Fanzone

[Big E]

4 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Are they even insured to do something like this?

Unless I've missed it, their last AGM was held November 2017 (the previous and very first AGM being held in July 2016 - with the ST being launched in March 2016)

As far as I can tell they are not in compliance with their own constitution being the snappily entitled 'Supporters Direct, Model Rules for a Supporters Community Mutual (2014 Version) which is lodged at the Mutuals Public Register, on a number of counts, particularly relating to non compliance of holding a yearly AGM and the election of Directors to their board.

On the face of it, it would seem to me the ST has a question mark hanging over it because of the breach of it's own constitution in these regards so much so that I question whether it is now even a properly constituted legal entity and thus have the power to enter into contracts.

If I was an ST board member I would be getting extremely concerned that I didn't find myself personally liable if anything went awry until these matters are addressed and rectified urgently and in advance of any public function they would wish to get involved in.

Presumably FV will have Public Liability Insurance cover for any events they hold but if they have contracted out the operation of the Fanzone to the ST then presumably it would be them who would be liable if anything untoward happened and if I was the insurance provider I'd be looking to establish that the ST are a properly constituted body - I'd certainly be looking that they are operating in accordance with their constitution - which it doesn't seem to me that they currently are.

So if you are at the Fanzone and slip on a carelessly discarded, overly buttered, hot dog bun and end up breaking your coccyx, then who going to sue for your compo?

Stuffy. Clearly the club won’t have contracted it out to the ST. Fuck sake. You are obsessed man.

 

[Mounts Kipper]

We’ve some sad fuckers amongst our ranks, bordering on mentally ill, if you don’t like the ST then don’t go it’s that simple, I’ll most likely still do the hotel, but wish them good luck and hope folk enjoy it. 

[RoadRunnerFan]

5 hours ago, Sluffy said:

 

So if you are at the Fanzone and slip on a carelessly discarded, overly buttered, hot dog bun and end up breaking your coccyx, then who going to sue for your compo?

Plenty of solicitors on the Fylde well versed in defending claims resulting from fast food squelched surfaces. 

I'll be reet. 

[Chris Custodiet]

Can't say I was keen on the Fanzone before but why would FV want to engage in any kind of business relationship with this bunch of losers?

One of my former neighbours was very successful in business until he retired when he was less than fifty. He first set up in business in partnership with another guy when he was 18. It lasted six months before he decided that being hamstrung to anyone with different ideas on business wasn't smart. He never did it again.

Think Holdsworth and Anderson.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Chris Custodiet

[MickyD]

6 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Are they even insured to do something like this?

 

Presumably FV will have Public Liability Insurance cover for any events they hold but if they have contracted out the operation of the Fanzone to the ST then presumably it would be them who would be liable if anything untoward happened and if I was the insurance provider I'd be looking to establish that the ST are a properly constituted body - I'd certainly be looking that they are operating in accordance with their constitution - which it doesn't seem to me that they currently are.

So if you are at the Fanzone and slip on a carelessly discarded, overly buttered, hot dog bun and end up breaking your coccyx, then who going to sue for your compo?

If you owned an entertainment venue and sub-let it for someone else to arrange an event, would it absolve you, the owner, of your liability as venue owner?

Would it bollocks! Which is what your latest essay was; anti-Supporters Trust bollocks!

Edited October 3, 2019 by MickyD

[MickyD]

On 01/10/2019 at 20:24, kent_white said:

Polling is open via surverymonkey about what we want from a return to Fanzone.

Who's going to be there representing WW then.

I didn't click not at all interested by the way! 

Do they pay an attendance fee and travel expenses? If they do, my suggestion is Bolty.

[Big E]

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

We’ve some sad fuckers amongst our ranks, bordering on mentally ill, if you don’t like the ST then don’t go it’s that simple, I’ll most likely still do the hotel, but wish them good luck and hope folk enjoy it. 

ST bummer

I agree with the old manc though to be fair. Personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near anything from the trust unless they show they are actually not a massive set of bellends however i wouldn't doubt the board members of the trust wouldn't want me near them so its sound. 

