BWFCST's Response To BWFC Owners Regarding Academy Funding

Not a fan of the ST but if they had come out and said  we will invest all the money we made from the legends match, everyone's tenners and all the money they can find down the back of their sofas into helping the academy. 

Sluffy response would be how can they do this when they haven't held any elections yet.

Norpig wrote:round and round we go, Sluffy you are in the wrong here and you know it. 

If it was factual it would have said refused to help fund for now until it could be fully assessed or such like but that wouldn't fit your anti ST diatribes would it?

This is what the letter says -

"...on 02 June 2016, we were asked to report on the Trust’s ability and appetite for immediate investment in the Academy, principally to assist the Club in retaining Category 2 status".


In line with Ken Anderson’s request for an urgent reply to their funding enquiry, we have written to both owners and identified that the BWFCST cannot commit to immediate investment,...



How the fuck am I supposed to be making things up then???

well in that case you should have titled it refuses immediate investment, there is a difference, don't understand why you can't see it

Nobody is saying you're making things up and I share your mistrust of the ST but the fact you changed the thread authors title is what I and I think others seem to disagree with.
You cited my post as agreeing with your stance which it did, but as I stated that was my opinion not the thread author, you've changed the title back so you clearly get the point.
Any opinions and differences of opinions within the thread are the whole point of the thread, but the title should retain the integrity of the original thread author.

Guys lets just leave it now, Sluffy gets more than his fair share of shit on here TBH at the moment.

Let's all just move on from it now eh? 

karlypants wrote:Guys lets just leave it now, Sluffy gets more than his fair share of shit on here TBH at the moment.

Let's all just move on from it now eh? 

Bum Chum lol

Barb Dwyer wrote:Not a fan of the ST but if they had come out and said  we will invest all the money we made from the legends match, everyone's tenners and all the money they can find down the back of their sofas into helping the academy. 

Sluffy response would be how can they do this when they haven't held any elections yet.

Look forget about me and ask yourselves these questions - no need even to post them here - just ask them of yourselves.

IF the club can keep the academy full time should they - yes or no?

IF the club can't afford to keep it open themselves should they ask others for help to do so - yes or no?

Is the deadline for the club to make that decision at the end of July - yes or no?

Is the ST reason for being to help the club - yes or no?

Have the ST sought some sort of a mandate from its members by questionnaire on its way forward - yes or no?

Did that mandate come back with 85% of its members replies wanting it to be actively involved with the academy - yes or no?

If the club asks the ST for help with the academy which requires action by the end of July should the ST at least look to explore someway / anyway it could help in lines with the mandate it had been given and its financial position and legal requirements of it - yes or no?

Is that what the ST actually did according to its letter bearing in mind after July the full time academy will no longer be in existence - yes or no?


Make your own minds up!

Norpig wrote:well in that case you should have titled it refuses immediate investment, there is a difference, don't understand why you can't see it

Because without immediate investment - ie by the end of July there wont be an academy!!!

Or at least only a part time one where all the kids we have now would have left and all the fulltime staff to.

just lock the thread now, there is no reasoning with Sluffy on this one

shouldn't your venom be directed at our owners if thats the case then Sluffy? They bought the club on HP it seems and it's their responsibilty. 

The ST will never have enough money to properly fund the academy and on their questionaire it was asked if members wanted to sponsor some players, not the whole academy

From how I read the email the ST are excercising due diligence by requesting a full business plan before they invest.

Whether or not anybody chooses to believe that's why they haven't invested at this point is up to them. But there's no evidence to say they haven't done so because of a feud with the owners say.

We won't have any academy players to sponsor though if they are just part-timers!

The owners seem to be saying that they don't have the money anymore for a full time academy and it will probably have to be sacrificed.  I can't blame anybody 'cutting their suit to fit their cloth' - can you?

The ST clearly indicated previously that they were interested in helping out with the academy.

It seems to me that Anderson/Holdsworth sounded them out about this offer and instead of exploring any avenues to help (maybe there would have been non to find anyway) they simply snubbed them by saying you've not given us the financial info we want so we aren't going to be helping you.

The bottom line is that rather than attempting to save the academy it now looks as though its heading for the rocks.

Is that what the membership of the ST really wants?

I would have thought that some attempt no matter how feeble could have been made without this 'you're not showing us your books, so we aren't playing ball' attitude the Steering Committee is taking on behalf of the ST. I certainly wouldn't expect the ST to go beyond its legal requirements but they have not made even the slightest attempt to investigate any possible way forward with Holdsworth and Anderson on this issue.

I think that is a fair and reasonable summary don't you?

Most of the clubs at the level we are now have part time academys. Even clubs higher up than us, Wigan for example do. We will still have academy players and they can still be sponsored.

I would have thought that the decision on what status the academy needs to be taken by the end of July rather than the cash to be there upfront so there is some time left to think about that and possibly involve the new manager in the thought process.
Regarding the ST contribution then if I was the owners and they came to me with other people's money and said you can have it but only if you give us everything we want I would fuck them right off, and my guess would be a lot of members would fuck them off too.
Back to money, I don't think the situation here is as bad as some are saying, watching today's conference leaves me with a feeling of optimism but anything good that happens I don't think the ST will be part of.

Why did you start this thread anyway Bonce? You just like causing trouble.

Barb Dwyer wrote:Why did you start this thread anyway Bonce? You just like causing trouble.

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

Yes and your headline about them refusing to support the academy was down right inflammatory you trouble making bastard

whatsgoingon wrote:Yes and your headline about them refusing to support the academy was down right inflammatory you trouble making bastard

What a shit stirrer!

wanderlust wrote:

whatsgoingon wrote:Yes and your headline about them refusing to support the academy was down right inflammatory you trouble making bastard

What a shit stirrer!

 Moi