Supporters Club

[Kenny Morris]

It seems that some people would have been much happier if the Admins had just spent the money and kept any leftover stuff rather that return it back to the supporters club to be used for the benefit of the club or it's charities.
Very odd point of view after all the problems with the admins, and how they acted whilst in charge.
Just seems to prove that there is either an agenda against the SC or individuals within it.

 

[jocklatic]

I like dealing in facts and that's why I asked the question. I might be missing something.

I wouldn't disagree they became the voice for some supporters (probably even a majority). They collected money and had a plan together which only required around 850k more to be able to buy the club in an emergency situation in which a buyer wasn't found. The ground would have been bought by the rugby and complete asset stripping of the club to barebones.

They provided money to the admin that was sat in a bank account. I understand the effort they put in to try, but trying and doing are two completely different things. I'm trying to get the truth, but so far have failed to do that. Currently I've only got legal documents from the admin that say a few different things and confirmation from the supporters club that they gave the money as a "soft-loan".

I've no agenda beyond finding out what the truth is. Why does the truth have to be agenda drive? I'll turn the question round on yourself. If you read legal documents and things didn't make sense would you ask questions or what you shrug and think "not my problem"? Why wouldn't you ask more questions and do more digging?




That's fair enough at a basic level there is plenty for the supporters club to clear up. Why a "soft-loan"? what advantages did that have over simply donating the money with a contract of what it could go to? Why was the money given (1st admin report), allocated and then considered a soft-loan (2nd admin report)? What is the reason they decided to keep the money vs allowing people to ask for it back (based on the soft-loan) when they have all the details of people who donated? Would they not consider the low amount of redonations ( https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/laticsredonate ) a sign that possibly people would want that money back vs it used for other purposes? What are their thoughts on the "soft-loan" being repaid back to them vs local creditors?

That's just a few I can think of.

The admin wont answer anything and likely will avoid having to answering anything until taken to court via creditors, ICO or investigated by The Insolvency Service

This maybe a touch nieve or simplistic analogy...our plight when the 2 HK F@ckers dropped us in the shit & the immediate need for money to be raised to finish the season could be likened to....
a sinking lifeboat where water is pouring in through a hole in the boat..so a few of the passengers hurriedly decide to try & plug that hole & use whatever is available to bung up the hole...using other passengers personal possessions such as jumpers & jackets they managed to stop the boat sinking whilst managing to reach the shoreline saving both the boat & the people on board. Now once ashore the great majority of people on board were very grateful for the action they took despite losing some possessions & thanked them. Sadly after the event one or two others were less than grateful & with the benefit of hindsight thot perhaps the boat could have been saved a better way.
A few thoughts from this.....
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing!!
There's those who act straight away & others who ponder, perhaps losing any initiative!!!
You can't please everyone!!!
Be grateful for what we have now!!
It could have been alot worse!!!

 

[hindleymonwafc]

I couldn't be any less interested in any of this SC shite but if Wlatic feels he wants answers to whatever it is he wants answers to then what the bloody hell has that got to do with any other bugger...or do some just like an argument ?

 

[moonay]

I couldn't be any less interested in any of this SC shite but if Wlatic feels he wants answers to whatever it is he wants answers to then what the bloody hell has that got to do with any other bugger...or do some just like an argument ?

If he puts up his intentions on here - a discussion forum - isn't he inviting comment on his views/actions ? Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Also, insinuations made re the SC are certainly worthy of comment by other posters.

Do some like an argument? ....... I'd say yes ........ just as much as some like to imply criticism of others for reasonably questioning posts put on here ...... for discussion.

 

[Tree and Crown]

Thousands of pounds sat in the bank (thats if it is in the bank) with no offer a refund whether wanted or not, and no ideas on how it should be spent and what on, is it any wonder folk are getting suspicious?

 

[loudmouthblue]

Thousands of pounds sat in the bank (thats if it is in the bank) with no offer a refund whether wanted or not, and no ideas on how it should be spent and what on, is it any wonder folk are getting suspicious?

Only seems to be two of you who are suspicious and one of them, nobody gives a damn about.

 

[Arthur_Itis]

How would the SC be able to facilitate refunds ? Pure speculation on my part, I can't be arsed researching, but the money raised by the second fund raiser was held in escrow by CrowdFunder themselves, and the refund facilitated by CrowdFunder themselves because they held the original bank details used by people to donate.

The first fund raised has already been paid out by CrowdFunder to the SC. Crowdfunder can provide "details of contributors", I took this to mean contact details such as email addresses (I've assumed), but I doubt very much they will be able to or willing to provide transaction details and they absolutely won't be able to share payment card details with the SC, so how would the SC know how much to refund to me if I made (and I did) multiple contributions of varying values from different payment cards ?
Just wondering how you see it working in practice.

