Administration / WASC | Page 3 | Vital Football

Administration / WASC

I'm definitely not a leftie so your assumption that anyone who is not extreme right wing is leftie is 100% wrong.
Do you know the meaning of bigotry?

But you make assumptions about me though.

I don't explain myself to anyone but for what it's worth the far right disgust me just as much as the far left. Both equally driven by hatred of one thing or the other. Equally feckin stomach turning.
 
No, it doesn't bother me. These are not large corporations who are interested only in self promotion and profit. They are voluntary organisations with people giving up their own time to do good work for the club and community.
You were happy for the money to be spent on coaches and hotels etc but since the new owners and admins agreed this was not needed the money has now been put to helping good causes associated withe the club and local community. some of which help the mental health of local people and encorage people to support the club more.
My point is that if the admins had used the money for the purpose of which it was donated it would be gone now and some comapny would have benefited form it, now it is people in need who are benefited from it.
I don't know why the admins chose not to use it but they did and in my opinion it has gone to an equally goo, if not better use.
Time to move on and stop the senseless and useless feud with WASC

I wonder if you would apply the same logic if the funds donated to a labour cause had then been diverted elsewhere without open and transparent consultation with the donors.

Regardless of if they were full time paid representatives or as you say voluntary they still have the same duty of care. Personally I have no problem with the WASC, but others have, my only gripe with them is that the way they handled this issue was extremely poor and bordered on reckless. The vote was poorly advertised and the original release of only percentage of the vote was certainly undiplomatic and lacked transparency. If people weren't interested in voting then that is their problem but if an organisation, voluntary or otherwise fails in its duty to give people notification and opportunity to place their opinion on record then that is simply wrong.

Your comment that Wlatic should let it drop is totally out of order, if you do not wish to pursue the matter then that is your right, but what gives you the right to tell someone else not to pursue what they believe is a wrong. If you didn't want to be involved in the thread then why look, the heading is quite specific.

Wlatic is obviously unhappy with things that have happened and is looking for answers, much like "partygate", would you advise the media and the opposition parties to drop their questioning....... No, I didn't think so.
 
Don't know if this is the correct thread for this but just reading a Tic from Hindley Green has passed away. His name was David Baker and his family have asked for donations to go to WACT. Cant bring him to mind but probably know him by sight.
 
I wonder if you would apply the same logic if the funds donated to a labour cause had then been diverted elsewhere without open and transparent consultation with the donors.

Regardless of if they were full time paid representatives or as you say voluntary they still have the same duty of care. Personally I have no problem with the WASC, but others have, my only gripe with them is that the way they handled this issue was extremely poor and bordered on reckless. The vote was poorly advertised and the original release of only percentage of the vote was certainly undiplomatic and lacked transparency. If people weren't interested in voting then that is their problem but if an organisation, voluntary or otherwise fails in its duty to give people notification and opportunity to place their opinion on record then that is simply wrong.

Your comment that Wlatic should let it drop is totally out of order, if you do not wish to pursue the matter then that is your right, but what gives you the right to tell someone else not to pursue what they believe is a wrong. If you didn't want to be involved in the thread then why look, the heading is quite specific.

Wlatic is obviously unhappy with things that have happened and is looking for answers, much like "partygate", would you advise the media and the opposition parties to drop their questioning....... No, I didn't think so.
Comparing this to “party gate” is so way off the mark. One involves lying, dishonesty and showing utter contempt for other people whereas the WASC bit is totally the opposite.
So I take it that you and WLatic were happy for the donations to be given to the admins with the proviso they were used to pay hotel and coach companies etc, but when the money was returned to WASC and they couldn’t return it to the original donors, neither did the new club owners want it, then you are upset that it was then to be used to help local good causes and Caroline joined their board to make sure the monies were used properly.
Remember we are not talking about the second fans fund we are talking about the first where people donated a few pounds or tens of pounds rather than hundreds.
 
Comparing this to “party gate” is so way off the mark. One involves lying, dishonesty and showing utter contempt for other people whereas the WASC bit is totally the opposite.
So I take it that you and WLatic were happy for the donations to be given to the admins with the proviso they were used to pay hotel and coach companies etc, but when the money was returned to WASC and they couldn’t return it to the original donors, neither did the new club owners want it, then you are upset that it was then to be used to help local good causes and Caroline joined their board to make sure the monies were used properly.
Remember we are not talking about the second fans fund we are talking about the first where people donated a few pounds or tens of pounds rather than hundreds.

Regardless of how much each individual donated it was still the responsibility of the WASC to safeguard the interests of all of them and to give them the opportunity to determine were the funds were used.

My bone of contention is that this was not done sufficiently well and little or no effort was made to contact or inform donors of the vote. Had they made that effort there could be no discussion as to were the funds finally ended up.

Personally, I have no problem with the funds being used for the good causes supported by WACT, but it would have been better for the sake of all involved if it had been done with more transparency.

