1st crowdfunder | Page 28 | Vital Football

1st crowdfunder

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?
No problem appreciated!

I had two possible investors and they dismissed without wanting to talk to either via the phone call with Caroline. One UK based, One USA based. I was also looking at upping the 2nd crowdfunder level I provided, but that was dismissed as well!
 
No problem appreciated!

I had two possible investors and they dismissed without wanting to talk to either via the phone call with Caroline. One UK based, One USA based. I was also looking at upping the 2nd crowdfunder level I provided, but that was dismissed as well!
So to be fair, it was only yourself (and your potential backers) who they dismissed ......... and given that (I presume) you approached the SC, surely their dismissal was reactive.

I've no idea why they'd do that, but it paints a slightly different picture to the one you painted.
 
So to be fair, it was only yourself (and your potential backers) who they dismissed ......... and given that (I presume) you approached the SC, surely their dismissal was reactive.

I've no idea why they'd do that, but it paints a slightly different picture to the one you painted.
I only know of myself. Is there a reason why you believe if they have a process they wouldn't continue to follow it?

What way did I approach WASC? The call I tried to provide them the investors was WASC reaching out to me, on behalf of the admin, to stop a creditor meeting called by a group of Fan Creditors. Before that they didn't get any emails I sent... so there couldn't have been any context behind it. Remember?

What pictures does it paint? They needed money (for plan b) I wanted to give them more / had people who would have got involved and pledged much larger sums and they weren't interested?
 
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...😉
The problem is jock that while you may just want answers to a few questions others seem to be looking for a right blow up! The comment by one that this will be very exspensive for all concerned is alarming and ridiculous!The SC would then be in a position of using the donations on legal fees!!It's getting ridiculous
 
I only know of myself. Is there a reason why you believe if they have a process they wouldn't continue to follow it?

:slap:

"A process"?" For whatever reason, they said no to you. No idea why .... even less of an idea why they'd say it to anyone else.


What way did I approach WASC? The call I tried to provide them the investors was WASC reaching out to me, on behalf of the admin, to stop a creditor meeting called by a group of Fan Creditors. Before that they didn't get any emails I sent... so there couldn't have been any context behind it. Remember?

Even if it was done on a call initiated by the SC, in terms of suggesting you could put them in touch with potential investors, I presume the subject was first broached by you ...... .as opposed to the SC asking you if you knew of any potential investors, and then when you said "yes, two", dismissing them out of hand.

What pictures does it paint? They needed money (for plan b) I wanted to give them more / had people who would have got involved and pledged much larger sums and they weren't interested?

I meant that from what you wrote, you implied (or at least, allowed the reader to infer) that the SC turned down other people (potential investors) besides yourself.

As it happens, we have no idea if this is true.
 
The problem is jock that while you may just want answers to a few questions others seem to be looking for a right blow up! The comment by one that this will be very exspensive for all concerned is alarming and ridiculous!The SC would then be in a position of using the donations on legal fees!!It's getting ridiculous

If that's the case why wouldn't they just provide the information or a rejection of why they wont provide the information? It wouldn't cost a thing. I'm just not going to stop until I get those answers and nothing is off the table at this point.


:slap:

"A process"?" For whatever reason, they said no to you. No idea why .... even less of an idea why they'd say it to anyone else.




Even if it was done on a call initiated by the SC, in terms of suggesting you could put them in touch with potential investors, I presume the subject was first broached by you ...... .as opposed to the SC asking you if you knew of any potential investors, and then when you said "yes, two", dismissing them out of hand.



I meant that from what you wrote, you implied (or at least, allowed the reader to infer) that the SC turned down other people (potential investors) besides yourself.

As it happens, we have no idea if this is true.

Subject came up when Caroline was explaining about the shortfall of Plan B, at which I said I have people who can invest and also want to up my own pledge, I was then told they are not looking for additional investors at this time.

I didn't imply anything. If you dont believe it is true I'd ask WASC to come out and state as much.

You wonder why I dont value your assumptions / presumptions! They come from a particular view point which warps them. Also very very selective in regards to the information and points you respond to!
 
Last edited:
The problem is jock that while you may just want answers to a few questions others seem to be looking for a right blow up! The comment by one that this will be very exspensive for all concerned is alarming and ridiculous!The SC would then be in a position of using the donations on legal fees!!It's getting ridiculous
If the SC had been transparent and answered all questions truthfully instead of SLO (Supporters Liaison Offer for WAFC) giving his opinions/flippant answers & choosing not to answer certain questions - we wouldn't have carried on this conversation.
 
Wasn't Obi let go because of squad numbers, not wages.
As I understood it the academy players could have been deregistered fm the first team squad and returned to the u23s without sanction. Then again if we were Derby we could have done what we liked 😉
 
Subject came up when Caroline was explaining about the shortfall of Plan B, at which I said I have people who can invest and also want to up my own pledge, I was then told they are not looking for additional investors at this time.

I didn't imply anything. If you dont believe it is true I'd ask WASC to come out and state as much.

Maybe they had their reasons why they weren't looking at that time ......... let's remember, Plan B had at least 2 different options to it (buyout and phoenix club).

I believe that the SC dismissed your offer. You implied (when you said "people") that they'd dismissed the offers of others also.

You wonder why I dont value your assumptions / presumptions! They come from a particular view point which warps them. Also very very selective in regards to the information and points you respond to!

I don't feel I "warp" anything Wlatic. I'm simply reflecting your own words to you, to, in order to ensure I (and others) can fully understand what you mean. People is plural, suggesting they'd dismissed more offers than just yours.

