1st crowdfunder | Page 2 | Vital Football

1st crowdfunder

Wlatic

Vital Reserves Team
#21
I would expect them to donate the money directly to the Community Trust and not try to "dream up" new projects. They could make a restricted donation but I do not see that intention in their survey.
Sums up what I've been saying all along. The money wasn't used for what it was donated for and they continue to play fast and loose with it.

I'd recommend you contact crowdfunder to have it refunded, then if they wont goto your card and finally if that doesn't work small claims court. Based on you buying a product from a limited company (crowdfunder.co.uk) it'll be an easy win. Its sad you have to go down this route but the "Supporters Club" have gone rouge.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital Football Hero
#22
While there is nothing wrong with the suggestion to have an option to support local charity all the options shouldn't be to effectively spend money outside of the club.

As others have said the money was given to help the club - there should obviously be options to see the money used to directly benefit the club.

We lost a state of the art training ground, our recruiting department and our youth system took a big hit - surely an option to see the money put towards the rebuilding of one of those would be reasonable.
 
#23
I think you already know my views on this lot, you've rubbished them enough!
I've never rubbished them before. I have been supporting them - understanding that they're volunteering their time (inspite of job & family commitments) when we needed them most - fundraising & representing the supporters.
However, this makes me query the direction they are heading towards - not adhering to their promise.
 

Lazysid

Vital 1st Team Regular
#24
Some good points on this thread.
After a bit of searching their website where I couldn't see their link I found it via a Twitter (which I dont do)
I've not chosen any option but left the comment that the money should be used within the club as originally intended.
 

SwindonLatic

Vital Squad Member
#26
Saw this from Twitter
The Supporters Fund

We need your views!
In August 2020 Wigan Athletic Supporters Club rallied fans and friends of WAFC to raise just over £200,000 to save Wigan Athletic from extinction during the 2019/20 season. These monies were used to help keep the football club running at the start of administration, and ensured that the season’s fixtures could be completed.

The Crowdfunder campaign stated that…

“All monies will be given to help Wigan Athletic function in these uncertain times. Should there be anything left over, we will put it towards projects within the club, stadium improvements or the Community Trust”

Following the successful sale of the club, the administrators were able to return funds to the Supporters Club. So now we’d like to hear your views on the projects that you’d most like us to support with the donations.

Working together with Wigan Athletic and Wigan Athletic Community Trust we are proposing a number of options for community-focused projects, each of which would involve the council and sponsors to utilise and make the very most of the funds over the next two years. We are asking supporters to select their preferred three choices from the options below.


In addition, if you have any suggestions or comments you would like us to consider please use the form to let us know!
View attachment 49461
Why haven’t they emailed us all directly about this? I’m not on Twitter so would have missed this. Thanks for posting 👍
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital Football Hero
#27
Some good points on this thread.
After a bit of searching their website where I couldn't see their link I found it via a Twitter (which I dont do)
I've not chosen any option but left the comment that the money should be used within the club as originally intended.
I did the same. With all due respect to their selected causes, as worthy as they may be I may have been willing to donate a small amount to them but wouldn't have donated the hundreds of pounds towards that I put in the crowd funder.

I was willing to donate that money to helping save the club - if we aren't getting a refund - personally I want to see my donation go towards something that is as close to it's original indented purpose as possible. The clubs infrastructure and facilities have all been reduced any money towards getting us back to pre admin levels that young, current and future fans or players can benefit from gets my vote.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital Football Hero
#28
Why haven’t they emailed us all directly about this? I’m not on Twitter so would have missed this. Thanks for posting 👍
Also this really should've gone only to members or people who donated.

You could end up with people who didn't put any money in having a vote on how it's spent. It may not massively swing anything but it's just common sense to try and minimise voting from people who didn't donate and maximise feedback from those that did.

I really think direct correspondence rather than publicly on Twitter would've been the most appropriate approach.
 

