|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Mar 29, 2018 20:12:49 GMT
When an independent football finance advisor from Supporters Direct prepares one that WCFC Ltd don't fancy answering in full ? So the football club then prepares its own NDA...............I suspect one not quite so comprehensive in its detailed scope ? If there's nothing to hide, where's the problem in total disclosure ? Hampson has already assured us all that " There will be about £ 150,000 left at the end of this season ". Does nothing ever change with the WCFC Board ? www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/16126375.worcester-city-financial-report-delayed-over-tweaked-nda/?ref=mr&lp=10 |
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Mar 30, 2018 17:58:55 GMT
Loving the Billbadger / Bosko rant amongst the comments on that article!
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Mar 30, 2018 21:14:09 GMT
The only ranting I can see is the frothing mouthed idiocy displayed on a regular basis from yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Mar 31, 2018 7:31:05 GMT
The handbag is out
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Apr 2, 2018 19:53:54 GMT
Don’t be such a snowflake when you get called out on your nonsense |
|
|
|
Post by genghis on Apr 2, 2018 23:37:16 GMT
Don’t be such a snowflake when you get called out on your nonsense I’m 99% certain that downthelane is just a really successful troll. It’s near-impossible that he could take the contrary opinion as often as he does. |
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Apr 19, 2018 11:53:53 GMT
To no great surprise, the football club haven't co-operated with Supporters Direct.
So, Hampson asks for everyone to work together etc etc. The only possible escape route ignored.
It begs the question, what have Hampson, Layland, Wilcox and Pinches got to hide ?
Perhaps the Worcester News might like to ask Hampson direct questions as to why the Board have rejected the help of Supporters Direct, when there is nothing else on the table ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Apr 19, 2018 12:20:25 GMT
I am not at all surprised by the outcome of the offer of help. I’m sure no one else is either.
For me now the end can’t come soon enough because nothing is going to change. The sooner we are all relieved of this torture the better. WCFC RIP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Apr 19, 2018 12:56:36 GMT
You really couldn't make this up. An offer of FREE assistance in a soup to nuts financial review, with a report outlining ways forward. The opportunity for the club to have an independent valuation done FREE OF CHARGE! And the whole thing done under a confidentiality agreement. Who in their right mind would say no to that?
|
|
|
|
Post by leejackson345 on Apr 19, 2018 13:06:11 GMT
So, this fundamentally proves that there is something to hide.
I'm not even surprised that they have been so awkward and refused the help. Shady gentlemen.
What's next? Are there any criminal charges that could be pressed by shareholders? Is there any way to force them all out of the club? Is that the right course?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2018 13:08:25 GMT
Agreed. Mr Mitchell, time to ask the incompetent the questions !
I believe Wilcox was running with this as he is only one who has spoken about it in the media, time he answered why exactly he thought changing the NDA was in the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CLUB and ITS SHAREHOLDERS.
Maybe it is time The Football Assocation (if they could help) are informed on the continued fails to hold AGMs, manage the business correctly etc
In the last 10 years what has been achieved ?
- Loss of our home
- Loss of Major Money
- Links with Worcester Colleges and Uni...terminated
- Relegation from the Conference North
- Hundreds off the attendances
- Loss of a high number of volunteers
This is a simple message, time to RESIGN ! You have made "Time Tight"...... time to leave
Rich Widd, can we get shareholders to push an EGM ?
Do we have grounds to report to the FA, and could we get shareholder backing to act on their behalf ?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2018 13:09:11 GMT
You really couldn't make this up. An offer of FREE assistance in a soup to nuts financial review, with a report outlining ways forward. The opportunity for the club to have an independent valuation done FREE OF CHARGE! And the whole thing done under a confidentiality agreement. Who in their right mind would say no to that? The leaders of this Club ! |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Apr 19, 2018 14:19:36 GMT
You really couldn't make this up. An offer of FREE assistance in a soup to nuts financial review, with a report outlining ways forward. The opportunity for the club to have an independent valuation done FREE OF CHARGE! And the whole thing done under a confidentiality agreement. Who in their right mind would say no to that? The leaders of this Club ! It really does beggar belief. Just to make it clear, what the club Board wanted was for the Supporters Trust to sign an agreement, which allowed for only two people on the Trust board to view the content of the report that the Trust were paying for to get done on behalf of the Supporters Trust. It is akin to trying to buy a house, paying for a survey to be done, but the house seller then not allowing you to see the result of the survey! The Board also were refusing to provide access to historical financial documentation, because, according to them "historical financial details are irrelevant" Again, that's like trying to buy a house and being told that historical structural reports are irrelevant! Read into that whatever you like. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2018 14:32:19 GMT
You have just answered my question, time the FA were called !