 

[Jonnysking]

Only seems to be two of you who are suspicious and one of them, nobody gives a damn about.

Which one would that be LMB?

 

[Wlatic]

It seems that some people would have been much happier if the Admins had just spent the money and kept any leftover stuff rather that return it back to the supporters club to be used for the benefit of the club or it's charities.
Very odd point of view after all the problems with the admins, and how they acted whilst in charge.
Just seems to prove that there is either an agenda against the SC or individuals within it.

If the Admins had spent the money the money that went back to the supporters club would have gone to the creditors. It may have meant the admins didn't need to sell a player or could have asked for more for a player. I don't know if that outcome is better, but I'm asking to the question (in addition to others) to see if those funds weren't used because they would have to be paid back and if this was in line with the original Crowdfunder.

I've not association with the SC beyond being a member, I do not know any of the members personally and I raised my concerns about what was going on just after the 2nd crowd funder was introduced. You can play the "Oh look he has an agenda dont listen" card all you like, but its not based on facts or any information you actually have. Just your very important feels.

If he puts up his intentions on here - a discussion forum - isn't he inviting comment on his views/actions ? Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Also, insinuations made re the SC are certainly worthy of comment by other posters.

Do some like an argument? ....... I'd say yes ........ just as much as some like to imply criticism of others for reasonably questioning posts put on here ...... for discussion.

100% agree with this. View points are good (Moonay's, LMB's and lots of others, although in opposition to my own, is normally well thought out and does offer something). You've also got people like Kenny, who come up with view points that are based on their feels, but you put it in public and people have a right to an opinion (no matter how silly it is!).

How would the SC be able to facilitate refunds ? Pure speculation on my part, I can't be arsed researching, but the money raised by the second fund raiser was held in escrow by CrowdFunder themselves, and the refund facilitated by CrowdFunder themselves because they held the original bank details used by people to donate.

The first fund raised has already been paid out by CrowdFunder to the SC. Crowdfunder can provide "details of contributors", I took this to mean contact details such as email addresses (I've assumed), but I doubt very much they will be able to or willing to provide transaction details and they absolutely won't be able to share payment card details with the SC, so how would the SC know how much to refund to me if I made (and I did) multiple contributions of varying values from different payment cards ?
Just wondering how you see it working in practice.

From what I can tell a number of details were passed over from Crowdfunder to the Supporters Club. To clear up I'm not, at this stage, saying the supporters club should go out there and start refunding everyone, just that a process should be put in place to allow for refund requests.

If the funds obtained were not used for the purpose of the crowdfunder I believe that'd be a problem between the Supporters Club and Crowdfunder.co.uk which would then be between Crowdfunder.co.uk and the customer to sort out. Hopefully it never comes to that as it'd be a mess, but bad process causes messes.

Only seems to be two of you who are suspicious and one of them, nobody gives a damn about.

Even if it was one, what % of the board posters is that? Expand the % across all those who donated and that's a decent amount of people and funds.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

A lot is being made of the term "soft loan", and as Moonay has said it is merely an accounting term for a loan that accrues no interest.

The question that needs to be answered is why it was accepted as a loan in the first place and I would suggest that that was due to the circumstances the club was in.

If the admins had accepted the money as income or a gift then that would have had to be included in the administration and a claim could have been made on it by the creditors. I seriously doubt that the SC committee originally offered the money as a loan, I think they would have been looking to gift the money to the club and would have been advised by the administrators of the implications and it would have been suggested that they make it a loan. If it had been gifted the admins could also have used it to fund their own costs if they had been so inclined and by making it a loan it prevented the money from being used for any other purpose than what it was intended.

As a loan it would also be held in an account separate from any other income that the admins raised as a legal requirement and therefore answers the question of why it was kept separate from the other cash on the balance sheet and admin statements.

As I said previously I believe Wlatic is barking up the wrong tree on this point but if he believes there is something awry, then I would support his efforts as long as the evidence is there.

 

[Wlatic]

We've already established that the SC raised the money for the first crowdfunder with no suggestion of payback or refund to those who donated. .

We've already established that the Admins said they'd refund it if they could, at the end of the process.

A quick google shows that a "soft loan" is a loan at a below market (or even zero) rate of interest.

The soft loan was obviously a means to an end, agreed by the Admins and SC simply to enable a potential refund, but with no expectation of it being paid with additional interest (as there was no guarantee of repayment).

I'm still at a loss as to what it is you're trying to establish.

A lot is being made of the term "soft loan", and as Moonay has said it is merely an accounting term for a loan that accrues no interest.

The question that needs to be answered is why it was accepted as a loan in the first place and I would suggest that that was due to the circumstances the club was in.

