NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER | Page 525 | Vital Football

NEW THREAD FOR ALL THINGS TAKEOVER

Status
Not open for further replies.
moonay said:
........and so if we hadn't found a buyer, wouldn't this approach have made it more likely we'd go out of business ....... even though you didn't want that?
Click to expand...

I donated on the understanding that Plan B would mean the SC buying into the club if possible or ultimately trying to buy the club with the help of other investors.

I never once thought they would entertain anything to do with the Rugby and, like I said earlier I wouldn't of contributed to the fund if they had said at the start that it was their intention to speak to them.
 
Wlatic said:
It would have been short of the 700k, but the SC could have easily avoided that type of thing happening, or betraying those people by consulting/opinion polls.
Click to expand...

If those opinion polls said the same as JK, & (Bicky very likely) then they'd have raised no money at all.
 
Jonnysking said:
I donated on the understanding that Plan B would mean the SC buying into the club if possible or ultimately trying to buy the club with the help of other investors.

I never once thought they would entertain anything to do with the Rugby and, like I said earlier I wouldn't of contributed to the fund if they had said at the start that it was their intention to speak to them.
Click to expand...

I get that, though I'm surprised you neve considered that "other investors" might include Lenegan.

As I say, if everyone took that attitude (I don't mean that in a nasty way), if we'd ended up with no buyer, then the SC wouldn't have had a Plan B option to implement.

I'm not saying you're wrong ....... just pointing out the obvious.
 
Only bloody Wiganers can get worked up over something that hasn't, and hopefully never will happen. Especially when we dont even know the details!

We were dead on our knees and are now on the brink of an incredible revival. We've seen some demons throughout all of this but we've also received support from some unexpected fans, both near and far.

Still, if the worst comes to it, you've said you know of investors that are interested and the 'majority' of fans are so against the SC plan b, so there is nothing stopping you forming an AFC Wimbledon model plan b of your own if you're so confident of the backing.

Hopefully neither will ever be required, so let's just pray plan A still goes ahead and neither plan B option is ever discussed again. Let's have a break with Wigan tradition and just look forward to some bloody good news
 
I joined the SC last summer just to give them an extra few quid, i wont ever join again, for me they've shown their true colours over the past few months (and i dont mean blue and white)
Staying silent when fans have been going out of their minds with frustration, playing God when asked for info and thinking because they are on the SC committee they are above the fans.

Nah not for me thanks.
 
moonay said:
I get that, though I'm surprised you neve considered that "other investors" might include Lenegan.

As I say, if everyone took that attitude (I don't mean that in a nasty way), if we'd ended up with no buyer, then the SC wouldn't have had a Plan B option to implement.

I'm not saying you're wrong ....... just pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point.

The SC should have written the crowdfunder very differently based on their actions (far less "HAVE A STRONG VOICE") so far, if you are looking at them in a negative way you could say it seems like they may have known what they were doing would be unpopular and hid behind the NDAs (This isn't my view).

Your view point is you wanted the club to exist in any form and you'd allow/give reasoning/make excuses for the supporters club to take any action "on your behalf" to get that done. The reality is that view will not be held by the majority, and as a group of fans is hugely varying views about when the club stops being the club, what they would give up to save the club etc. Its also likely some people who wouldn't want the rugby to be involved would accept that happening based on the actions of the SC and how the PR aspect was done (pretending to care via opinion polls etc.)

No one forced the SC to use the language they did on the crowd funder, no one forced them to issue the documents to companies house, no one forced them to get involved at all. Its a good thing they did, and the messaging of the crowdfunder was a good way of getting people to "invest" money:

Whatever the future ownership of Wigan Athletic, we want to bring our fans together to play a part, have representation on the club board, and HAVE A STRONG VOICE in the future running of our club

Their brochure:
https://www.wiganathleticsupportersclub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WASC_SaveOurClub.pdf

quickly establishes "We need to save the club" and defines we as "It is now critical that we come together to SAVE OUR CLUB and be part of its future", "WE CAN have a voice and shape the future of our football club", "WE CAN bring our community together within a sustainable and successful football club", "WE CAN protect Wigan Athletic for future generations".

Further into the doc:
Our supporter-led team will ensure:
We represent our community with pride and passion
We operate with openness, transparency and on solid financial and business principles
We keep our supporters and our local community at the heart of every decision we make
We will be part of a sustainable football club that will be here for your children and grandchildren

The questions to ask and answer honestly are:
Have they represented "our community" (The fans) with pride and passion?
Have they operated with openness, transparency and on solid and financial and business principles?
Have they kept our supporters and local community at the heart of every decision we make?
Have they kept our supporters and local community at the heart of every decision we make?