[Mounts Kipper]

28 minutes ago, Big E said:

ST bummer

I agree with the old manc though to be fair. Personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near anything from the trust unless they show they are actually not a massive set of bellends however i wouldn't doubt the board members of the trust wouldn't want me near them so its sound. 

Take the bummer, old and Manc out of that post and you might get a like sweet cheeks.  😂

Edited October 3, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[Chris Custodiet]

15 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

Take it to the supreme court Sluffy lad, your the Gina Miller of WW

The last time the ST held an AGM, I seem to recall that its accounts were signed off by an 'Independent Examiner' who is also listed as Treasurer on the ST's website. (See the Board Members tab). Am I mistaken?

[MickyD]

54 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

The last time the ST held an AGM, I seem to recall that its accounts were signed off by an 'Independent Examiner' who is also listed as Treasurer on the ST's website. (See the Board Members tab). Am I mistaken?

I think maybe he wasn't on the board when he was "independent" but I might be wrong. I'm fairly sure the shit-storm that came with the appointment of an allegedly bent auditor/accountant came since 2017.

[Chris Custodiet]

1 hour ago, MickyD said:

I think maybe he wasn't on the board when he was "independent" but I might be wrong. I'm fairly sure the shit-storm that came with the appointment of an allegedly bent auditor/accountant came since 2017.

Woah there Micky. No suggestion of anything like that but an Independent Examiner should be independent.Too often they aren't.

[MickyD]

12 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Woah there Micky. No suggestion of anything like that but an Independent Examiner should be independent.Too often they aren't.

I've re-read your post and you very much suggested exactly as I responded.

[Sluffy]

3 hours ago, MickyD said:

If you owned an entertainment venue and sub-let it for someone else to arrange an event, would it absolve you, the owner, of your liability as venue owner?

Would it bollocks! Which is what your latest essay was; anti-Supporters Trust bollocks!

I'm fully aware of why most of my usual trolls follow me about but I have no idea why your good self, a respected former public servant, who I've never crossed swords with on other forums over the years, seems to have continual issues with me?

Anyway fwiw my point was that I'm not sure of the legality of the ST entering into ANY contracts through to them seemingly now acting outside of their own constitutional requirements and having been doing so for several months now.

Clearly I have no idea as to what part the ST will be involved with the Fanzone event but if they are 'sub-letting' the venue to put on a public event, then clearly they need to have some form of public liability insurance, as it is they that are responsible for the event and not the owner of the venue.  For instance it certainly would not have been the club (or the Administrator at the time) who provided insurance for the recent Rod Stewart concert, even though the club/Administrator was the venue owner.

If the ST enters into any further contracts to put on the Fanzone between themselves and others such as suppliers, such as brewery's, entertainment, catering, security, etc, etc, and something went awry then who would the liability fall on - the club as owners of the venue?  I think not.

Whether you think my "latest essay" is bollocks and that I am "anti-Supporters Trust" does not detract in any way over asking whether they acting legally or not.

I would have thought you especially as a former public service fire bobby of some seniority would have more concern about public events being run legally and safely than me being pro or anti the ST.

[Traf]

If FV want someone to organise the Fanzone, I'm available for a fee. 

I've done shitloads of things like this before.

[Carlos]

I want Fan5 Zone.

[Chris Custodiet]

57 minutes ago, MickyD said:

I've re-read your post and you very much suggested exactly as I responded.

You could not be more wrong. You should not be making the inferences you have made and it should not need explaining but those who appoint Independent Examiners and those who accept appointment as Independent Examiners should reflect on whether they are independent or not. Its simply good governance and the very reason that the title 'Independent Examiner' exists.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Chris Custodiet

[Sluffy]

3 hours ago, Chris Custodiet said:

The last time the ST held an AGM, I seem to recall that its accounts were signed off by an 'Independent Examiner' who is also listed as Treasurer on the ST's website. (See the Board Members tab). Am I mistaken?

It's difficult to know who exactly is on the ST Board at all Chris.