Lazysid

Vital 1st Team Regular
#29
Some good points on this thread.
After a bit of searching their website where I couldn't see their link I found it via a Twitter (which I dont do)
I've not chosen any option but left the comment that the money should be used within the club as originally intended.
Had to recheck to verify - but I also left a comment that I didnt agree with the options available.
 

moonay

Vital Champions League
#32
You're trying so hard....hand on heart. Don't tell me the SC has never done anything wrong.
What a silly thing to say. As Daleks has already pointed out, they've done what they promised up front. No more, no less.

As for "never done anything wrong", why try and switch the discussion point? .....unless you concede that they're simply following their original commitment, and you don't want to admit it.

I don't know anyone on the SC, but I can completely empathise with the position in which they found themselves, and the commitment they've given to seeing us through to where we are now.
 

jocklatic

Vital 1st Team Regular
#33
What a silly thing to say. As Daleks has already pointed out, they've done what they promised up front. No more, no less.

As for "never done anything wrong", why try and switch the discussion point? .....unless you concede that they're simply following their original commitment, and you don't want to admit it.

I don't know anyone on the SC, but I can completely empathise with the position in which they found themselves, and the commitment they've given to seeing us through to where we are now.
Empathise all you want Moonay but surely you can concede that there could have been / can be more fan engagement with how they reached the decision with the money & why or even what were the other proposals for the money. They could have also reached out to fans so they covered a better cross section / more fans.
You'd have also thought that given the criticism they received during admin & the lack of information ( despite NDA's) you'd have thot they'd be more forthcoming with information....zero NDA's to stop them this time. It certainly ain't a great advert for the SC or trying to get folks to join the SC...
 
#35
What a silly thing to say. As Daleks has already pointed out, they've done what they promised up front. No more, no less.

As for "never done anything wrong", why try and switch the discussion point? .....unless you concede that they're simply following their original commitment, and you don't want to admit it.

I don't know anyone on the SC, but I can completely empathise with the position in which they found themselves, and the commitment they've given to seeing us through to where we are now.
I think you should stop chiding posters. After all you did "campaign" for free speech.
I'll tell you why I'm not being silly:-

The crowdfunder appeal stated ""Should there be anything left over, we will put it towards projects within the club, stadium improvements or the Community Trust”
Tell me why they have not explored the 1st 2 options. If they have - they have not advised us why they could not explore those 2 options.
Why plump for the 3rd option only?
ps I truly cannot understand why they think less or no communication is the best way to treat people. A number of the committee are in public facing jobs and yet do not understand that communication is the key to good relationships.
btw - I fully supported the SC (I have posted my support on here many times) until I saw that Twitter poll.
 
Last edited:

moonay

Vital Champions League
#36
NZFC, it was silly because you made something up. You massively over-embellished, in order to support your viewpoint.

It was also silly because you don't seem to grasp that the club - by returning the money - have (effectively) said that it's not needed for options 1 and 2.

"Chiding" ? We're debating a point. Who's telling you that you can't have your say?

I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you, Wlatic and others. We're all entitled to our own opinions. However, when insinuations are made about the integrity of the SC members (none of whom I've ever met nor spoken to), I feel they deserve to be defended.
 

Made in Wigan

Vital Football Hero
#37
Yet the club haven’t said that. To my knowledge.

The money could be used to spruce up the supporters club, reduce the price of refreshments in there, provide heavily discounted or free travel for important fixtures over the coming years. It could be used for stadium banners and other suggestions donators have put forward.

It could be used for lots of things. It shouldn’t be exclusively used for charity projects that are far removed from what the money was donated for in the first place. The SC chair is now a Trustee on the CT and the money is being filtered/funnelled/diverted/sent, or whatever term you want to use, there. There is massive flashing neon sign saying conflict of interest here.
 

moonay

Vital Champions League
#38
I accept they haven't "publicly" said this MiW, which is why I added the "effectively" caveat.

If they wanted it for such projects, then given the (apparently) far better discourse between the Board and the SC nowadays, one would assume (ok NZFC ?) that the option had been discussed before the options were offered.

I can't imagine for a second the club thinking "we could do with that £200k for xxxxx", and not saying anything to the SC about it.

