1st crowdfunder

[WiganSLO]

The low voting numbers could be due to the fact that the donors were not aware of the voting.
You haven't yet answered as to whether the SC has access to email addresses of the direct donors.
I'm sure the SC does and if they had emailed them (GDPR is not affected as the SC will only be writing to thank them and also ask for their vote participation) I'm sure the response would be much higher as you're connecting to an engaged audience.
Concerning money offered to the new owners - new ipad etc is laughable. Has the SC thought about fans engagement eg activities pre 1st home game, larger banners etc to make the stadium less sterile and have a more football feel (as opposed to Rugby).

Could be, but we will never know.
They don't have them, but as you say could possibly have got them if they asked CF, but they didn't do an email shot for whatever reasons so is irrelevant(maybe because it would have had to be done via a third party, as I assume you need specialist software/company to email 4,000 emails).

 

[WiganSLO]

But that isn't what happened based on legal documents from the administration. Maybe I missed the part where WASC crowdfunder.co.uk said they were going to soft-loan money and have it sit in a bank account (reference https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00270043/filing-history -> 20 Jan 2021 Administrator's progress report -> Page 10 -> Header Expenditure

The new owners seem to want to engage with the fans and if actual good suggestions were put forward to them (I've seen a few great one's on the forum that wouldn't have costed much and made a great impact). Strange how you've quoted 0.5% of people have an issue with how you've handled funds and 99.8% of people didn't redonate their funds (including myself) for the 2nd fundraiser.

If this is Jason its kind of funny how hard lined you're being here, certainly wasn't the same when the chairman was CC'ed, zero questions answered since July 10th.

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.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

If only 250 people voted out of a potential 3877, i think that it doesn't necessarily show people 'couldn't be bothered', it doesn't suggest apathy it suggests to me there was a severe lack of awareness of the poll.

I'm sure some people were happy to let their money go wherever deemed best and didn't vote, but realistically i don't believe that 95% of donors would not care about having a say on how it is spent when it was their money they put in.

If you going to donate 200k to another cause than it was originally raised for, I think that it's the SC's responsibility to try and get approval from as many of the donors as possible. I'm not suggesting that you'll get a huge response rate but 5% is very low.

If there was no option to return the money, the club didn't want it and charity was were it was going - that's fine, i've no issue with that. But was there no way they could email the link to everyone so if they weren't on social media they'd see it? Could they not have tweeted out the link multiple times in case people on social media missed it? Could they not have asked the club to share it on the official page where the reach would be wider? I really don't think these are clever ideas suggested in hindsight, just common sense and unreasonable things that could've been attempted.

If they emailed everyone directly and the numbers were still so low then fair enough - no one can say they didn't have a chance and you go with that. But as stated in an earlier post not everyone is on social media, and the tweet of the poll was sent out once and had a very low reach in terms of likes and shares. It doesn't feel like a lot of effort was made to raise awareness and the numbers seem to prove that. In such an instance surely there should've been more effort to try and let the donors know the poll existed and ask them to vote? This is 200k we are talking about - there is a certain level of responsibility when redirecting these funds to a different cause (no matter how worthy) to make sure your donors know and are happy with it - the number of poll responses suggest that hasn't happened.

 

[BVBLatic]

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the chain of events here. The 1st Crowdfunder was collected for a specific purpose, which was to get the club to the end of the season. It achieved exactly that purpose thanks to the generosity of many fans. When the funds were first collected it was clear that this would be non-refundable to the fans and it wasn't known at the outset that the admin was actually going to treat it as a soft loan and pay it back at some time in the future. So to get the money back was unexpected. You can also look at it that the funds were used actually 100% as described, which they were (to get the club to the end of the season), but admin then paid back to the SC an amount equivalent to that which was collected. SC then decided to donate this effectively back to the community as the club itself didn't want it. Hopefully if people understand it that way, then it puts this all to bed and we can all move on and just be grateful for all the hard work the SC has put into helping save the club behind the scenes.

Roll on the new season :-)

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

You could always step in, take their place and no doubt everything will be pretty much perfect from then on. Maybe WLatic, MIW and N'Zogbia's fan club will join you and make the whole organisation flawless. But I suspect you're all happier sitting on the outside and throwing stones at those on the inside.

Yep, I could, but that would not solve the current issue would it.

As far as throwing stones from the sidelines goes I have made some respectful comments and accused no one.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

"The majority on this forum seem to have an issue. Perhaps many are not aware of the issues as they have never been contacted!"

Are you sure about this? It just seems to be a few repeat offenders. To me the majority admit that the process hasn't been without fault, but that a few volunteers who set out to save their club despite having no previous experience, picked up a stick that only had a shitty end, did their best and only ever had the best of intentions.

I have never said that their job was easy. I am merely concerned that it would appear from the figures we have been given that very few people have responded to their request and am concerned that insufficient publicity was given for people to vote.

Perhaps you are not concerned about the fact that the distribution of £200k raised by around 4000 supporters of the club has been decided on by a little over 209 people. I am, and as such will continue to raise questions as to why the other 95% failed to respond.