As for being "selective", I'm puzzled. Would you like me to comment on every single point you make? Some points are clear. Some points are unambiguous. Some points, I agree with. Why would I comment on those?
 
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.




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.

I'm not really sure what your issues & motives are Wlatic regarding the SC but it does sound alot more confrontational & divisive than to what a few posters on here ( myself included) are trying to do & I'm uncomfortable with that. So just to be clear I'm not advocating or agreeing with the route your going down. I also think you are using this thread to jump on with your agenda with the SC.
 
I'm not really sure what your issues & motives are Wlatic regarding the SC but it does sound alot more confrontational & divisive than to what a few posters on here ( myself included) are trying to do & I'm uncomfortable with that. So just to be clear I'm not advocating or agreeing with the route your going down. I also think you are using this thread to jump on with your agenda with the SC.

My issues and motives have been laid out. I'm not sure what your issues and motives are to question the issues and motives when they've been laid out.

I'm doing what I'm doing because its the right thing to do and not because I want approval from people. The thread is all about WASC not being open an honest. The best way to deal with this, if you feel that I'm taking the thread off course or triggering you, is hit the ignore button. If N"Zogbia's fan club thinks the same thing, in his thread, happy to stop posting.
 
My issues and motives have been laid out. I'm not sure what your issues and motives are to question the issues and motives when they've been laid out.

I'm doing what I'm doing because its the right thing to do and not because I want approval from people. The thread is all about WASC not being open an honest. The best way to deal with this, if you feel that I'm taking the thread off course or triggering you, is hit the ignore button. If N"Zogbia's fan club thinks the same thing, in his thread, happy to stop posting.

Your issues & motives appear to becoming very confrontational and going down what seems like an expensive legal route!!! Who says you need or are looking for approval...certainly not me. The reason I have been replying to some of your posts is because you have either quoted or mentioned me...as to the 'ignore button'.....I've no need to & if you don't post on this thread again then so be it.
 
Your issues & motives appear to becoming very confrontational and going down what seems like an expensive legal route!!! Who says you need or are looking for approval...certainly not me. The reason I have been replying to some of your posts is because you have either quoted or mentioned me...as to the 'ignore button'.....I've no need to & if you don't post on this thread again then so be it.
Just sounds like you are trying to regulate what is / isn't allowed on someone elses thread when the topics are 100% linked.

Im a direct person.
 
Just sounds like you are trying to regulate what is / isn't allowed on someone elses thread when the topics are 100% linked.

Im a direct person.

Where am I trying to regulate what is or isn't allowed on threads.....I'm saying imo your going down a route with the SC that seems divisive & confrontational. If you want / are going down that route then do you think a forum is the right place to put it....or is it you just like telling people what your doing.
If it was me & I had an axe to grind / a problem / an issue with a fellow poster or a company or even the SC I'd most likely air my views to them direct & not let all & sundry know my business, but hey that's just me....regardless how they're linked.

BTW....if the above is regulating threads then I'm guilty as charged ...
 
My issues and motives have been laid out. I'm not sure what your issues and motives are to question the issues and motives when they've been laid out.

I'm doing what I'm doing because its the right thing to do and not because I want approval from people. The thread is all about WASC not being open an honest. The best way to deal with this, if you feel that I'm taking the thread off course or triggering you, is hit the ignore button. If N"Zogbia's fan club thinks the same thing, in his thread, happy to stop posting.
I'm not sure why I'm being mentioned here. I think we (on here) are asking questions on 2 fronts:
1. Transparency of the whole issue of the 1st Crowdfunder - from why they aren't targeting donors only to vote - to their predetermined usage of funds - asking for opinions (conflict of interest on Chair's appointment as Trustee to the board which will be beneficiaries of £170k!!!) - how they think a very small %age of voters is representative of approx 4k of donors - the SLO's opinions and not the SC's - only answering selective questions etc etc
2. The 1st Crowdfunder £200k, Administrators & SC's treatment of it & disclosure & non-disclosure.
Personally I want to pursue No 1 only as I think we have a right to demand transparency of the SC who are the official WAFC's supporters' club.
However I do understand issue No 2 but imo it is between WL, the SC & Administrators but not the new owners.
If I were the SC I'd discuss this with WL personally & admit where they have gone wrong if they have.
No one is too big to admit errors.
 
Interesting that on one hand the SC are claiming the club didn't wish to take any money from them. However they are now sponsoring Tom Naylor.
Are the club giving them this sponsorship for free - if not someone's pants are on fire here 🤔
More smoke and mirrors and still no conflicted individual timings answers - bad bad crack this 🙄
 
Interesting that on one hand the SC are claiming the club didn't wish to take any money from them. However they are now sponsoring Tom Naylor.
Are the club giving them this sponsorship for free - if not someone's pants are on fire here 🤔
More smoke and mirrors and still no conflicted individual timings answers - bad bad crack this 🙄
I'll be sponsoring a player under WASCtruth.com or something similar once the club get back to me!

Strangely since WASC told me the only contact I'll have is via their solicitors, because they didn't like the questions I asked or me pointing out their version of events (time line on the soft loan, details on legal documents) were incorrect, still not happened after 2 weeks! Smoke and mirrors indeed.
 
I'll be sponsoring a player under WASCtruth.com or something similar once the club get back to me!

Strangely since WASC told me the only contact I'll have is via their solicitors, because they didn't like the questions I asked or me pointing out their version of events (time line on the soft loan, details on legal documents) were incorrect, still not happened after 2 weeks! Smoke and mirrors indeed.
I hope you succeed. If not - perhaps make an anagram of those letters.