As far as I can see, the Trust is in effect a charity supporting WWFC. The difference being that in three years you can get the money back. I'm sure the club would like to keep hold of the money for seven years, we'll see. This is assuming we don't go belly up of course.
If you are a WWFC fan(atic) with some extra to lend the Trust, why wouldn't you? It comes down to whether or not you trust the current board to spend it wisely or not. Any extra funds now will make it easier for us to show stability behind the scenes and perhaps get better rates on other loans, etc.
As for cajoling fans into 'investing', where else is the money going to come from? Only other option is polishing gems for which we need funds to float. All in all I think the Trust has good ideas and have talked about where money has gone and the side venture of the youth setup reintroduction.
It comes down to whether or not you trust the current board to spend it wisely or not.
Or whether there is a better use of your spare money. It's all down to individual preferences, but giving money to WWFC to essentially pay the wages of fairly well off footballers isn't a priority for me.
@Chris your profile picture shows Gaz holding the "believe" banner. I have taken that literally. I "believe" that we can show that fan ownership can work and the share ownership scheme seems a quite progressive way of raising some extra funds so rather than upping ticket prices across the board and possibly out of less well off fans reach . It asks those financially able to volunteer a bit more that's all .Now if that doesn't float ya boat gawd bless ya enjoy Murdochs service
The five year plan is in year two of the softening up process before those who have loaned us money convert it into equity as the trust membership acquiesce like a cheap hooker.
@M3G - is DJTaylor perhaps the cynical but colourfully literate guy who wrote a column years ago on some website whose acronym you (I think it was you) had to explain to me? Reading his posts late last night really hurt my tortured brain.
Despite the valid points about high paid footballers etc. I contribute because I want our current set up to succeed. WWFC being short of cash isn't going to reset the wage market in football - just ensures we'll struggle to compete.
Each to their own but if you have a few spare quid and don't support the scheme, you can't be that surprised at player sales or having a tiny squad of game triers who lack that bit of quality.
And I agree with the points about Sky subscriptions. Far better value to ensure WWFC survival than line the pockets of the odious Murdoch.
@Chris said, "It's all down to individual preferences, but giving money to WWFC to essentially pay the wages of fairly well off footballers isn't a priority for me."
Bit of a leap in logic to say that the Share Scheme funding goes to pay wages, possibly you are simply being provokative but as I understand it WWFC is breaking even and the SS is for capital investment (eg. Floodlight upgrade and medical machine) repayment of debts (correct me if I'm wrong) and ting.
IMHO its much better to put the money into keeping great British pubs going than giving direct to the Sky conglomerate if one must watch footballers on silly wages. To have the continued opportunity to support your OWN club with players on normal salaries, better to give/lend to the Trust. And of course it is individual choice, SS stands for share scheme, not dapper thugs forcing people onto trains!
So by all means believe, that and three quid will get you a decent cup of coffee. Better to support the Chairboys journey to financial stability.
Comments
What about electronic cigarettes?
@LX1 worse than smoke bombs and flares, and probably to blame for our last relegation. Absolute filth!
As far as I can see, the Trust is in effect a charity supporting WWFC. The difference being that in three years you can get the money back. I'm sure the club would like to keep hold of the money for seven years, we'll see. This is assuming we don't go belly up of course.
If you are a WWFC fan(atic) with some extra to lend the Trust, why wouldn't you? It comes down to whether or not you trust the current board to spend it wisely or not. Any extra funds now will make it easier for us to show stability behind the scenes and perhaps get better rates on other loans, etc.
As for cajoling fans into 'investing', where else is the money going to come from? Only other option is polishing gems for which we need funds to float. All in all I think the Trust has good ideas and have talked about where money has gone and the side venture of the youth setup reintroduction.
The club won't go round on passion alone:)
It comes down to whether or not you trust the current board to spend it wisely or not.
Or whether there is a better use of your spare money. It's all down to individual preferences, but giving money to WWFC to essentially pay the wages of fairly well off footballers isn't a priority for me.
Or we could forget it all get a Sky dish and essentially pay the wages of obscenely well off footballers.
Come on @Chris
But then you're paying for a service, Sky tv, and not just giving your money away.
And lining the pockets of the dirty digger
@Chris your profile picture shows Gaz holding the "believe" banner. I have taken that literally. I "believe" that we can show that fan ownership can work and the share ownership scheme seems a quite progressive way of raising some extra funds so rather than upping ticket prices across the board and possibly out of less well off fans reach . It asks those financially able to volunteer a bit more that's all .Now if that doesn't float ya boat gawd bless ya enjoy Murdochs service
The five year plan is in year two of the softening up process before those who have loaned us money convert it into equity as the trust membership acquiesce like a cheap hooker.
I may be thick but am I alone in wondering what on earth @DJTaylor is on about?
@M3G - is DJTaylor perhaps the cynical but colourfully literate guy who wrote a column years ago on some website whose acronym you (I think it was you) had to explain to me? Reading his posts late last night really hurt my tortured brain.
I note that Mr T came aboard around the time of the Trust AGM.
i think Mr Taylor may be a former Argentine revolutionary.
Ahaa!
I resent being compared to a cheap hooker I prefer the term affordable escort
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201603162032775
Very good Chris
Oh, yeah, just got it. Only took me about an hour.
Despite the valid points about high paid footballers etc. I contribute because I want our current set up to succeed. WWFC being short of cash isn't going to reset the wage market in football - just ensures we'll struggle to compete.
Each to their own but if you have a few spare quid and don't support the scheme, you can't be that surprised at player sales or having a tiny squad of game triers who lack that bit of quality.
And I agree with the points about Sky subscriptions. Far better value to ensure WWFC survival than line the pockets of the odious Murdoch.
Bit of a leap in logic to say that the Share Scheme funding goes to pay wages, possibly you are simply being provokative but as I understand it WWFC is breaking even and the SS is for capital investment (eg. Floodlight upgrade and medical machine) repayment of debts (correct me if I'm wrong) and ting.
IMHO its much better to put the money into keeping great British pubs going than giving direct to the Sky conglomerate if one must watch footballers on silly wages. To have the continued opportunity to support your OWN club with players on normal salaries, better to give/lend to the Trust. And of course it is individual choice, SS stands for share scheme, not dapper thugs forcing people onto trains!
So by all means believe, that and three quid will get you a decent cup of coffee. Better to support the Chairboys journey to financial stability.