 

[ZAKKY]

I AM ABSOLUTELY BORED SHITLESS WITH THIS POST NOW

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the chain of events here. The 1st Crowdfunder was collected for a specific purpose, which was to get the club to the end of the season. It achieved exactly that purpose thanks to the generosity of many fans. When the funds were first collected it was clear that this would be non-refundable to the fans and it wasn't known at the outset that the admin was actually going to treat it as a soft loan and pay it back at some time in the future. So to get the money back was unexpected. You can also look at it that the funds were used actually 100% as described, which they were (to get the club to the end of the season), but admin then paid back to the SC an amount equivalent to that which was collected. SC then decided to donate this effectively back to the community as the club itself didn't want it. Hopefully if people understand it that way, then it puts this all to bed and we can all move on and just be grateful for all the hard work the SC has put into helping save the club behind the scenes.

Roll on the new season :-)

It would be great to put this to bed. However, can anyone really say that the funds have been correctly distributed when only 5% (209) people of the approx. 4000 people who donated them have made the decision.

As has been said, the only way that the poll was advertised was on social media and there are a number of donors who do not subscribe to that means of communication. Why was there no direct contact of donors either from the information available from crowdfunder or from the SC's own database of members.

 

[moonay]

It would be great to put this to bed. However, can anyone really say that the funds have been correctly distributed when only 5% (209) people of the approx. 4000 people who donated them have made the decision.

As has been said, the only way that the poll was advertised was on social media and there are a number of donors who do not subscribe to that means of communication. Why was there no direct contact of donors either from the information available from crowdfunder or from the SC's own database of members.

Though a part of me understands your concern TB, my underlying feeling is that the vast majority of (if not all) donors gave their money without ever expecting to comment on how it might be further used in future.

Moreover, a (different) majority probably don't follow the SC on FB, or twitter,, and don't frequent messageboards (such as this .......though CL doesn't appear to have the same uproar).

I get your point re the SC emailing all it's members ....... though that of course assumes that all members actually donated. (Probable, but by no means certain). However, there's also the flipside assumption .............. that any SC member who'd donated (in fact, they didn't even need to be an SC member) could have checked the SC site, and they'd have seen the survey on there. I fully get that not everyone uses social media, but I'd have thought that SC members, who were seeking news about the takeover would have occasionally visited the SC site to catch up on whatever news was on there.

If they weren't aware of the survey through social media, and didn't take the initiative to look at the SC site, then maybe it's reasonable to suggest that they weren't/aren't all that bothered about the allocation of the surplus funds. Obviously, I don't know if this is right, and even if it is, I would agree that it still doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been made aware of the survey .............. but they still might not have given much of a shit.

 

[WiganSLO]

Perhaps you are not concerned about the fact that the distribution of £200k raised by around 4000 supporters of the club has been decided on by a little over 209 people. I am, and as such will continue to raise questions as to why the other 95% failed to respond.

To be clear, not all the money was returned.

Also, the money will be going to the CT as described and promised, irrelevant on what people voted for. There were 5 areas the CT were looking at distributing the funds and those were the 5 that were on the survey. If you take the survey out of the equation, the money is going to the CT.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

Though a part of me understands your concern TB, my underlying feeling is that the vast majority of (if not all) donors gave their money without ever expecting to comment on how it might be further used in future.

Moreover, a (different) majority probably don't follow the SC on FB, or twitter,, and don't frequent messageboards (such as this .......though CL doesn't appear to have the same uproar).

I get your point re the SC emailing all it's members ....... though that of course assumes that all members actually donated. (Probable, but by no means certain). However, there's also the flipside assumption .............. that any SC member who'd donated (in fact, they didn't even need to be an SC member) could have checked the SC site, and they'd have seen the survey on there. I fully get that not everyone uses social media, but I'd have thought that SC members, who were seeking news about the takeover would have occasionally visited the SC site to catch up on whatever news was on there.

If they weren't aware of the survey through social media, and didn't take the initiative to look at the SC site, then maybe it's reasonable to suggest that they weren't/aren't all that bothered about the allocation of the surplus funds. Obviously, I don't know if this is right, and even if it is, I would agree that it still doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been made aware of the survey .............. but they still might not have given much of a shit.

I totally respect that most people donated the money without the expectation of having a say in its usage, however, the fact that the SC have seen fit to hold a poll in my opinion obliges them to see that it is held with fairness to all donors and not just those that log on to the SC website and other social media. Jason has already stated that this was not a pre-requisite for using the money but was an option they took.

Just to set the record straight, I am not opposed to the SC donating the funds to the ST. In fact I am more than happy to see the money being used for community projects.

My gripe is with the way that this was done and the cloak and dagger way that the figures were not disclosed. My initial post on this was that I didn't want to take sides, and I still don't, but for me there is a problem in that so few people are wielding the power over the outcome of this poll.

We are told that 209 people voted for the options given, do the SC know who those people are and if they in fact had anything to do with the initial donations. For all we know they could be people totally unconnected to the club and have their own agenda's.