According to their statement of accounts for July 2018, they had just FIVE Board Members being Rigby, Tetlow, Smith, Brown and Nightingale (page 17 - Independent Examiners Report dated 21/12/18) which was signed off by Mike Egan, who is indeed shown on the ST's own official web site as being their Treasurer!

https://www.bwfcst.co.uk/about-us/board-members/

Yet the ST's accounts of which he independently verifies list SIX Board Members (see both pages 4 and 14 also dated 21/12/18) with Allanson being shown on them.

https://mutuals.fca.org.uk/Search/Society/23715

If this isn't baffling enough their Chairman Terrance Rigby in his Introduction to the New Board in January 2018 stated that Ian Bridge was also now a Board Member (co-opted) too!

And also that Mike Egan wasn't - although to this day he's clearly shown as being so, almost TWO YEARS later! 

https://www.bwfcst.co.uk/a-few-words-from-the-new-bwfcst-chairman-terence-rigby/

It would seem to me that they are either keeping one or more of their Directors somehow secret from the public eye or much more likely constituted with just five Board Members - Rigby, Tetlow, Smith, Brown and Nightingale, which if so is in breach of their own constitution that "The Society shall have a Board of Directors comprising not less than six and not more than twelve persons (Constitution of the Board - Rule 56)" and simply 'padded' up their number for public consumption by keeping Egan as being shown even though he's not been officially involved as such for a couple of years?

Their inability to even state publicly such basic information as to who their own Board Members are on their own official website clearly makes a complete mockery of their stated objective of 'operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the club to do the same" (Objectives - Rule 4.4).

Should be fun then watching them attempt to organise a piss-up at the brewery Fanzone

[Traf]

I think the Trust's only input to the Fanzine will be on an ideas basis.

They won't be running it at all.

So can we get this back to the FZ itself and not let yet another thread degenerate.

[Sluffy]

7 minutes ago, Traf said:

I think the Trust's only input to the Fanzine will be on an ideas basis.

They won't be running it at all.

So can we get this back to the FZ itself and not let yet another thread degenerate.

Well they are claiming it to be as a partnership and talking about "availabilities of facilities".

However I've made my point so I'll leave it be as you wish.

 

[tomski]

18 minutes ago, Traf said:

I think the Trust's only input to the Fanzine will be on an ideas basis.

They won't be running it at all.

So can we get this back to the FZ itself and not let yet another thread degenerate.

I’m no expert on this but if they could use a room or a canopy type thing where people walk round with the beers selling them rather than having to queue up it can work. I’ve seen it in action abroad and if you wanna sup I think it’s the way to do it. 

I will admit I don’t know the cost implications on doing this though?

[Chris Custodiet]

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

It's difficult to know who exactly is on the ST Board at all Chris.

According to their statement of accounts for July 2018, they had just FIVE Board Members being Rigby, Tetlow, Smith, Brown and Nightingale (page 17 - Independent Examiners Report dated 21/12/18) which was signed off by Mike Egan, who is indeed shown on the ST's own official web site as being their Treasurer!

https://www.bwfcst.co.uk/about-us/board-members/

Yet the ST's accounts of which he independently verifies list SIX Board Members (see both pages 4 and 14 also dated 21/12/18) with Allanson being shown on them.

https://mutuals.fca.org.uk/Search/Society/23715

If this isn't baffling enough their Chairman Terrance Rigby in his Introduction to the New Board in January 2018 stated that Ian Bridge was also now a Board Member (co-opted) too!

And also that Mike Egan wasn't - although to this day he's clearly shown as being so, almost TWO YEARS later! 

https://www.bwfcst.co.uk/a-few-words-from-the-new-bwfcst-chairman-terence-rigby/

It would seem to me that they are either keeping one or more of their Directors somehow secret from the public eye or much more likely constituted with just five Board Members - Rigby, Tetlow, Smith, Brown and Nightingale, which if so is in breach of their own constitution that "The Society shall have a Board of Directors comprising not less than six and not more than twelve persons (Constitution of the Board - Rule 56)" and simply 'padded' up their number for public consumption by keeping Egan as being shown even though he's not been officially involved as such for a couple of years?

Their inability to even state publicly such basic information as to who their own Board Members are on their own official website clearly makes a complete mockery of their stated objective of 'operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the club to do the same" (Objectives - Rule 4.4).