If the admins had accepted the money as income or a gift then that would have had to be included in the administration and a claim could have been made on it by the creditors. I seriously doubt that the SC committee originally offered the money as a loan, I think they would have been looking to gift the money to the club and would have been advised by the administrators of the implications and it would have been suggested that they make it a loan. If it had been gifted the admins could also have used it to fund their own costs if they had been so inclined and by making it a loan it prevented the money from being used for any other purpose than what it was intended.

As a loan it would also be held in an account separate from any other income that the admins raised as a legal requirement and therefore answers the question of why it was kept separate from the other cash on the balance sheet and admin statements.

As I said previously I believe Wlatic is barking up the wrong tree on this point but if he believes there is something awry, then I would support his efforts as long as the evidence is there.

I'd disagree with how opinion is being presented as fact here.

"Its been established" No it hasn't people are presuming they know.
"it is merely an accounting term for a loan that accrues no interest" again this is a possibility being presented as fact.

It was provided as a "soft-loan" as per the supporters club and as per the administration legal documents, with both sides confirming that I think unless there is some huge conspiracy against the club it should be accepted as such.

There is no actual definition of the whats and why's from either side, but what is factual (at least from a legal sense) is the money was accepted, planned to be used, never was and then sat in a bank account, while the admin realised (sold assets, had other income etc.) funds from the club. In regards to the whats and whys being public, it was the publics funds collected for a particular purpose and I believe that is why it should be cleared up.

You've again speculated and presented as fact the whats and whys. Wouldn't it just be better to get answers?

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

I'd disagree with how opinion is being presented as fact here.

"Its been established" No it hasn't people are presuming they know.
"it is merely an accounting term for a loan that accrues no interest" again this is a possibility being presented as fact.

It was provided as a "soft-loan" as per the supporters club and as per the administration legal documents, with both sides confirming that I think unless there is some huge conspiracy against the club it should be accepted as such.

There is no actual definition of the whats and why's from either side, but what is factual (at least from a legal sense) is the money was accepted, planned to be used, never was and then sat in a bank account, while the admin realised (sold assets, had other income etc.) funds from the club. In regards to the whats and whys being public, it was the publics funds collected for a particular purpose and I believe that is why it should be cleared up.

You've again speculated and presented as fact the whats and whys. Wouldn't it just be better to get answers?

Sorry, but isn't what you are saying speculation Wlatic.

Until proven everything you are saying is your opinion and therefore speculation.

I agree my post is simply my opinion and speculative but does answer the question of why the money was loaned rather than gifted and is certainly credible.

Maybe you allow yourself a little latitude and consider other alternatives instead of simply focussing on the one that is obviously occupying your mind. As I have said if there is evidence of wrong doing then you will have my full support, but in my view at present there is insufficient evidence to make a definitive decision.

 

[moonay]

Sorry Wlatic, but you're now being disingenuous. I liked your last post, as you made some reasonable points, but you're simply not accepting facts here.

Feel free to show where potential refund was mentioned in the first crowdfunder.
Feel free to contradict the point re the Admins' statement.
Feel free to offer a different definition of "soft loan". I'd looked at about half a dozen (at least) sites, and they all said the same.

No opinion. All facts.

I do grant you however that my point re the "means to an end" is my speculation ..... based on reasonable assumptions. No-one is disagreeing that it was a soft loan ... simply that the money wasn't collected with a view to it being loaned.

I've made no speculation beyond that.

 

[Wlatic]

Sorry, but isn't what you are saying speculation Wlatic.

Until proven everything you are saying is your opinion and therefore speculation.

I agree my post is simply my opinion and speculative but does answer the question of why the money was loaned rather than gifted and is certainly credible.

Maybe you allow yourself a little latitude and consider other alternatives instead of simply focussing on the one that is obviously occupying your mind. As I have said if there is evidence of wrong doing then you will have my full support, but in my view at present there is insufficient evidence to make a definitive decision.

Apologies, but what are you saying isn't proven?

Sorry Wlatic, but you're now being disingenuous. I liked your last post, as you made some reasonable points, but you're simply not accepting facts here.

Feel free to show where potential refund was mentioned in the first crowdfunder.
Feel free to contradict the point re the Admins' statement.
Feel free to offer a different definition of "soft loan". I'd looked at about half a dozen (at least) sites, and they all said the same.

No opinion. All facts.

I do grant you however that my point re the "means to an end" is my speculation ..... based on reasonable assumptions. No-one is disagreeing that it was a soft loan ... simply that the money wasn't collected with a view to it being loaned.

I've made no speculation beyond that.

I'm only stating what I have been told by the supporters club and what is in the legal documents from the admin. Have you had a read of the administration docs?