Every single person will have a different answers for those. People will either agree with the SC not adhering to their aims in order to "save the club". Some will think it was better to not tell the truth up front to gain more money to save the club. Some will say those aims only apply once they've saved the club others wont care either way and will just get on with their lives.

And this is the heart of the matter, if you want to represent a group you have to communicate and interact with the group.

My answers:

Have they represented "our community" (The fans) with pride and passion?
In my opinion no, based on passion shown in updates and a willingness to invoke the fans

Have they operated with openness, transparency and on solid and financial and business principles?
In my opinion no, when I spoke to them it was very clear that they do not have the resources to fulfil the obligations they set out and as they didn't reach out to those who could have helped, or rejected help. To me that shows a lack of openness. They've signed multiple NDAs without communications policy and that lacks openness and transparency. In regards to solid buiness principles I dont believe they had the business experience to put in processes that would easily allow them to become considered a success. They asked me to stop the public fee meeting and offered to arrange a meeting to address concerns with the admin which didn't happen and Im not sure if that fits what I'd consider open and transparent (Most people wont know they have done the admins tasks).

Have they kept our supporters and local community at the heart of every decision we make?
In my opinion no as keeping people at the heart of a decision requires consultation and communication.

Have they become part of a sustainable football club that will be here for your children/grandchildren?
In my opinion no, if they've gone about behind the curtain the way they have in front of it they haven't

moonay said:
If those opinion polls said the same as JK, & (Bicky very likely) then they'd have raised no money at all.
Click to expand...
But the money would have been raised in the right way and they'd of been the voice ONLY of like minded people.
 
Regarding the money, I do think it would be a bit sad if the money was to be returned, simply due to the amount of ex players and members of the football family who donated including players like Jermaine Defoe donating a grand for every goal he scored against us in the 9-1. I feel like that money should be used for something that benefits the club for years to come so that all of the donations leave a long term legacy. Obviously the best option would be an actual stake in the club which is what I assumed was the plan!

The problem is that 800k or however much it is won't go a long way in terms of long term investment into important things like club facilities/infrastructure. It certainly shouldn't be wasted on wages or transfer fees. Maybe put it into the community trust? How much would it cost to pay for those plans that had been put into place to build all weather pitches on the land around the soccerdome for our academy and first team?

Failing that we could be greedy and spunk it on a new blue and white painted fanzone, or those LED disco floodlights that clubs use these days for light shows before night matches. :punk:
 
Wlatic said:
I think you are missing the point.

The SC should have written the crowdfunder very differently based on their actions (far less "HAVE A STRONG VOICE") so far, if you are looking at them in a negative way you could say it seems like they may have known what they were doing would be unpopular and hid behind the NDAs (This isn't my view).

Your view point is you wanted the club to exist in any form and you'd allow/give reasoning/make excuses for the supporters club to take any action "on your behalf" to get that done. The reality is that view will not be held by the majority, and as a group of fans is hugely varying views about when the club stops being the club, what they would give up to save the club etc. Its also likely some people who wouldn't want the rugby to be involved would accept that happening based on the actions of the SC and how the PR aspect was done (pretending to care via opinion polls etc.)

No one forced the SC to use the language they did on the crowd funder, no one forced them to issue the documents to companies house, no one forced them to get involved at all. Its a good thing they did, and the messaging of the crowdfunder was a good way of getting people to "invest" money:

Whatever the future ownership of Wigan Athletic, we want to bring our fans together to play a part, have representation on the club board, and HAVE A STRONG VOICE in the future running of our club

Their brochure:
https://www.wiganathleticsupportersclub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WASC_SaveOurClub.pdf

quickly establishes "We need to save the club" and defines we as "It is now critical that we come together to SAVE OUR CLUB and be part of its future", "WE CAN have a voice and shape the future of our football club", "WE CAN bring our community together within a sustainable and successful football club", "WE CAN protect Wigan Athletic for future generations".

Further into the doc:
Our supporter-led team will ensure:
We represent our community with pride and passion
We operate with openness, transparency and on solid financial and business principles
We keep our supporters and our local community at the heart of every decision we make
We will be part of a sustainable football club that will be here for your children and grandchildren

The questions to ask and answer honestly are:
Have they represented "our community" (The fans) with pride and passion?
Have they operated with openness, transparency and on solid and financial and business principles?
Have they kept our supporters and local community at the heart of every decision we make?
Have they kept our supporters and local community at the heart of every decision we make?