Should be fun then watching them attempt to organise a piss-up at the brewery Fanzone

Loads of stuff here that suggests ST governance is in need of improvement, Sluffy, but is there any point in listing it all.Their first Annual Return stated that they had an officer (the Treasurer) who wasn't a member of their committtee. I can't say I've come across that idea very often.

I think the truth is that the ST has always struggled to find individuals with something to offer and a willingess to spend their valuable time with folk with very little business sense. And that is 'only the beginning' of reasons not to get involved with them.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Chris Custodiet

[Spider]

When all's said and done, it's a 2/3 hour window before every match for everyone concerned to have fun/make some money.

I think the Supporters Trust is a very dubious organisation and only represents a minority of the club's fans. They certainly don't represent me or any fans I know.

They are desperate to claim any sort of victory to validate their existence. This "partnership" is all they've managed since they started hoovering up tenners 3 years ago.

The Fazone was a bit sterile for my liking, but harmless enough and I honestly think they can't win here, as they want to cater to kids, families, tea drinkers and pisspots all at once.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Spider

[radcliffe white]

Fanzone ideal for bus wankers 

not enough time to get over to Scott’s/hotel & get served and it’s next near our turnstile 

[Sluffy]

9 minutes ago, Chris Custodiet said:

Loads of stuff here that suggests ST governance is in need of improvement, Sluffy, but is there any point in listing it all.Their first annual return stated that they had an officer (the Treasurer) who wasn't a member of their committtee. I can't say I've come across that idea very often.

I think the truth is that the ST has always struggled to find individuals with something to offer and a willingess to spend their valuable time with folk with very little business sense. And that is 'only the beginning' of reasons not to get involved with them.

It's been quite apparent to me from very early on that the wrong people got involved, took charge and are more or less all still there (or thereabouts).

Clearly there was overwhelming support and goodwill from countless Wanderers supporters from the off, many offering their professional expertise, skills and knowledge to make the ST a success but in reality what happened was the founders kept tight control of it and seemingly only brining on board with them people they knew or those with the same narrow mindset as themselves, to the exclusion of everyone else.

Their agenda and actions since has turned this tidal wave of support for them to virtually universal indifference, well within their four years of existence.  That's not me simply being anti the ST but just saying it as it is.

It would appear to me that they haven't set much importance on the administration and running of their public society in line with their own written constitution and that's why I now question if they are even constituted as a legal entity anymore?

Anyway I've made my point and will leave it at that.

It will however be interesting to see who covers the costs for running the event, as apparently it ran at a loss previously and the match day attendances have reduced by a few thousand since then.

[Chris Custodiet]

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

It's been quite apparent to me from very early on that the wrong people got involved, took charge and are more or less all still there (or thereabouts).

Clearly there was overwhelming support and goodwill from countless Wanderers supporters from the off, many offering their professional expertise, skills and knowledge to make the ST a success but in reality what happened was the founders kept tight control of it and seemingly only brining on board with them people they knew or those with the same narrow mindset as themselves, to the exclusion of everyone else.

Their agenda and actions since has turned this tidal wave of support for them to virtually universal indifference, well within their four years of existence.  That's not me simply being anti the ST but just saying it as it is.

It would appear to me that they haven't set much importance on the administration and running of their public society in line with their own written constitution and that's why I now question if they are even constituted as a legal entity anymore?

Anyway I've made my point and will leave it at that.

It will however be interesting to see who covers the costs for running the event, as apparently it ran at a loss previously and the match day attendances have reduced by a few thousand since then.

I'm far from convinced that everyone has noticed the ST's shortcomings. Their attitude to everything has been scarcely different to Marc Iles (or any of FIBS) and he still seems to have his following, even on here. The Holdsworth/Anderson takeover was never reported with any sensible objectivity or competence and still hasn't been. If its up to Marc Iles or the ST, I doubt it ever will be.

Holdsworth and Anderson could no more afford to pay BWFC's debts than they could walk across Morecambe Bay when the tide was in and that's not what either of them ever undertook to do. Iles, the ST and two members of the House of Lords seemed  to believe that one of them had.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Chris Custodiet