent to the Steering Group and thus allowed to undertake the task free from any bias (knowingly or otherwise) that may have been put upon him.

If the Steering Group had more or less left it at that I don't think I or the vast numbers of others who have been turned off by their copious other actions would have had any issue with them - even to the extent some of us may have even championed what they were intending to do.

But they didn't.

I don't think anybody would have had any concerns about them perhaps appointing one or two others to their Group to help market the ST and set up its basic infra structure but they decided to get involved with the games that were going on around the sale of the club that had nothing to do with a non democratically elected Steering Group and showed that they had an agenda not given to them by their membership via the yet to be held ST's elections.

They had no mandate to do what they did - and apparently (currently complaining to the Football League about Anderson) continue to be doing.

Indeed the Steering Committee (not including McGinlay) totals twelve people - which if you consider the election for places on the ST board at its inaugural  AGM is only for NINE places is actually three people MORE than needed to run the WHOLE of the fully constituted Supporters Trust whilst it has already 'outsourced' its only reason for being, namely to establish the elections process.

Why the need for 12 members of the Steering Group additional to the arms length elections officer? What where they up to - certainly not involved in the elections which after all was the reasons for the Steering Groups reason for being?

There is undoubtedly now wide spread cynicism of these peoples actions and their own personal agendas by BWFC supporters across the board.

I dare say many of these people will be seeking to stand for election to the ST and will probably be successful too having become 'high profile' recently.

I can't see that to be in anyway to being conducive to having any influence over the current club owners (indeed the Steering Group is actually 'ratting' about them to the FL right now!) and their only apparent leverage as a pressure group is to encourage fans to not put any money into the club whilst the said owners are in place, leading to further cash flow issues, possible Administration and points deduction and the 'dream' of the ST itself taking on the club.

It actually seems that those in the Steering Group wants to see Holdsworth / Anderson to fail to potentially become club owners themselves!

Is that what those who support the ST truly want?

its ridiculous to say the steering group want the owners to fail Sluffy. I'm a member of the ST and don't want them to take over the club unless it's a last resort.

I also don't want the ST to be best buddies with the owners either, they are meant to be able to criticise and pass comment on things that their members and other fans aren't happy about, there needs to be a degree of separation or else what't the point? They would just turn into BWSA if that was the case

Norpig wrote:its ridiculous to say the steering group want the owners to fail Sluffy. I'm a member of the ST and don't want them to take over the club unless it's a last resort.

I also don't want the ST to be best buddies with the owners either, they are meant to be able to criticise and pass comment on things that their members and other fans aren't happy about, there needs to be a degree of separation or else what't the point? They would just turn into BWSA if that was the case

If they seriously don't Craig then why is their OFFICIAL Twitter site posting tweets like this?

'Breezeblock' tweeted -

If you're fed up with #bwfc being owned/run by tax avoiding chancers then at the very least join the @BWFCST and let's tackle it in

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

Where have the ST encouraged fans not to put any money into the club with the current owners in place?

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:its ridiculous to say the steering group want the owners to fail Sluffy. I'm a member of the ST and don't want them to take over the club unless it's a last resort.

I also don't want the ST to be best buddies with the owners either, they are meant to be able to criticise and pass comment on things that their members and other fans aren't happy about, there needs to be a degree of separation or else what't the point? They would just turn into BWSA if that was the case

If they seriously don't Crag then why is their OFFICIAL Twitter site posting tweets like this?

'Breezeblock' tweeted -

If you're fed up with #bwfc being owned/run by tax avoiding chancers then at the very least join the @BWFCST and let's tackle it in numbers

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

Laughable bit of spin that.

bwfc1874 wrote:Where have the ST encouraged fans not to put any money into the club with the current owners in place?

Sluffy wrote:...and their only APPARENT leverage as a pressure group is to encourage fans to not put any money into the club whilst the said owners are in place, leading to further cash flow issues, possible Administration and points deduction and the 'dream' of the ST itself taking on the club.

What other forms of pressure can they apply other than financial?

I'm a member of the ST too,and I can't help feeling that there are certain factions who can't wait for it to go tits up.
We're taking baby steps here,so can we all just take a deep breath,and give things time to unfold.
Don't ruin my chances of getting Brucie on the ST logo.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:its ridiculous to say the steering group want the owners to fail Sluffy. I'm a member of the ST and don't want them to take over the club unless it's a last resort.