Every single person will have a different answers for those. People will either agree with the SC not adhering to their aims in order to "save the club". Some will think it was better to not tell the truth up front to gain more money to save the club. Some will say those aims only apply once they've saved the club others wont care either way and will just get on with their lives.

And this is the heart of the matter, if you want to represent a group you have to communicate and interact with the group.

My answers:

Have they represented "our community" (The fans) with pride and passion?
In my opinion no, based on passion shown in updates and a willingness to invoke the fans

Have they operated with openness, transparency and on solid and financial and business principles?
In my opinion no, when I spoke to them it was very clear that they do not have the resources to fulfil the obligations they set out and as they didn't reach out to those who could have helped, or rejected help. To me that shows a lack of openness. They've signed multiple NDAs without communications policy and that lacks openness and transparency. In regards to solid buiness principles I dont believe they had the business experience to put in processes that would easily allow them to become considered a success. They asked me to stop the public fee meeting and offered to arrange a meeting to address concerns with the admin which didn't happen and Im not sure if that fits what I'd consider open and transparent (Most people wont know they have done the admins tasks).

Have they kept our supporters and local community at the heart of every decision we make?
In my opinion no as keeping people at the heart of a decision requires consultation and communication.

Have they become part of a sustainable football club that will be here for your children/grandchildren?
In my opinion no, if they've gone about behind the curtain the way they have in front of it they haven't


But the money would have been raised in the right way and they'd of been the voice ONLY of like minded people.
Click to expand...

Brilliant post, 100% agree with all of that.
 
C_Latic said:
Regarding the money, I do think it would be a bit sad if the money was to be returned, simply due to the amount of ex players and members of the football family who donated including players like Jermaine Defoe donating a grand for every goal he scored against us in the 9-1. I feel like that money should be used for something that benefits the club for years to come so that all of the donations leave a long term legacy. Obviously the best option would be an actual stake in the club which is what I assumed was the plan!

The problem is that 800k or however much it is won't go a long way in terms of long term investment into important things like club facilities/infrastructure. It certainly shouldn't be wasted on wages or transfer fees. Maybe put it into the community trust? How much would it cost to pay for those plans that had been put into place to build all weather pitches on the land around the soccerdome for our academy and first team?

Failing that we could be greedy and spunk it on a new blue and white painted fanzone, or those LED disco floodlights that clubs use these days for light shows before night matches. :punk:
Click to expand...

We need a new training ground and did we lose the academy upgrade at the Soccer Dome? Money could go towards either of those - even if new owners happy to spend on those we could hopefully add to the pot and get top class facilities that would benefit the club for long term.

But im not sure if terms of fund raiser wpuld allow us to spend money on anything other than ownership stake, if that isnt on offer i suspect it might have to be refunded.
 
Stopped posting on here but the amount of posts slagging off the SC has got me wound up again.
The people on here slating the SC really do need to get a grip of themselves.
Moan, moan, moan. Its very easy to moan when you don't have anywhere near the full facts and don't have to lift a finger to do things differently.
We should be grateful for the hard work of all at the SC for trying to ensure the worst case scenario doesn't happen.
Those going ape sh*t because the SC have had the audacity to speak to Lennigan should realise that they NEED to speak will ALL parties who have a stake in the club or stadium. If the choice was to go bust or do a deal where Lennigan put money in to buy or part own the stadium then it's a no brainer.
Time to get real and realise that in the real world you do need to deal with people you don't want to if its a matter of survival.
 
Kenny Morris said:
Stopped posting on here but the amount of posts slagging off the SC has got me wound up again.
The people on here slating the SC really do need to get a grip of themselves.
Moan, moan, moan. Its very easy to moan when you don't have anywhere near the full facts and don't have to lift a finger to do things differently.
We should be grateful for the hard work of all at the SC for trying to ensure the worst case scenario doesn't happen.
Those going ape sh*t because the SC have had the audacity to speak to Lennigan should realise that they NEED to speak will ALL parties who have a stake in the club or stadium. If the choice was to go bust or do a deal where Lennigan put money in to buy or part own the stadium then it's a no brainer.
Time to get real and realise that in the real world you do need to deal with people you don't want to if its a matter of survival.
Click to expand...

I wonder why they kept the talks with Lenaghan hush hush?

What happened to the (empty) promise to keep fans in the loop at the start of the fundraiser?

