1st crowdfunder | Page 27 | Vital Football

1st crowdfunder

I'd give it up SLO you can't reason with people that want to find fault with everything!Every time you explain something they will come up with something else!They like throwing stones from the outside but won't volunteer to do what is really proving to be a thankless task!!

If you raise 200k for one cause and then for whatever reason are going to give it to another cause decided by a vote - is it reasonable that there was an attempt to contact as many donors as possible to make them aware so they can take part?

If there was only 209 responses out of 3877 donors - does that indicate there was sufficient awareness to make such a big decision?
 
Would folk be as hacked off if the club took the money and spent it on napkins and IPads - yes and rightly so.
By the same token the money being donated to the CT (with an individual conflict) was also not on the original intention list.
Some are saying let it go etc etc well no it's the thick end of £200k not 50p
They'll be funding murals of Man U players in Wigan schools next...... !
 
The money was NOT sat in any WASC account, they paid invoices on receiving them. Sick of saying it now.

Don't see relevance of the final sentence as the second CF was never about raising funds to save the club and to pay vital bills, wages etc.... That was about a backup plan to buy the club should a new owner not be found, and if one was found, to buy a place on the board. It was always stated that the money raised from this would never leave the CF ESCRO account unless they were needed, which they weren't and refunded.
Who said it was sat in a WASC account?

Go look at the documentation and try and explain it anyway. I provided the Link, document, page number and paragraph, it explains what bank account it was sat in.

Reached out to Caroline today to make sure she got the questions and she's told me:

"
I have passed your email and details to our legal representative.
We are concerned that the queries are becoming vexatious towards individuals, therefore all correspondence that you send will be passed directly on. You will receive a formal response from them in due course.
"

So looks like Caroline was very worried about me talking with the Club, so much so they wanted to answer all the questions (which were provided), but now they are annoyed and wont be doing it. Time to go up the chain to the club I think. This unfortunately looks like its going one way and it'll get expensive for everyone involved.
 
Last edited:
You gave a hypothesis without any factual or legal backing. It was great, but based on nothing.
It was absolutely logical, and is (in my opinion, and probably those of a reasonable person) precisely what happened.

The SC money "effectively" (not literally) paid the bills, and was then put aside to enable it to be repaid.

I can't imagine what other scenario you believe could have taken place.
 
It was absolutely logical, and is (in my opinion, and probably those of a reasonable person) precisely what happened.

The SC money "effectively" (not literally) paid the bills, and was then put aside to enable it to be repaid.

I can't imagine what other scenario you believe could have taken place.

I wouldn't say its absolutely logical, because it requires guessing.

Its a good hypothesis, but I doubt WASC would admit to this, even if its what happened, it'd open up a few issues for them.

The funny thing is that if I'd give someone money on the back of paying invoices and found that a couple months later that money wasn't use for the purpose it was provided I'd be asking questions of the someone I'd given money to. To me the whole thing seems to be WASC sticking to the initial proposals, which didn't happen and sticking their head in the sand about what actually happened, because its not good optics.

One thing you might want to consider is your hypothesis only covers up to the 22nd July, after that date "soft-loan" comes into play and I suggested that accounted for around 39k of the money (based on payment dates etc.).

In fairness to my previous update, WASC (Caroline) has stated they are not worried about me talking to the club.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say its absolutely logical, because it requires guessing.

Its a good hypothesis, but I doubt WASC would admit to this, even if its what happened, it'd open up a few issues for them.

The funny thing is that if I'd give someone money on the back of paying invoices and found that a couple months later that money wasn't use for the purpose it was provided I'd be asking questions of the someone I'd given money to. To me the whole thing seems to be WASC sticking to the initial proposals, which didn't happen and sticking their head in the sand about what actually happened, because its not good optics.

One thing you might want to consider is your hypothesis only covers up to the 22nd July, after that date "soft-loan" comes into play and I suggested that accounted for around 39k of the money (based on payment dates etc.).

In fairness to my previous update, WASC (Caroline) has stated they are not worried about me talking to the club.

Guessing? ....... or merely presuming, based on reasonable assumptions of how it was likely to have occurred, given the two key facts
- the SC paid/transferred money poste receiving an invoice, and
- the money was kept separate from the main club accounts ... then returned.

Not sure what issues this can cause the SC.

We've done the whole discussion previously re the "exact" money paying the bills ....... that isn't how things work ... as you well know.

I have no idea what bad optics you're seeing.

My hypothesis covers the whole period ......I've no idea when the Admins started putting the money in the "stagnant" account, but who's to say they weren't doing it pre the announcement of the soft loan.
 
Guessing? ....... or merely presuming, based on reasonable assumptions of how it was likely to have occurred, given the two key facts
- the SC paid/transferred money poste receiving an invoice, and
- the money was kept separate from the main club accounts ... then returned.

Not sure what issues this can cause the SC.

We've done the whole discussion previously re the "exact" money paying the bills ....... that isn't how things work ... as you well know.

I have no idea what bad optics you're seeing.

