Supporters Club | Page 28 | Vital Football

Supporters Club

Long term reader and this thread is great.

How do the supporters club get the opinion of fans on how to proceed with a bidder when they cant say who the bidder is or what the bid is because of an NDA? If they don't sign the NDA then nobody will want to work with them. The only people to go public are Ian Lenagan and the Americans. The Americans didn't even bid enough money apparently.

If Ian Lenagan (or anyone) wants to buy the club, how do the supporters club stop him? All they can do is try to get some form of voice so that he cant just decide to change the kit to cherry and white hoops, but ultimately if he has the money to buy the club they cant do anything about it and neither can anyone else.

Who is deemed to be controversial? Plenty of our fans didnt like Whelan and thought he was on the rob. If Lenagan is the only bidder are people seriously suggesting we should go bust instead? Not that we are the people that get to decide that.

They have said they have lawyers working with them as well as the FSA (a member of which owned Pompey as a fan) so I don't think they will just give away 600k for the chance to vote on what shade of blue the kit is.

If people don't trust them then why give them your money?
 
Sir Andy Liddell said:
Long term reader and this thread is great.

How do the supporters club get the opinion of fans on how to proceed with a bidder when they cant say who the bidder is or what the bid is because of an NDA? If they don't sign the NDA then nobody will want to work with them. The only people to go public are Ian Lenagan and the Americans. The Americans didn't even bid enough money apparently.

If Ian Lenagan (or anyone) wants to buy the club, how do the supporters club stop him? All they can do is try to get some form of voice so that he cant just decide to change the kit to cherry and white hoops, but ultimately if he has the money to buy the club they cant do anything about it and neither can anyone else.

Who is deemed to be controversial? Plenty of our fans didnt like Whelan and thought he was on the rob. If Lenagan is the only bidder are people seriously suggesting we should go bust instead? Not that we are the people that get to decide that.

They have said they have lawyers working with them as well as the FSA (a member of which owned Pompey as a fan) so I don't think they will just give away 600k for the chance to vote on what shade of blue the kit is.

If people don't trust them then why give them your money?
Click to expand...
Because a lot of people think some sort of fan ownership is the way to go.
 
Wlatic said:
Its why I will not give money, but should someone ask for food I've not problem taking them to a store/eatery and buying them what ever food they want. At least you can be pretty sure its going to and that you are helping someone.
Click to expand...
Thats the answer some one gives as they steo over a homless person in the street, when was the last time you took homless person to a "eatery"
When its pay day at your business do you put conditions on what your employess can spend their wages on, or do you treat them like adults
 
Last edited:
Wlatic said:
No, I just like info that's backed up, from their website:

"Wigan Athletic Supporters Club has been running for over 40 years now, providing travel to Wigan Athletic first team away games for its members. Wigan Athletic Supporters Club is a non-profit organisation which allows us to keep the costs low for travelling to away games, without compromising safety, comfort or security click here to apply."

As i've stated previously, the money was given with a lot of apprehension and they've done very little to belay those feelings. The long and short is some fan ownership is better than none.


Ah so you're saying that giving more is less, understood. Decisions in life will generally get people to the situation they find themselves in.

I'm not sure how accountable the supporters club is being held, who they should be accountable to and how it can be judged. I'm not the only one who has concerns and will continue to push on here as they dont respond to other communication. I understand in the grand scheme of things I'm not important enough for them to bother with, but i'll continue anyway. If that triggers you I think its more your issue than mine.
Click to expand...
Your arrogance is obvious
 
Made in Wigan said:
I’m aware how they’re selected. I said they weren’t selected by the majority of fans. The majority of fans aren’t SC members. This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp. As such this minority should not be representing the majority on such an important decision if that decision involves supporting a controversial individual or group - as that would go beyond the scope of expectation when donations were asked for.
Click to expand...
If you are aware of how they are selected and understand the remit that they asked for donation via the fundraiser. Assuming you have donated, then you have 2 choices in my opinion (taking my SLO hat off a sec).
1. Not to have donated and therefore no choices over your money would have to be made by the SC on your behalf.
2. Put up with the decision you have made when donating when you knew and agreed to all the facts.
 
Sir Andy Liddell said:
Long term reader and this thread is great.

How do the supporters club get the opinion of fans on how to proceed with a bidder when they cant say who the bidder is or what the bid is because of an NDA? If they don't sign the NDA then nobody will want to work with them. The only people to go public are Ian Lenagan and the Americans. The Americans didn't even bid enough money apparently.

If Ian Lenagan (or anyone) wants to buy the club, how do the supporters club stop him? All they can do is try to get some form of voice so that he cant just decide to change the kit to cherry and white hoops, but ultimately if he has the money to buy the club they cant do anything about it and neither can anyone else.

Who is deemed to be controversial? Plenty of our fans didnt like Whelan and thought he was on the rob. If Lenagan is the only bidder are people seriously suggesting we should go bust instead? Not that we are the people that get to decide that.

They have said they have lawyers working with them as well as the FSA (a member of which owned Pompey as a fan) so I don't think they will just give away 600k for the chance to vote on what shade of blue the kit is.

If people don't trust them then why give them your money?
Click to expand...

Welcome back Norm.

The two controversial bidders in Smurthwaite and Pollard have already gone public. So no nda would be breached. To answer your question they couldn’t realistically stop either as it’s down to krasner. They could avoid working with them in partnership by providing funding to allow them taking control.
 
