There is. While there is no direct link between the ST & the current offer, answers have been sought in an attempt to help those attending next weeks meeting decide how a ST should be created & how it should focus its efforts.

I'm sure the additional info from the club will be posted during or just after Tuesday's meeting.

Why not tell everybody now RDM if you have some answers from the club? It seems a bit tight to with hold information from supporters just to bolster you own groups position.

And to be honest I would want to hear it from the BOD themselves, because lets face it you and The Clan are the two people trying to spin everything in a positive manner regards the share issue.

Which group is this?

I'm not part of any group & have certainly not intended any of my posts to be overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal. I will not be attending the ST meeting as I live & work in the south-east, but feel that the greater detail should be discussed at that meeting first to avoid things being twisted on here by doommongers & trolls on here that would damage the effectiveness of Tuesday's meeting.

I agree it would be better if the BOD had released greater detail, but there is also a hardcore minority who won't listen to what they have to say in any case (even if in some cases their objections to the cuurent management are quite hypocritical).

I don't think you give people enough credit as to their ability to make up their own mind rather than be persuaded by 'doommongers' on a messageboard. Give us the facts and let us make up our minds for christs sake.

Sorry I meant the ST. Fair play if your not going. I just see it as singling out one set of supporters to tell the some of the the truth to, and then they will interpret it for themselves before regurgitating it back on here with what ever spin suits their cause. Like the Share holders meeting one set of events dozens of different recollections.

I just think if somebody has some fact from the BOD then share them with all the your fans not just one group (st). After all time is running out and not a time for one group (ST) to be playing keeper of the facts, giving them out when and to whom they see fit.

Well if the minority are not listening anyway then surly the BOD should tell the majority the facts and let them make an informed decision.

Could I ask why anyone would want to purchase shares at the clubs valuation of £1.00 each taking into account that the only assets the club has is the players.

If the club goes into administration or even liquidation it would be wiser to wait and purchase those same shares for something like 30p or 40p to the £1.00.

And any shrewd investor wanting full control of the club would wait for that to happen.

The share scheme isn't about ' shrewd investement ' it's about ' blind faith ' , and everybody has to make their own decision on that

The meeting is open to anyone who wants to know what's going on, so everyone who has an interest, hopefully knows the "facts" after Tuesday.

And you are 100% sure of that are you.

Blind faith = money down the toilet ans skint

TBF I think you can discount the "share scheme" as too many people at this point no too little, blind faith or not.
It is too big a amount to find in too short a time, unless they're are major investors wishing to contribute in this manner and take a lesser steak in the club, and then do some funding afterwards.
The two options I see, both involve administration sadly:
1) SD involved after admin, along with administrator.
2) shrewd purchase of the club by investor, who has so far not taken the risk, and they will do this 100%, no need/wish for SD, or perhaps some SD involvement.

I won't disagree with you on that , but as I said , it is your club , your decision

Not everybody with an interest or potential to invest will be able to attend. Also any news from the meeting will be second hand, and open to any interpretation those attending want to put on it.

Plus why get the ST mixed up with giving out the facts from the club, surely the best thing is for the club to make an open statement of its intentions on the club website.

To address the first point, this is taken from the sticky thread about the ST meeting:


In terms of the club's statements so far, the shortened version of what they've said is "We need to raise £500k & can't raise this solely from the directors or the bank. If supporters can raise £500k in an escrow account, we'll tell them more to see if they agree with how the money will be spent. If they agree, they can allow the money to be released to the club. If not, they get their money back."

Thats good then because no ones asking anyone to invest, the trust will not be asking for money and minutes of the meeting will be for all to share, the meetings been called because of the state we are in, its been called earlier than it maybe would have but needs must.

They are not "giving out facts from the club" they are not the voice of the club but they will answer any questions that they have an answer to.

And the known facts are all that I've tried to promote, I'm certainly not pro BoD and neither am I as scathing in my condemnation of them as some others are.

Where there is doubt because of a lack of information I've said so and I've only tried to clarify the situation regarding the ESCROW and any funds in it.

Sorry fella but that is utter codswallop!

The fans behind the ST are working hard to set up the Trust because they want clarity, truth, influence and a truly impartial position from which to judge the BoD or any new BoD with objectivity.