"We keep our supporters and our local community at the heart of every decision we make'

Read WLatics post above you may learn something.... Then again.
 
loudmouthblue said:
Based on 5 season ticket holders in my house, 0% are moaning, my best mate Worbo and his brother aren't, one of my other football mates who is an active supporters club member and close to the heart of things and tells me there a few but not many. Jay Taylor the club SLO who I bump into now and again when he is out walking tells me the great support they get from fans worried about the future, moonay, daleks and many on here (apologise if I have not mentioned you) are how I know the majority are not moaning, quite a straw poll there - but I am not using one of those many supportive fans to back up my theory.

I am going to use one person alone to prove my "opinion" is not just theory.

I have spent long frustrating nights having heated, sometimes nasty arguments with one person on every subject that both of us hold dear and defend, from politics to brexit and how the club was run under Whelan and especially Jonathan Jackson and even snowflakes sitting under cover in the DW , he never gave an inch of compromise ever.

Now if MIW thinks the supporters club have done a decent job that is all the proof I need.
😁😁
Click to expand...
So a cohort of your family folk associated with the SC and MiW is your "proof"
Dream on pal 🙈 - embarrassing!
 
Kenny Morris said:
Stopped posting on here but the amount of posts slagging off the SC has got me wound up again.
The people on here slating the SC really do need to get a grip of themselves.
Moan, moan, moan. Its very easy to moan when you don't have anywhere near the full facts and don't have to lift a finger to do things differently.
We should be grateful for the hard work of all at the SC for trying to ensure the worst case scenario doesn't happen.
Those going ape sh*t because the SC have had the audacity to speak to Lennigan should realise that they NEED to speak will ALL parties who have a stake in the club or stadium. If the choice was to go bust or do a deal where Lennigan put money in to buy or part own the stadium then it's a no brainer.
Time to get real and realise that in the real world you do need to deal with people you don't want to if its a matter of survival.
Click to expand...
That isn't the issue here Kenny and I agree they should be talking to everyone. They also should be sharing that with the fanbase they are supposed to be representing- they haven't and that's the issue
 
Wlatic said:
I think you are missing the point.

The SC should have written the crowdfunder very differently based on their actions (far less "HAVE A STRONG VOICE") so far, if you are looking at them in a negative way you could say it seems like they may have known what they were doing would be unpopular and hid behind the NDAs (This isn't my view).

Your view point is you wanted the club to exist in any form and you'd allow/give reasoning/make excuses for the supporters club to take any action "on your behalf" to get that done. The reality is that view will not be held by the majority, and as a group of fans is hugely varying views about when the club stops being the club, what they would give up to save the club etc. Its also likely some people who wouldn't want the rugby to be involved would accept that happening based on the actions of the SC and how the PR aspect was done (pretending to care via opinion polls etc.)

No one forced the SC to use the language they did on the crowd funder, no one forced them to issue the documents to companies house, no one forced them to get involved at all. Its a good thing they did, and the messaging of the crowdfunder was a good way of getting people to "invest" money:

Whatever the future ownership of Wigan Athletic, we want to bring our fans together to play a part, have representation on the club board, and HAVE A STRONG VOICE in the future running of our club

Their brochure:
https://www.wiganathleticsupportersclub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WASC_SaveOurClub.pdf

quickly establishes "We need to save the club" and defines we as "It is now critical that we come together to SAVE OUR CLUB and be part of its future", "WE CAN have a voice and shape the future of our football club", "WE CAN bring our community together within a sustainable and successful football club", "WE CAN protect Wigan Athletic for future generations".

Further into the doc:
Our supporter-led team will ensure:
We represent our community with pride and passion
We operate with openness, transparency and on solid financial and business principles
We keep our supporters and our local community at the heart of every decision we make
We will be part of a sustainable football club that will be here for your children and grandchildren

The questions to ask and answer honestly are:
Have they represented "our community" (The fans) with pride and passion?
Have they operated with openness, transparency and on solid and financial and business principles?
Have they kept our supporters and local community at the heart of every decision we make?
Have they kept our supporters and local community at the heart of every decision we make?

Every single person will have a different answers for those. People will either agree with the SC not adhering to their aims in order to "save the club". Some will think it was better to not tell the truth up front to gain more money to save the club. Some will say those aims only apply once they've saved the club others wont care either way and will just get on with their lives.

And this is the heart of the matter, if you want to represent a group you have to communicate and interact with the group.

My answers:

Have they represented "our community" (The fans) with pride and passion?
In my opinion no, based on passion shown in updates and a willingness to invoke the fans

Have they operated with openness, transparency and on solid and financial and business principles?
In my opinion no, when I spoke to them it was very clear that they do not have the resources to fulfil the obligations they set out and as they didn't reach out to those who could have helped, or rejected help. To me that shows a lack of openness. They've signed multiple NDAs without communications policy and that lacks openness and transparency. In regards to solid buiness principles I dont believe they had the business experience to put in processes that would easily allow them to become considered a success. They asked me to stop the public fee meeting and offered to arrange a meeting to address concerns with the admin which didn't happen and Im not sure if that fits what I'd consider open and transparent (Most people wont know they have done the admins tasks).