There is so much about the way this has been conducted that raise concerns that I feel obliged to speak my mind. There have to be restrictions and parameters set and it would appear that in this case that has not happened. I understand that the SC management are not paid professionals in this type of matter but I feel they should have taken their time and reached out for advice from people who do have the necessary experience.

All in all this is a shambles and it needn't have been. I mentioned in a previous post that this appeared to be a "hot potato" that had to be dealt with immediately, whereas in essence I believe they should have taken a step back and taken time out to formulate a way to contact the people who donated directly.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

To be clear, not all the money was returned.

Also, the money will be going to the CT as described and promised, irrelevant on what people voted for. There were 5 areas the CT were looking at distributing the funds and those were the 5 that were on the survey. If you take the survey out of the equation, the money is going to the CT.

Once again, thanks for the reply.

I appreciate not all the money was returned but the bulk of it was.

In my post replying to Moonay above I have said that personally I have no issues with the money going to the CT. I have also detailed my "gripe" with what has gone on.

The problem for me is that the way the poll has been conducted was too open to manipulation from outside influence, in that it appears that no one knows who the people that voted are and that they may have not been anyone associated with the donations.

In my opinion the way this was conducted leaves the results open to being challenged. It would surely have benefitted the SC to have polled people it knew that had an affiliation with the funds and not just open this up to all and sundry by openly posting the request for votes on social media and not requiring proof of donation.

I believe they rushed into this headlong without taking the time to examine ways of making the voting available to only those that donated the money. In my opinion this is reflected in the low turn out and fails to reflect accurately the views on the options offered of those that were precluded by the failure to contact them.

Once again thank you for taking the time to reply and I do understand that you probably have more important issues to deal with, but unfortunately, for some of us this is important and deserves to be resolved.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

Been a Wigan fan for well over 55 years. Now. And find it hard to understand. Why any one who owns the club. Would not take. Money if it was offered. To them. Like some have even said. We could have had some. New seats in a stand. With a big thank you. Printed into them. Not fault finding. As I know a few who run things. And in past years. I was part of it. And why we are on the subject any one any information on the wall. fundraiser. As I thought that was a great idea.

I donated to the "Wall" fund as well John and have not heard it mentioned in months. Perhaps someone could tell us were and what has been done with the money collected from that appeal.

 

[N"Zogbia's fan club]

Could be, but we will never know.
They don't have them, but as you say could possibly have got them if they asked CF, but they didn't do an email shot for whatever reasons so is irrelevant(maybe because it would have had to be done via a third party, as I assume you need specialist software/company to email 4,000 emails).

***"Could be, but we will never know." - £170k so why not make an effort?
For information - you can use Mailchimp so no specialist software/company needed. You need to register and you can then either use their pre-formatted template or design your own.
As there are 5k mailing addresses it'll cost approx £39/mth. The SC can close the Mailchimp account after a few months - it will be money well spent.
***"...but they didn't do an email shot for whatever reasons so is irrelevant". A rather flippant opinion. Can I remind you that £170k was entrusted to the SC so the least we expect from the SC is a proper and thought out consultation.
You have been giving your own opinion when answering questions. As you are the mouthpiece for the SC can we get correct answers from them instead of your opinions please.

 

[N"Zogbia's fan club]

I donated to the "Wall" fund as well John and have not heard it mentioned in months. Perhaps someone could tell us were and what has been done with the money collected from that appeal.

It was Martin Tarbuck (Mudhutter) who organised it. He was asked months ago & he said he's waiting to talk to the owners.

 

[Lazysid]

New seats in a stand. With a big thank you. Printed into them.

That would have been a cracking idea and a wonderful gesture from the fans to the new owners.

 

[exiled tic]

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.

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!!

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

It was Martin Tarbuck (Mudhutter) who organised it. He was asked months ago & he said he's waiting to talk to the owners.

Thanks NZFC, I hope it goes ahead as a remembrance of fans past and present.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

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!!

Exiled, it's not about reasoning with people, it's about being fair to those who have donated hard earned cash during a pandemic to save a football club.

It is only right that people ask questions. If Jay Whittle had not asked the questions during the admin period and opened the debate would you have been happy to let the admins carry on with no oversight.

 

[Made in Wigan]

209 people out of nearly 4 thousand voters is an extremely low number. As others have highlighted it’s unsurprising given the lack of publicity, especially as I suspect the viewer figures for the SC website is I suspect tiny. If it wasn’t for being announced on here I’d have known nothing about it. That number in my view doesn’t provide justification for its subsequent use and I now realise why providing transparency around this was so difficult.

As I said weeks ago a period of reflection was necessary. It hasn’t happened which is such a shame, for many reasons. I still disagree with providing funding for a scheme previously provided by the Council as quite frankly none of this sits comfortably with me on several levels. With such a large amount of money there was a fantastic opportunity here to fund lots of supporter projects over the coming years to enhance the supporter experience and grow the young fanbase. I’m frustrated and saddened this opportunity has been lost.