My hypothesis covers the whole period ......I've no idea when the Admins started putting the money in the "stagnant" account, but who's to say they weren't doing it pre the announcement of the soft loan.
"Guessing? ....... or merely presuming, based on reasonable assumptions of how it was likely to have occurred"

Confirmed, guessing!
Presumed + reasonable assumption + likely occurred = Guess

So you are saying if you headed WASC:
- paying money to the admin based on invoices they provide
- you believed the funds you were providing were being used to pay the invoices
- Find out money you paid wasn't being used and is sat in a bank account
- The club continued to have players sold, people laid off etc.
- Money continues to sit there

You'd not question anything and then clarify this publicly? Very strange because the PM cant sneeze without you demanding accountability!

My Dad just pointed this out to me:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...te-snp-over-independence-campaign-cash-claims

Sounds like Earmarking crowdfunder cash is going to be judged pretty soon.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying if you headed WASC:
- paying money to the admin based on invoices they provide
- you believed the funds you were providing were being used to pay the invoices
- Find out money you paid wasn't being used and is sat in a bank account
- The club continued to have players sold, people laid off etc.
- Money continues to sit there

You'd not question anything and then clarify this publicly? Very strange because the PM cant sneeze without you demanding accountability!

Bullet 1 - nowt to answer
Bullet 2 - no ........ I'd believe I was simply providing the value of the invoices to the Admins to pay the bills, but for all I know, they might have already paid them ..... or be in the process of paying them.
Bullet 3 - It was used ..... by being put in the bank account, offsetting what had already been paid.
Bullet 4 - The SC money was never to pay for any of that. I guess you're saying that if the SC money had paid bills directly, then the Admins could have put more money that way ............ but non players aside, that money wasn't going to go very far
Bullet 5 - hasn't it all been returned (aside from what was retained for fees etc)? If that was an Admin, or "club pre Phoenix" account, then why would it still be sat there? (I've no knowledge about this obviously).

I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to be questioning and/or clarifying ..... oh, and why try and make a feeble political connection here?.......... cos they're exactly the same, aren't they !!! :rolleyes:
 
Bullet 1 - nowt to answer
Bullet 2 - no ........ I'd believe I was simply providing the value of the invoices to the Admins to pay the bills, but for all I know, they might have already paid them ..... or be in the process of paying them.
Bullet 3 - It was used ..... by being put in the bank account, offsetting what had already been paid.
Bullet 4 - The SC money was never to pay for any of that. I guess you're saying that if the SC money had paid bills directly, then the Admins could have put more money that way ............ but non players aside, that money wasn't going to go very far
Bullet 5 - hasn't it all been returned (aside from what was retained for fees etc)? If that was an Admin, or "club pre Phoenix" account, then why would it still be sat there? (I've no knowledge about this obviously).

I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to be questioning and/or clarifying ..... oh, and why try and make a feeble political connection here?.......... cos they're exactly the same, aren't they !!! :rolleyes:

It was used ..... by being put in the bank account, offsetting what had already been paid.
-- The money wasn't being treated as income as per the companies house docs.

Bullet 4 is a complicated one because its a what if. I'm not saying anything should have been done, what I'm saying is under those circumstances if I gave the admin 200k and saw these things happening, knowing the 200k was sat in a bank account and donated to save the club I'd 100% be asking questions about the way it was being "used".

Bullet 5, you've missed the point, but I think that was the point of your post.

The SNP relates pretty directly:
- They took crowdfunder money "to fund the next referendum"
- They stonewalled questions when people asked how it was accounted for
- Confirmed the money was used, but just not in the way initially intended and they've earmarked other money to cover it.

I might put my thoughts together on a website and then sponsor a few players with a link to it. That'd be a fun way of dealing with this.
 
Last edited:
I'd give it up SLO you can't reason with people that want to find fault with everything!Every time you explain something they will come up with something else!They like throwing stones from the outside but won't volunteer to do what is really proving to be a thankless task!!

What makes you the spokesperson of this forum Exiled & to advise Jason / SLO to 'give it up'......a few posters on here have been very reasonable & courteous with their posts & questions so imo I think it's a bit unreasonable for you to suggest he just ignores those posters. Some of us just want reasonable, honest answers to a few questions & not trying to call any of the SC committee who imo have done a great job in very difficult circumstances but their communication has been lacking. As to the 'throwing stones from the outside but won't volunteer'.....you know this for definite on all posters, you know that I wouldn't volunteer for the SC. I 100% agree it's a thankless task...but don't assume people wouldn't volunteer.
Again imo IF the SC had been alot more forthcoming with their communication then this wouldn't be an issue regardless if it's only a few 'moaning' it's still a few too many. If communication had been good & people are still complaining then you are right in the complaining for complainings sake...😉
 
Mate, if you believe that the Admins (a firm of Accountants), and the SC (presumably after taking financial advice ......... as well as guidance from JJ, also an Accountant) did summat that was out of order, then I wish you'd say so, rather than chuck out insinuations.

The money was presumably in the bank account to be used "if required" ...... iy wasn't.