Have they kept our supporters and local community at the heart of every decision we make?
In my opinion no as keeping people at the heart of a decision requires consultation and communication.

Have they become part of a sustainable football club that will be here for your children/grandchildren?
In my opinion no, if they've gone about behind the curtain the way they have in front of it they haven't


But the money would have been raised in the right way and they'd of been the voice ONLY of like minded people.
Click to expand...

I note you have not mentioned ANY of what it says on page four of that document which is probably the major part of what they hoped and planned to do.

If none of the other elements were able to be enacted on, is having a supporters role, voice of seat in the boardroom the money raised will be returned.

How on earth can you accuse them of not operating under "solid financial or business principles" when they have not spent a penny of the second crowd fun d and used the first amount raised to enable the team to travel to away games and stay overnight, thus helping us to complete the season, that for me is good financial use of donated funds. The business jibe is nonsense as they are not a business or operating as one.

You claim they have "not reached out to those that can help" wasn't JJ the ex CEO an I think is an accountant helping, a senior partner in a Manchester law firm (a latics supporter) advising them, along with help from the council's in house legal team, another person helping was until late last year was a director of a major Wigan based holiday firm, so they have reached out in some capacity, who should they have reached out to ?
 
Hampton said:
That isn't the issue here Kenny and I agree they should be talking to everyone. They also should be sharing that with the fanbase they are supposed to be representing- they haven't and that's the issue
Click to expand...
Well as I said before get yourself on the committee by forcing an EGM, that way you can put things right, seeing your numbers are so great it will be a doddle forcing the meeting.
 
We all have different views on what the SC club should do with the crowdfunder money, let's wait and see and what options they propose
before we get 'wound up'.

They are in a 'no-win situation' and i don't envy them one bit,
one has to remember they are 'volunteers' dealing with complex problems
they never expected to deal with.

I don't want my money back, as hopefully it will be spent on various projects to help Wigan Athletic and a donation to Derian House Childrens Hospice ,
on behalf of Wigan Athletic, which i don't think anyone would object to.
 
loudmouthblue said:
I note you have not mentioned ANY of what it says on page four of that document which is probably the major part of what they hoped and planned to do.

If none of the other elements were able to be enacted on, is having a supporters role, voice of seat in the boardroom the money raised will be returned.

How on earth can you accuse them of not operating under "solid financial or business principles" when they have not spent a penny of the second crowd fun d and used the first amount raised to enable the team to travel to away games and stay overnight, thus helping us to complete the season, that for me is good financial use of donated funds. The business jibe is nonsense as they are not a business or operating as one.

You claim they have "not reached out to those that can help" wasn't JJ the ex CEO an I think is an accountant helping, a senior partner in a Manchester law firm (a latics supporter) advising them, along with help from the council's in house legal team, another person helping was until late last year was a director of a major Wigan based holiday firm, so they have reached out in some capacity, who should they have reached out to ?
Click to expand...

LMB, main reason is solid business principles don't look like we've seen (in my opinion).

They should have reached out to people who could help them in areas they've struggled with.

From what I can see you dont believe they've struggled with anything and done everything spot on, so from that point of view they didnt/dont need to reach out to anyone and fulfilled everything they ever hoped to do. I understand your opinion, and think you are entitled to it.

loudmouthblue said:
Well as I said before get yourself on the committee by forcing an EGM, that way you can put things right, seeing your numbers are so great it will be a doddle forcing the meeting.
Click to expand...
Id vote for him on the committee, by virtue of him hold a different view point and therefore different group of fans.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
We need a new training ground and did we lose the academy upgrade at the Soccer Dome? Money could go towards either of those - even if new owners happy to spend on those we could hopefully add to the pot and get top class facilities that would benefit the club for long term.

But im not sure if terms of fund raiser wpuld allow us to spend money on anything other than ownership stake, if that isnt on offer i suspect it might have to be refunded.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it can be spent on anything else KDZ as I think that’s been said before it’s part of the terms of the fund raising website and some charities have come across that before
I think your plan also might hit snags as there were plenty of fans from other clubs who donated to save the club and I think many of them may object if we’re bought by a wealthy Bahraini group and the SC then allowed the money to be used to fund new training facilities instead
 
Status
Not open for further replies.