WiganSLO said:
If you are aware of how they are selected and understand the remit that they asked for donation via the fundraiser. Assuming you have donated, then you have 2 choices in my opinion (taking my SLO hat off a sec).
1. Not to have donated and therefore no choices over your money would have to be made by the SC on your behalf.
2. Put up with the decision you have made when donating when you knew and agreed to all the facts.
Click to expand...

I did donate and took out one of those tier packages they promoted. However as I’ve stated, it was done with good intent as it was necessary to raise funds to keep the clubs ongoing viability options open. I don’t expect it to be used to go into partnership with any questionable individual or group without further scrutiny being applied to that decision. Effectively they asked for donations in good faith, so it should be used in that manner, not to support as I said any purchase that could be considered controversial.
 
Made in Wigan said:
I did donate and took out one of those tier packages they promoted. However as I’ve stated, it was done with good intent as it was necessary to raise funds to keep the clubs ongoing viability options open. I don’t expect it to be used to go into partnership with any questionable individual or group without further scrutiny being applied to that decision. Effectively they asked for donations in good faith, so it should be used in that manner, not to support as I said any purchase that could be considered controversial.
Click to expand...
Nothing was hidden, the intent for the money was clearly defined and as you have said, you understood everything. 'In good faith', I am not sure how that applies when the process is still ongoing and there may be an opportunity to fulfil the intent as defined and agreed to?
 
Sir Andy Liddell said:
And if they have a stake then thats what we have, but the club is worth 3m apparently. They have 600k.

If they dont buy the ground, or "get into bed with lenagan", where do we play?
Click to expand...
Lenagan wouldn't be ideal, from the split loyality point of view, but that just makes the SC planning that much more important.
 
Come on Wigan said:
Thats the answer some one gives as they steo over a homless person in the street, when was the last time you took homless person to a "eatery"
When its pay day at your business do you put conditions on what your employess can spend their wages on, or do you treat them like adults
Click to expand...

So a "homeless" person is now an employee? Money isn't what they need, but its what they ask for.

November 28th 2019 (Thanks giving USA), was asked by someone if I had any money to spare while walking near a Wendys. Used my normal line "I dont have any cash, but if you want food I'd be happy to buy it", he accepted and said Wendys sounded good to him. He followed me into Wendys and I told him he could order what ever he wanted, he ordered a single meal and I told him get more if he wanted it and he declined.

WiganSLO said:
If you are aware of how they are selected and understand the remit that they asked for donation via the fundraiser. Assuming you have donated, then you have 2 choices in my opinion (taking my SLO hat off a sec).
1. Not to have donated and therefore no choices over your money would have to be made by the SC on your behalf.
2. Put up with the decision you have made when donating when you knew and agreed to all the facts.
Click to expand...

There is also a 3rd option, ask the SC to adhere to the new company / trust which the charter states:

"being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters"
"operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently"
"being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all supporters of the club regardless of age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality or religious or moral belief"

For those of us who had concerns about what you guys are doing and the way you are doing it, this is unlikely to ease those concerns.
 
Last edited:
Wlatic said:
So a "homeless" person is now an employee? Money isn't what they need, but its what they ask for.

November 28th 2019 (Thanks giving USA), was asked by someone if I had any money to spare while walking near a Wendys. Used my normal line "I dont have any cash, but if you want food I'd be happy to buy it", he accepted and said Wendys sounded good to him. He followed me into Wendys and I told him he could order what ever he wanted, he ordered a single meal and I told him get more if he wanted it and he declined.
Click to expand...
What a heart warming story
 
WiganSLO said:
Nothing was hidden, the intent for the money was clearly defined and as you have said, you understood everything. 'In good faith', I am not sure how that applies when the process is still ongoing and there may be an opportunity to fulfil the intent as defined and agreed to?
Click to expand...

I haven’t said anything was hidden - the intent was to raise funds to aid in ensuring the club is/was viable going forward if needed. Expectations would be with a sound, respectable partner - not someone who would be considered controversial or would divide the fan base. If it was to be the latter then I expect further consultations given the implications of the decision and the money involved.
 
Wlatic said:
So a "homeless" person is now an employee? Money isn't what they need, but its what they ask for.

November 28th 2019 (Thanks giving USA), was asked by someone if I had any money to spare while walking near a Wendys. Used my normal line "I dont have any cash, but if you want food I'd be happy to buy it", he accepted and said Wendys sounded good to him. He followed me into Wendys and I told him he could order what ever he wanted, he ordered a single meal and I told him get more if he wanted it and he declined.



There is also a 3rd option, ask the SC to adhere to the new company / trust which the charter states:

"being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters"
"operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently"
"being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all supporters of the club regardless of age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality or religious or moral belief"

For those of us who had concerns about what you guys are doing and the way you are doing it, this is unlikely to ease those concerns.
Click to expand...

They have said that has been setup as a temporary step in a process. Why not just wait till that lrocess is over?
 
Made in Wigan said:
I haven’t said anything was hidden - the intent was to raise funds to aid in ensuring the club is/was viable going forward if needed. Expectations would be with a sound, respectable partner - not someone who would be considered controversial or would divide the fan base. If it was to be the latter then I expect further consultations given the implications of the decision and the money involved.
Click to expand...

Will the spanish divide the fanbase?
 
Sir Andy Liddell said:
They have said that has been setup as a temporary step in a process. Why not just wait till that lrocess is over?
Click to expand...
Because I dont believe you can/should form an organisation with one aim and only enact that aim when "you are ready". Start off as you mean to go on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.