The whole movement has been fueled by the lack of truth and clear information from the club so there's no way the ST will kick off by 'spinning' a line from the club to suit its own ends.

I cannot see why there seems to be hostility in some quarters towards a proposed Supporters' Trust!

A supporters' Trust is totally separate from the club. It may provide a vehicle for acquiring a holding in the club and board representation. Then again it may not! That is entirely a decision for the members of that Trust, not those who those members empower to run it - invariably as unpaid volunteers with s shedload of (often unappreciated) work to do.

If I was a Wakey supporter (I am not, but don't pillory me for being a concerned well-wisher), and knowing what I know about the nature and role of Supporters' Trusts, and about the wider financial state of the club (and some other clubs and indeed most of the game outside of the sugar-daddied clubs) I would see a Trust as being a no-brainer. Quite possibly the best way forward for everyone.

And, don't forget, it is always easier for a club to communicate with and discuss issues of common concern or interest with a single body, with a mandate to speak on behalf of enough of the fans to have the credibility, than with fans individually or disparate groups. Unless, of course, a club is actively seeking to "divide and conquer"...

OK, just my observations from a position of a bit of experience. But what do I know?

But remember - a Supporters' Trust is very similar to a co-operative: owned and run by its members for its members, and - importantly, and I assume this would be the case at Wakey too - one member one vote. And totally democratic - indeed, you would not believe the sodding hoops those volunteers charged by the members with running a Trust have to jump through to maintain and ensure that democracy. Believe me...

And, unlike an ISA, you are talking about an organisation incorporated under the Industrial & Provident Societies Acts 1965-1978, that is subject to a wide range of statutory and general regulation to protect the members and anyone dealing with it. As well as being under the Guidance of Supporters' Direct who - again believe me - will not put up with anything that is not totally in the interests of the members.

So, as I said, why would anyone be hostile or suspicious, certainly without going to hear what is said? And, provided enough of you turn out, including the sceptics, then there will be enough reporting back to dispel any worries about spin on what is "regurgitated" back? I'd say that argument had gone way past "strong" and was making serious ground on "irrefutable"?

But again, what do I know, eh? Sorry if anyone thinks I am interfering. I am not, and have no reason or grounds to. But I hate injustice, and that is what impels me to comment.

Sincerely, again

A concerned observer and well-wisher.

I would guess, for some (and I say this without knowledge of who is who on here!), there is still some ill-feeling from when the Supporters Club merged with WISA back in the day, and that some have benefited from that by being employed by the club, or being within as 'inner circle' if you will. Just a hunch.

Perhaps. Add to that the fact that some of the other more persistent critics are not even Wakey fans and I think you've probably covered the whole spectrum.

If that is the case - I have no knowledge one way or the other, I refer again to what I said above about a Supporters Trust being something totally different to an ISA. And by law and its constitution it HAS to be democratic. If the members choose to be apathetic and let their elected board do what they want, then the members have only themselves to blame. But provided the members remain engaged, and use their right to appoint those to the board that THEY and no-one else chooses, and sack anyone of whom they disapprove, then you would not expect a situation not in the interests of the members to ever arise?

There are some things you have to fight for, and then remain involved with to ensure the right prevails. But all you need for bad things to happen is for the majority of good men and women to do nothing.

I would suggest that if the majority now indeed choose to do nothing, saying instead it is someone else's problem to sort it - then they can surely have no complaints with the outcome?

In the case above, its just uniformed trolling from a Fev fan, its that simple.

Thats correct and thats how it should be.

That is definitely wrong if that's what is thought. The ST working party includes reps from ALL the supporters groups working in the name of WT. They may not all remain involved, either as individuals or as groups, but a lot of time was taken to ensure that ALL the groups were at least aware of the proposal and what it could mean in the end and have been allowed the opportunity to comment on and contribute to the formation of the group.

'All for one' if you like!

I don't know much about the supporters club/wisca argument and what the supporters trust has to do with either of them. However I was talking to a wisca member who seemed to be against/unsure about the supporters trust. He's normally a pretty sound bloke, who has already put his grand in, so I was surprised at his reaction to a supporters trust.