I also don't want the ST to be best buddies with the owners either, they are meant to be able to criticise and pass comment on things that their members and other fans aren't happy about, there needs to be a degree of separation or else what't the point? They would just turn into BWSA if that was the case

If they seriously don't Crag then why is their OFFICIAL Twitter site posting tweets like this?

'Breezeblock' tweeted -

If you're fed up with #bwfc being owned/run by tax avoiding chancers then at the very least join the @BWFCST and let's tackle it in

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

Laughable bit of spin that.

'Carl' tweeted reply -

iBreezeblock @BWFCST I don't think the ST should be (re)tweeting things of this nature, at the very least wait until you've been elected.


Not just me thinking that then.

i agree they shouldn't be putting things like that on twitter, what's happened to their communications fella? As i said before they should be able to comment and raise concerns but outright antagonism doesn't help anyone

Sluffy - how did you know everyone calls me Crag? Have you been spying on me again? 

Sluffy wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Where have the ST encouraged fans not to put any money into the club with the current owners in place?

Sluffy wrote:...and their only APPARENT leverage as a pressure group is to encourage fans to not put any money into the club whilst the said owners are in place, leading to further cash flow issues, possible Administration and points deduction and the 'dream' of the ST itself taking on the club.

What other forms of pressure can they apply other than financial?

You're quoting yourself to back up your claims? 

Pressure groups normally put pressure on organisations through lobbying. But that of course wouldn't fit the narrative of the ST being desperate for the owners to fail so they can sweep in, which of course is the only sensible thing to believe.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:Where have the ST encouraged fans not to put any money into the club with the current owners in place?

Sluffy wrote:...and their only APPARENT leverage as a pressure group is to encourage fans to not put any money into the club whilst the said owners are in place, leading to further cash flow issues, possible Administration and points deduction and the 'dream' of the ST itself taking on the club.

What other forms of pressure can they apply other than financial?

You're quoting yourself to back up your claims? 

Pressure groups normally put pressure on organisations through lobbying. But that of course wouldn't fit the narrative of the ST being desperate for the owners to fail so they can sweep in, which of course is the only sensible thing to believe.

I'm quoting myself to show I never actually said what you were trying to accuse me of - but we both actually knew that!

As for lobbying, that can only work if the two parties communicate with each other.

At the moment the ST is still at the default position it got itself into in trying to 'build up trust in each other' following from its previous shenanigans against them.

I'm sure retweeting something on their official site about the alleged dubious integrity of the owners will go a long way in achieving that!

Norpig wrote:i agree they shouldn't be putting things like that on twitter, what's happened to their communications fella? As i said before they should be able to comment and raise concerns but outright antagonism doesn't help anyone

Sluffy - how did you know everyone calls me Crag? Have you been spying on me again? 

The communications bloke left and although he tweets copiously has never to my knowledge since leaving the ST promoted or supported them in any way what so ever - which I find curious as one of the biggest voices for the ST at its foundation and thereafter.

I had heard he had issues with the Steering Group but that may or may not be true.

I would have thought though that some announcement and best wishes would have been made by the Steering Group for what he had done would have been made but if it has, I've not seen it.

It is almost as though he had never existed and been painted out of history.

Sluffy wrote:

bwfc1874 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Norpig wrote:its ridiculous to say the steering group want the owners to fail Sluffy. I'm a member of the ST and don't want them to take over the club unless it's a last resort.

I also don't want the ST to be best buddies with the owners either, they are meant to be able to criticise and pass comment on things that their members and other fans aren't happy about, there needs to be a degree of separation or else what't the point? They would just turn into BWSA if that was the case

If they seriously don't Crag then why is their OFFICIAL Twitter site posting tweets like this?

'Breezeblock' tweeted -

If you're fed up with #bwfc being owned/run by tax avoiding chancers then at the very least join the @BWFCST and let's tackle it in numbers

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

Laughable bit of spin that.

'Carl' tweeted reply -

iBreezeblock @BWFCST I don't think the ST should be (re)tweeting things of this nature, at the very least wait until you've been elected.


Not just me thinking that then.

Oh, well if Carl said so

I'd love to join the supporters trust. But i just don't TRUST the steering group and how things have played out so far. It's all well and good saying to give them time and let it play out.  I just wish people would do the same for ken and deano without reading every bullshit story and taking it as gods word

Boggersbelief wrote:
Oh, well if Carl said so

Just had a look at his Twitter, here's another knowledge gift from Carl -

Swimming pool lockers offer cheap long-term storage for all your smaller items.

Can see why you quoted him Sluff, clearly knows his stuff.