As far as the situation with Caroline joining the board of the Community Trust, in my opinion it was bad timing and has no doubt been seen by some as a reward for the donation of a large sum of money. Had they held off on the announcement and given some thought to the timing I feel that a lot of the condemnation could have been avoided.

All that said the initial point you made to which I responded was that Wlatic should cease with his requests for clarification of the links and discussions that took place between the Admins and WASC. As I have said in the previous post what gives you the right to demand that someone should give up on their request for information from them if he feels that there is a reason to doubt their sincerity and judgement over the administration period. Wlatic obviously feels strongly about this and has pursued the answers he requires, which is something that we should be grateful for. If there is nothing to hide then there is no reason that the WASC or admins should not be happy to answer his enquiries but if there is wrongdoing by any of them it should be outed.

As far as comparing it to "partygate", why not, maybe the seriousness of the offences alleged are not the same, but the need for clarity is just as important.

No matter how big or little the lie, shouldn't it be questioned?

I ask again should the opposition and the media back off from questioning BJ over the matter, or for that matter should Wlatic back off from raising legitimate questions over the part played by the supporters club in a possible collusion with the administrators.
 
Comparing this to “party gate” is so way off the mark. One involves lying, dishonesty and showing utter contempt for other people whereas the WASC bit is totally the opposite.
So I take it that you and WLatic were happy for the donations to be given to the admins with the proviso they were used to pay hotel and coach companies etc, but when the money was returned to WASC and they couldn’t return it to the original donors, neither did the new club owners want it, then you are upset that it was then to be used to help local good causes and Caroline joined their board to make sure the monies were used properly.
Remember we are not talking about the second fans fund we are talking about the first where people donated a few pounds or tens of pounds rather than hundreds.
The crowdfunder website could provide names, address, emails etc. For any person that donated via their website. Couldn't and didn't want to (for various reasons) is a big difference. Many people in the first crowdfunder donated 100s.
 
The crowdfunder website could provide names, address, emails etc. For any person that donated via their website. Couldn't and didn't want to (for various reasons) is a big difference. Many people in the first crowdfunder donated 100s.
Totally agree with this.
Thank you for pursuing the case.
 
Last edited:
The crowdfunder website could provide names, address, emails etc. For any person that donated via their website. Couldn't and didn't want to (for various reasons) is a big difference. Many people in the first crowdfunder donated 100s.
I'm not going to go any further with this as we are going around in circles.
Suffice to say that you have your opinioin and I have mine, and we don't agree.
 
Regardless of how much each individual donated it was still the responsibility of the WASC to safeguard the interests of all of them and to give them the opportunity to determine were the funds were used.

My bone of contention is that this was not done sufficiently well and little or no effort was made to contact or inform donors of the vote. Had they made that effort there could be no discussion as to were the funds finally ended up.

Personally, I have no problem with the funds being used for the good causes supported by WACT, but it would have been better for the sake of all involved if it had been done with more transparency.

As far as the situation with Caroline joining the board of the Community Trust, in my opinion it was bad timing and has no doubt been seen by some as a reward for the donation of a large sum of money. Had they held off on the announcement and given some thought to the timing I feel that a lot of the condemnation could have been avoided.

All that said the initial point you made to which I responded was that Wlatic should cease with his requests for clarification of the links and discussions that took place between the Admins and WASC. As I have said in the previous post what gives you the right to demand that someone should give up on their request for information from them if he feels that there is a reason to doubt their sincerity and judgement over the administration period. Wlatic obviously feels strongly about this and has pursued the answers he requires, which is something that we should be grateful for. If there is nothing to hide then there is no reason that the WASC or admins should not be happy to answer his enquiries but if there is wrongdoing by any of them it should be outed.

As far as comparing it to "partygate", why not, maybe the seriousness of the offences alleged are not the same, but the need for clarity is just as important.

No matter how big or little the lie, shouldn't it be questioned?

I ask again should the opposition and the media back off from questioning BJ over the matter, or for that matter should Wlatic back off from raising legitimate questions over the part played by the supporters club in a possible collusion with the administrators.

Yes it should be questioned, but I don't agree with taking it on and on now.
As far as "what gives me the right", I have an opinion and am free to express it on here so long as I am not disrespecting of name calling.
As far as "partygate" is concerned it's a different as chalk and cheese, in my opinion.
I believe this has gone on long enough now and it's time to leave it and move on, obvioulsy a few others have a different opion.
 
I'm not going to go any further with this as we are going around in circles.
Suffice to say that you have your opinioin and I have mine, and we don't agree.

Your opinion doesn't line up with Crowdfunder.co.uk terms and conditions (at the time), nor what they stated to me (and they'd have told you if you asked them). Providing details, of the donators, to the campaign owner is a "Know Your Customer" / Money Laundering requirement. They've actually recently changed their system and have a much better method of doing it, in which you can opt out of having your email address being given. This wasn't around during the WASC crowdfunding campaigns. Im happy for you to have an opinion no matter how wrong it is.
 