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Apr 19, 2018 14:52:35 GMT
To no great surprise, the football club haven't co-operated with Supporters Direct. Where has that been reported? Interested in reading about that further |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Apr 19, 2018 14:53:12 GMT
Statement emailed to all Supporters Trust members.
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Apr 19, 2018 15:29:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Apr 19, 2018 15:49:33 GMT
We tried....very very hard, we tried!! Apparently though, the club is fussy and selective as to who they allow to help them, and it appears that the Supporters Trust, and Supporters Direct do not fit the bill!
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Apr 19, 2018 16:20:35 GMT
Thanks all Staggering that is - but such events do not surprise any more with those lot |
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Apr 19, 2018 22:25:36 GMT
Nothing surprises me anymore but I suppose as long as you can go and support "the lads"it doesn't matter!
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Apr 20, 2018 0:24:53 GMT
Sorry to be so negative....... But enough is enough.
In my opinion The Trust is:
1). Misguided in thinking this board will ever accept any help or guidance.
2). Misguided in thinking that 'WCFC' will ever become community owned.
3). Misguided in thinking that the majority of 'City' fans care about anything more than watching a match.
Until The Trust has the mandate to form a new football club at the highest level possible & playing somewhere in Worcester, I can see no reason why I should support them anymore than support WCFC of which I'm a shareholder.
On a personal note to Jem, Rich, Rob & everyone else I know at The Trust.
Keep doing what you believe in, but perhaps communicate/bond a little better to your target audience rather than just advocating a broader community facility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Apr 20, 2018 11:17:09 GMT
Sorry to be so negative....... But enough is enough. In my opinion The Trust is: 1). Misguided in thinking this board will ever accept any help or guidance. 2). Misguided in thinking that 'WCFC' will ever become community owned. 3). Misguided in thinking that the majority of 'City' fans care about anything more than watching a match. Until The Trust has the mandate to form a new football club at the highest level possible & playing somewhere in Worcester, I can see no reason why I should support them anymore than support WCFC of which I'm a shareholder. On a personal note to Jem, Rich, Rob & everyone else I know at The Trust. Keep doing what you believe in, but perhaps communicate/bond a little better to your target audience rather than just advocating a broader community facility. Jimbo, its not negative, its absolutely the case, and the Supporters Trust are well aware of all that you've said. So why have we carried on with this process? Well there are two main reasons. Firstly - the work to be carried out by Supporters Direct was for the benefit of the Supporters Trust, and not the football club. However, the outcome of that work would have been of great value to a business in trouble, as I'm sure it could have been offered up to other potential investors. Of course we knew that the likelihood was that the work would never be done, after all, we proposed that Nick Igoe do this work over 12 months ago, he started, but then the shutters came up. The Board said that they stopped the project as confidential information had been leaked by the Supporters Trust Board. This was laughable, as Nick hadn't even got to the stage where he could present any information to the ST Board. None of us were aware of any work that Nick had done at that stage! You just couldn't make it up! So this was the benchmark for the expectations this time round. The ST were fully aware that there were 3 possible outcomes for this work 1. The information gathered by Nick Igoe allowed him to take an informed view that the business was viable for Supporters Trust to "invest" in moving forward 2. The information gathered by Nick Igoe allowed him to take an informed view that the business was not viable for the Supporters Trust to "invest" in moving forward 3. Nick Igoe was unable to take an informed view due to lack of transparency, or access to documents - in which case the assumption would be that the business was not viable for the ST to "invest" in moving forward. This means that we now have an informed outcome, so we are no longer guessing as to whether the ST can invest in the business. So the first reason was for this clarity. The second reason was (as is often the case in legal processes) that we can say without contradiction, that we exhausted every possibility open to us to try and work with / save / provide assistance / offer up alternative solutions for the club. No one , whether that is club Board directors, supporters, shareholders, or our own members can ever now say that the ST did not try, that the ST could have done more. No one can be in any doubt that, however much effort the ST have put in to working with the Board, or assisting the club, the club Board simply do not want to know. Now we know, categorically, without any chance of contradiction that , the club Board have no intention of adopting a community focus, or a community constitution. And yes, of course we knew that before we offered up this work, the odds were against this ever coming to fruition, in fact the money was on just at what point the club Board would pull the plug this time around, and the fact that it was pulled just as soon as our NDA hit their door shows the lack of intention on their part. Now we know that, if the club Board wish to find additional investment into the business, including grant investment, they will have to start from scratch, and pay for this kind of work to be carried out, from their dwindling resources. So instead of taking a free of charge option (under full NDA) they would prefer to use money that could and should be used for the benefit of the playing budget. In fact, the cost of this work could be the equivalent of 2 or 3 players. And that has been their choice. I don't agree with you at all on the idea that the Supporters Trust should stop advocating a broader community facility. That is the raison d'etre of a Community Benefit Society. To attract funding through grant enterprise schemes, a CBS has to prove community benefit. That is the very reason that Lewes FC (now known as Lewes Community Football Club) have attracted 6 figure investment in terms of grants to provide facilities not only for their football club, or their owners, but for the wider community of the town. If the majority of supporters want to do nothing but watch football, then thats perfectly fine, but what about the other 99.4 % of the population of Worcester? Unless we offer an attractive proposition for the community, then how would a phoenix club succeed any better than the present business? |
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Apr 20, 2018 11:58:52 GMT
Agreed. But the board aren't preventing an examination of the company by the Trust because of the ST's community objectives - it will prevent ANYONE from investigating the sale of SGL and the subsequent dispersal of funds. That was why Hampson was parachuted in from out of the blue. His job has been to keep the doors firmly shut to any prying eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Apr 20, 2018 13:22:15 GMT
Agreed. But the board aren't preventing an examination of the company by the Trust because of the ST's community objectives - it will prevent ANYONE from investigating the sale of SGL and the subsequent dispersal of funds. That was why Hampson was parachuted in from out of the blue. His job has been to keep the doors firmly shut to any prying eyes. Absolutely. The Board are preventing and examination of the company because they don't want any prying eyes in their business. Unfortunately for them, its going to be damn hard to put together an application for grants, or a portfolio for investors, without visibility of the financials. Mark Wilcox says that "historical financial documentation is irrelevant" Really? |
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Apr 20, 2018 13:26:28 GMT
They don't want grants or investment. If they did they wouldn't take this attitude. They just want to be left alone while they empty the vaults.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 27, 2018 8:28:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Apr 27, 2018 9:01:30 GMT
More of the same misdirection from Hampson, just re-arranging the same old words that say or add nothing. Why doesn't he hold AGM's to explain to the owners of the Club ( its shareholders ) the accounts and the financial position, and the Board's plans for the future ?
What are the Board hiding and continuing to hide, as I can think of no logical reason why he's only had one AGM in his 9 years in charge as Chairman.
As for “I think Rob Crean had a copy at the time. " of the Anthony Collins Report. Honestly ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Apr 27, 2018 11:17:49 GMT
I love the bit where he says of the Supporters Trust taking over the club "They know what they have to do, buy £170,000 of allotted shares" Well, that simply isn't lawful under the present constitution.
Nice one Hampson!
And yes, why on Earth would Rob Crean have a copy of the Anthony Collins report? Not being funny but, can you honestly see this Board of Directors just randomly giving out a copy of a report regarding constitution recommendation to Rob, without any form of NDA? And the chap from the Worcester News thinks he's deserving of an award for his coverage of WCFC?? hahahahahahahaha!!
|
|