The admin appear to have taken money on a "soft-loan" basis and then come out and said they'd repay it if they could, I agree it makes no sense. It could be PR spin from the admin, maybe they had the money and gave it back? Who knows. I'd like to!

The Crowdfunder was setup to give money for specific reasons and purposes, a loan no matter how soft was not mentioned, if its found the money wasn't used as per the reason it was collected and refunds aren't provided? Not sure what that would mean at this point.

The reason i use "soft-loan" is because this is how it was presented by the supporters club, it could potentially mean anything. Therefore you putting a definition on something that isn't defined is misleading. I'd love for the supports club to define that, and its one of my aims!

"simply that the money wasn't collected with a view to it being loaned." here in lays the BIG question. If it wasn't collected for that purpose was a "Soft-loan" something WASC should have done?

Hopefully this explains why I don't believe what you are stating as facts were indeed facts.

 

[Hampton]

The admins could have utilised the kindly donated money from the first crowdfunder which we can all agree was donated to with no expectation of refund to manage day to day running costs rather than let it sit in a bank account and kept one of Geldhardt, Weir or Devine any of which would have easily made the first team last season and retained significantly more value to the club as a consequence - if known at the time why were the SC and others not shouting this from the rooftops ?
Anything to do with Begbies football agent mate at play perhaps
Seems like the club and donators have been mugged off here IMO

 

[moonay]

Wlatic, no, I haven't read the Admin documents, cos they aren't relevant to the discussion.

You've just agreed that the SC collected the money with no mention of it being a loan. That's exactly what I've said.

You've also just agreed that the Admins said they'd repay the money if they could, which is also exactly what I said.

As for the soft loan, I merely commented on it's definition. That's all.

They're all facts.

Whether or not the SC should have provided the money as a soft loan is another matter ..... though I believe (as I think TB does) that this was likely done under advice, so as to cover both the SC and the Admins.

 

[Wlatic]

Wlatic, no, I haven't read the Admin documents, cos they aren't relevant to the discussion.

You've just agreed that the SC collected the money with no mention of it being a loan. That's exactly what I've said.

You've also just agreed that the Admins said they'd repay the money if they could, which is also exactly what I said.

As for the soft loan, I merely commented on it's definition. That's all.

They're all facts.

Whether or not the SC should have provided the money as a soft loan is another matter ..... though I believe (as I think TB does) that this was likely done under advice, so as to cover both the SC and the Admins.

Moonay, they collected money with no mention of it being loaned to the admin, soft or hard! You don't see that as something that needs to be cleared up? I also cannot find a legal basis of this kind of usage of funds being applied to an administration (That 100% doesn't mean its not out there, I've just not been able to find it yet).

You've defined soft loan and inferred this applies to "soft-loan". I dont know if it does or not. I'd like that to be cleared up. As stated the supporters club said "soft-load" rather than soft-loan.

It likely was done under advice, but this may have led them to break the terms of which the money was provided. Again I'd like to 100% figure that out.

The administration documents are 100% relevant to the conversation as they lay out both what happened and inconsistencies with the supporter clubs "soft-loan"/donation.

 

[moonay]

I really don't see your issue with it being loaned rather than given. If your investigations find something awry, then fair enough, but there was no intention to loan the money. It was collected to be given.

If you find the reason for it being soft loaned, then great ..... but that doesn't mean anyone should expect their donation to be returned.

I don't get your second para. I'm not distinguishing between "soft loan" and "soft-loan". Both seem the same to me. This is the first time you've mentioned "soft-load"...... what on earth is that?

I agree with your 3rd para

 

[Wlatic]

I really don't see your issue with it being loaned rather than given. If your investigations find something awry, then fair enough, but there was no intention to loan the money. It was collected to be given.

If you find the reason for it being soft loaned, then great ..... but that doesn't mean anyone should expect their donation to be returned.

I don't get your second para. I'm not distinguishing between "soft loan" and "soft-loan". Both seem the same to me. This is the first time you've mentioned "soft-load"...... what on earth is that?

I agree with your 3rd para

If the terms of the crowdfunder were broken the money should 100% be returned if requested (Probably all returned under the eyes of the law). There are some high profile cases recently in which misuse of Crowdfunded money have resulted in legal action. Because Crowdfunder.co.uk is a limited company anyone donating money via the platform is doing so under their terms and conditions, the money being paid to the Crowdfundee are done so under terms and conditions. They are a business and both sides are purchasing their product.

Both mean the same thing to you and that is fair enough, but when someone uses "soft-loan" to me that means its a loose fitting term. It'd be great to clear that up. Sorry "soft-loan" not load!

 

[moonay]

Fair enough .....though you're making up your own interpretation of soft loan (or soft-loan), whereas I offered a "formal" definition ....from what I looked up.