Yes it should be questioned, but I don't agree with taking it on and on now.
As far as "what gives me the right", I have an opinion and am free to express it on here so long as I am not disrespecting of name calling.
As far as "partygate" is concerned it's a different as chalk and cheese, in my opinion.
I believe this has gone on long enough now and it's time to leave it and move on, obvioulsy a few others have a different opion.

So you agree that it should be questioned, but that there should be a limit on how far someone should take it. That's quite a strange response.

Where and when is the limit that people should stop, could it be when the answers have been forthcoming and a satisfactory resolution found. Which in this case has not happened and therefore are you suggesting that Wlatic should give up and allow the questions to go unanswered.

Would you accept the same for "partygate" ?

In my opinion there is no difference between finding out the truth about what happened behind closed doors at No10 and finding out the truth about how funds donated by the public were utilised by the Admins and latterly the SC.

Are you advocating one rule for one and another for the other?


You do have a right to your opinion and the right to express it but the sentence below from your initial post is what is in my opinion objectionable.

" it appears that you are motivated by a sense of your own self importance and bloody mindedness. Time to move on."

I would say that the terms "self importance" and "bloody mindedness" used in this context are disrespectful.

I tend to agree with your last sentence that the investigation into the sleaze in government has gone far enough and am sure that most people in the country have had enough, but I seriously doubt that the opposition parties are minded to let it lie.
 
Last edited:
To lie by a prime minister in Parliament, the cathedral of democracy is unforgivable, and if people come to except it, then it is not the same generation i was born into, Vote the buggers out, and when I am at it leave the SC alone.
 
In my opinion there is no difference between finding out the truth about what happened behind closed doors at No10 and finding out the truth about how funds donated by the public were utilised by the Admins and latterly the SC.
.

I agree with an awful lot of what you post on here TB, I can't agree with you equating the above two scenarios.

I do agree that answers possibly/probably remain to be given in both instances, but the two don't hold equal weight or importance.
 
I agree with an awful lot of what you post on here TB, I can't agree with you equating the above two scenarios.

I do agree that answers possibly/probably remain to be given in both instances, but the two don't hold equal weight or importance.

Regardless of the degree of weight or importance in my opinion it is completely justified to compare the two.

I believe that any suspicion of wrong doing deserves the same scrutiny and should be investigated with the same amount of vigour.

Why should one person be scrutinised more than any other, which is the case I am making. I agree that you could argue that the offences differ, however that is not the comparison I am making. The comparison I am making is that both instances deserve equal scrutiny and why should one be dropped whilst the other continue.

I disagree with your statement that the two don't hold equal weight or importance, surely that is dependant on the person. To some the administration of our club could seem more important than something that happened behind closed doors in No10.

To be quite candid, I would wager that most people have little interest in UK politics other than when a scandal hits the headlines, for most people the shenanigans will be forgotten about once the dust settles and the media move on to the next "scandal" in the Westminster bubble.

Personally I couldn't give a flying fig about what a bunch of hooray Henry's did during lockdown, there were many other lockdown breaches and as I have stated in previous posts I have little or no faith in those in power to behave in a manner that becomes their position.

I do however have concerns about the way the administration of our club was handled and the consequences it could have had on the Club, town and support.

To sum it up, there will be some that think that "partygate" is important to them, but there will also be those of us who are more concerned with a matter that had direct consequences on their everyday lives and not something that happened a long way away to people we will probably have no contact with and little chance of affecting the outcome.
 
It's not the behaviour TB ... it's the lying about it in the HoC. I want to be able to always believe and trust the PM, even if I disagree with their politics.

It seems we won't agree, so I'll leave it there.
 
To lie by a prime minister in Parliament, the cathedral of democracy is unforgivable, and if people come to except it, then it is not the same generation i was born into, Vote the buggers out, and when I am at it leave the SC alone.

TBH Dragnet, I am probably from the same generation as you and can remember a number of scandalous statements and acts by politicians of the era. To label our Parliament as the Cathedral of Democracy is, in my opinion, stretching it a bit.

Maybe you are seeing things with a little bit of rose tinted memory.

The governments of both Wilson and Heath were wracked by various scandals and resignations. The thing is that there was no social media in those days and things that went on were not reported to the degree that they are today. There was also more control over the printed and visual media which allowed the press offices of the relative government to put a greater spin on the revelations. .

The misdemeanours of those days were no different to the ones being committed these days but are reported more and more information is available over the internet.

Politicians are politicians and they have always had the propensity to get into trouble, but some were able to brush it off more than others.
 
To lie by a prime minister in Parliament, the cathedral of democracy is unforgivable, and if people come to except it, then it is not the same generation i was born into, Vote the buggers out, and when I am at it leave the SC alone.

TBH daggers you're hardly in a position to take the moral high ground are you as you manage to reference either playing with yourself or masterbating into every post.
Might be an idea sorting yourself out first.
 
It's not the behaviour TB ... it's the lying about it in the HoC. I want to be able to always believe and trust the PM, even if I disagree with their politics.

It seems we won't agree, so I'll leave it there.

Seems a bit naive in my opinion mate. None of them of them can lie straight in bed. Accept that and the disappointment in them should abate.