I may be wrong ..... but according to Jock, I never am.
😉
 

TRUE BELIEVER

Vital 1st Team Regular
#39
NZFC, it was silly because you made something up. You massively over-embellished, in order to support your viewpoint.

It was also silly because you don't seem to grasp that the club - by returning the money - have (effectively) said that it's not needed for options 1 and 2.

"Chiding" ? We're debating a point. Who's telling you that you can't have your say?

I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you, Wlatic and others. We're all entitled to our own opinions. However, when insinuations are made about the integrity of the SC members (none of whom I've ever met nor spoken to), I feel they deserve to be defended.
I must admit Moonay, you are normally one to sit on the fence and see both sides of the argument for what they are, in this case you seem to have nailed your colours to the mast. Therefore I think someone needs to take your place and keep your fence warm.

I think that there are merits to both sides of the argument that could be cleared up by an unambiguous statement from the SC to clarify exactly how the process of deciding the use of the funds was come to.

For myself it comes down to a simple matter of the majority of people who made donations agreeing to the money being used for the causes mentioned. However, the SC have not made that clear and have simply released a statement that uses percentages as their guidelines. Percentages of what is the question I need to have answered. If the percentage is of an ultra low turnout to vote then questions need to be asked and answered as to why that turnout was so low.

If on the other hand that turnout was a reasonable percentage of the people who donated the money in the first place then the result vindicates itself and people should abide by its decision.

This can simply be cleared up by the SC releasing the complete figures for the ballot including the total number of votes cast, the number of individual donations received and the voting numbers for each option.

There is also the question of why other alternatives by donors were either not considered or simply ignored and once again a transparent answer would be appreciated. Was it that there was simply too many options to consider and using a sub committee vote they were weeded out and discarded or was it thought that they were irrelevant, in which case the SC would have a case to answer.

As I say, all these points could be cleared up by a simple release of information or even if Jay Whittle were to interview Caroline Molyneux and put the questions to her. I suggest Jay because he did a sterling job earlier in the piece and seems to have support from many of the fans.

Either way the SC need to stand up and face up to the reality that people are unhappy about the use of the money and for the sake of their reputation clarify the points that are being raised. I seriously doubt that anyone really wants to see this becoming a legal matter.
 

jocklatic

Vital 1st Team Regular
#40
I must admit Moonay, you are normally one to sit on the fence and see both sides of the argument for what they are, in this case you seem to have nailed your colours to the mast. Therefore I think someone needs to take your place and keep your fence warm.

I think that there are merits to both sides of the argument that could be cleared up by an unambiguous statement from the SC to clarify exactly how the process of deciding the use of the funds was come to.

For myself it comes down to a simple matter of the majority of people who made donations agreeing to the money being used for the causes mentioned. However, the SC have not made that clear and have simply released a statement that uses percentages as their guidelines. Percentages of what is the question I need to have answered. If the percentage is of an ultra low turnout to vote then questions need to be asked and answered as to why that turnout was so low.

If on the other hand that turnout was a reasonable percentage of the people who donated the money in the first place then the result vindicates itself and people should abide by its decision.

This can simply be cleared up by the SC releasing the complete figures for the ballot including the total number of votes cast, the number of individual donations received and the voting numbers for each option.

There is also the question of why other alternatives by donors were either not considered or simply ignored and once again a transparent answer would be appreciated. Was it that there was simply too many options to consider and using a sub committee vote they were weeded out and discarded or was it thought that they were irrelevant, in which case the SC would have a case to answer.

As I say, all these points could be cleared up by a simple release of information or even if Jay Whittle were to interview Caroline Molyneux and put the questions to her. I suggest Jay because he did a sterling job earlier in the piece and seems to have support from many of the fans.

Either way the SC need to stand up and face up to the reality that people are unhappy about the use of the money and for the sake of their reputation clarify the points that are being raised. I seriously doubt that anyone really wants to see this becoming a legal matter.

👏👏👏👏...a voice of reason & covering both sides of this debate...well said sir.