I've no idea what you mean re bullet 5 ...... I'm simply responding to what you posted.

SNP ???!!! You were on about the PM before. Find me a post where I've commented on the SNP incident ........ I struggle to give much of a shit about it to be honest.
 
Bullet 1 - nowt to answer
Bullet 2 - no ........ I'd believe I was simply providing the value of the invoices to the Admins to pay the bills, but for all I know, they might have already paid them ..... or be in the process of paying them.
Bullet 3 - It was used ..... by being put in the bank account, offsetting what had already been paid.
Bullet 4 - The SC money was never to pay for any of that. I guess you're saying that if the SC money had paid bills directly, then the Admins could have put more money that way ............ but non players aside, that money wasn't going to go very far
Bullet 5 - hasn't it all been returned (aside from what was retained for fees etc)? If that was an Admin, or "club pre Phoenix" account, then why would it still be sat there? (I've no knowledge about this obviously).

I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to be questioning and/or clarifying ..... oh, and why try and make a feeble political connection here?.......... cos they're exactly the same, aren't they !!! :rolleyes:
If it was sat sterile in a bank account it could and should have been used to retain the academy players that were let go.
Obi could have been retained for example - had a shocker in L1 last season tbf but did a great job on Wyke last night and if continues like that could have been a future first teamer / massive earn for our club
 
Who said it was sat in a WASC account?

Go look at the documentation and try and explain it anyway. I provided the Link, document, page number and paragraph, it explains what bank account it was sat in.

Reached out to Caroline today to make sure she got the questions and she's told me:

"
I have passed your email and details to our legal representative.
We are concerned that the queries are becoming vexatious towards individuals, therefore all correspondence that you send will be passed directly on. You will receive a formal response from them in due course.
"

So looks like Caroline was very worried about me talking with the Club, so much so they wanted to answer all the questions (which were provided), but now they are annoyed and wont be doing it. Time to go up the chain to the club I think. This unfortunately looks like its going one way and it'll get expensive for everyone involved.

It looks imo that you are going down a different route to one which I & other posters on here have posted...meaning we merely want a few questions answered regarding votes / %votes / the other uses for the crowdfunder money to be used on.....most DEFINITELY NOT going down the route of ....unfortunately looks like it's going one way and it'll get expensive for everyone involved....that imo is inflammatory, divisive & threatening which will do no one any good whatsoever be that the club, SC, posters & fans alike.
 
If it was sat sterile in a bank account it could and should have been used to retain the academy players that were let go.
Obi could have been retained for example - had a shocker in L1 last season tbf but did a great job on Wyke last night and if continues like that could have been a future first teamer / massive earn for our club

Wasn't Obi let go because of squad numbers, not wages.
 
Mate, if you believe that the Admins (a firm of Accountants), and the SC (presumably after taking financial advice ......... as well as guidance from JJ, also an Accountant) did summat that was out of order, then I wish you'd say so, rather than chuck out insinuations.

The money was presumably in the bank account to be used "if required" ...... iy wasn't.

I've no idea what you mean re bullet 5 ...... I'm simply responding to what you posted.

SNP ???!!! You were on about the PM before. Find me a post where I've commented on the SNP incident ........ I struggle to give much of a shit about it to be honest.
Have I not been clear?

I do not believe the Crowdfunder money was used as per the terms of the crowdfunder.
I believe after the 22nd July WASC were aware of the "soft loan"
I believe the money sent to the admin was not used to pay the invoices and that WASC were aware of this at least as of Jan 2021
I believe WASC had access to the donators details as per the Terms/Privacy Policy/FAQ on crowdfunder.co.uk
I dont know why WASC didn't do a better job of sending their survey out to people who donated.
I dont know why WASC continues to provide conflicting information
I dont know why WASC acted on behalf of the administration and told me that calling a creditor meeting would stop the sale of the club.
I dont know why the administration have stated WASC acting on their behalf and was used to discharge their statutory duties.
I dont know why WASC had a short fall of 1.2-1.5m in their Plan B and actively dismissed people trying to get them in contact with investors.


It looks imo that you are going down a different route to one which I & other posters on here have posted...meaning we merely want a few questions answered regarding votes / %votes / the other uses for the crowdfunder money to be used on.....most DEFINITELY NOT going down the route of ....unfortunately looks like it's going one way and it'll get expensive for everyone involved....that imo is inflammatory, divisive & threatening which will do no one any good whatsoever be that the club, SC, posters & fans alike.

WASC has stated that they wont be answering any question I provided to them and I'll receive a response via their legal representation. I wont be backing down so its simply a fact. You'll want answers to items that WASC will fight to protect themselves from having to answer!

Happy to post the full list of questions if people would find value in them.
 
Last edited:
Wlatic, you obviously don't want to take on board anything that anyone says so I don't see why we're carrying on the debate. I apologise for starting it up again with my "t-shirt" comment ........ it was an unwise move.

Good luck in your quest.

PS: What the hell has a shortfall in Plan B got to do with the price of fish ? Genuine question ........ do you know that they actively dismissed "people", or was it just yourself?