Sluffy Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Should’nt the trust have a wide range of opinions and views from members? Sadly not enough with a more pro KA stance seem to be getting involved. And never will do - can't you grasp that? It's a bit like saying more Labour supporters should join the Conservative party (or Conservatives join labour) to give them a wider range of opinions and views from members. Birds of a feather flock together for a reason you know. As long as the ST's leadership and its most vocal supporters continue to spout an anti-Anderson position, then nobody who leans towards Anderson or quite frankly even those neutral on their view of the Andersons, are ever going to want to join them. Surely even you should be able to understand that? Well maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) And never will do - can't you grasp that? It's a bit like saying more Labour supporters should join the Conservative party (or Conservatives join labour) to give them a wider range of opinions and views from members. Birds of a feather flock together for a reason you know. As long as the ST's leadership and its most vocal supporters continue to spout an anti-Anderson position, then nobody who leans towards Anderson or quite frankly even those neutral on their view of the Andersons, are ever going to want to join them. Surely even you should be able to understand that? Well maybe not. You seem to think you know everyone’s opinions on the ST board and across ST membership and think all members are hard line anti KA however as you’ve not took the time or effort to find out you as usual know next to fuck all about the make up and views of fans involved, just a continued inccesant anti Trust rant. You seem an intelligent well thought out and reasoned man until it comes to anything ST and then all logic goes out of the widow and your thought process goes haywire, and for that reason your going back on ignore. Edited May 23, 2018 by Mounts Kipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Ratwhite Posted May 23, 2018 Site Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2018 This page should be renamed.... Sluffy v Mounts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 This page should be renamed.... Sluffy v Mounts My argument is while the Trust clearly has its issues at board level it’s best if it survives just in case, while Sluffy just wants it to fail because he had a spat with one of the board members and his precious hurt feelings seems to mean more to him than the club surviving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Carlos Posted May 23, 2018 Moderators Share Posted May 23, 2018 It's already dead. Deceased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) It's already dead. Deceased. But it’s not, there’s you and a handful on here who that applies to, your in a tiny microcosm, there’s many more keeping an open mind on the ownership and it’s still alive and kicking and an option should we ever need a last resort and that’s exactly how it should be. Edited May 23, 2018 by Mounts Kipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadRunnerFan Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 It's already dead. Deceased. Not deceased, just moribund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Tonge moor green jacket Posted May 23, 2018 Site Supporter Share Posted May 23, 2018 Mounts; a genuine, not loaded question from me. I'm in the camp of a trust is in principle of fine idea; however in light of the fact that ours doesn't seem to have fulfilled certain obligations, would that ultimately prevent them from taking over (legally) in the event of a worst case scenario happening? Could/would it have to be closed and reformed with different board members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadRunnerFan Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) Whitesmurf rowing with one of the more rational folk on the BN comments page today (not that that is saying much), Casino mentioned in dispatches again. Edited May 23, 2018 by RoadRunnerFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 Mounts; a genuine, not loaded question from me. I'm in the camp of a trust is in principle of fine idea; however in light of the fact that ours doesn't seem to have fulfilled certain obligations, would that ultimately prevent them from taking over (legally) in the event of a worst case scenario happening? Could/would it have to be closed and reformed with different board members? Sorry I’m not sure but one thing I’ll say is if they fall foul of football supporters association rules then I’d think they’ll not be a trust for long as there are legal requirements that need to be adhered to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big E Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 But it’s not, there’s you and a handful on here who that applies to, your in a tiny microcosm, there’s many more keeping an open mind on the ownership and it’s still alive and kicking and an option should we ever need a last resort and that’s exactly how it should be. I will invite them to meet me at a game and try and see what they offer. Pretty sure more think they are rubbish than it’s great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted May 23, 2018 Moderators Share Posted May 23, 2018 Sorry I’m not sure but one thing I’ll say is if they fall foul of football supporters association rules then I’d think they’ll not be a trust for long as there are legal requirements that need to be adhered to. Which requirements are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 Which requirements are they? You might find requirements here. https://supporters-direct.org/rules-and-policies-1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyldesley_white Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 I would say that companies house trumps those requirments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted May 23, 2018 Moderators Share Posted May 23, 2018 You might find requirements here. https://supporters-direct.org/rules-and-policies-1 Dunno why somebody felt the need to approve your post Unless of course he's found what I asked for All look like supporters direct docs and they make a point of distancing themselves from individual trusts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted May 23, 2018 Moderators Share Posted May 23, 2018 Genuine question What's the position with the data they hold on their massive membership Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sluffy Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) I would say that companies house trumps those requirments You're sort of correct but because the ST isn't a company as such and classed as a 'mutual' it falls under the regulation of the Bank of England's, Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA for short - which sprang from the Financial Services Act, 2012). One of the main roles of the PRA is to promote the safety and soundness of the firms it regulates - one of which is the Bolton Wanderers Supporters Society Limited - our ST. https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=7270&Suffix=CBS The following link gives a sort of overview of what is expected from these 'mutual's'. https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/mutual-societies With the PRA clearly stating in this link that annual accounts are required - the failure for non submission of accounts being either striking them off the register or even prosecution. https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/annual-returns-accounts-mutual-societies As can be seen from the link to the ST on the register above (the first link I posted) that our ST has not submitted any accounts which were due up to the 31st July, 2017 (their first and only submission to date being the year previous up to 31st July, 2016). Clearly they are in breach of their required responsibilities. Whilst I'm at it I may as well bring people's attention to the stated aims of Supporters Direct, to whom our ST is related to as its 'umbrella' organisation. As you will see from their own website and I quote - What is the purpose of SD? SD’s mission is to promote sustainable spectator sports clubs based on community ownership and supporter involvement. We offer help to Clubs interested in becoming community owned and supporters interested in forming a Supporters Trust at their Club. ...This is how they define Community ownership - How do you define ‘supporter’ or ‘community’ ownership? ‘Supporter Ownership’ or ‘Community Ownership’ ‘Supporter owned’, ‘community club’ are phrases that have become popular when talking about clubs. Lots of clubs do lots of great things in their community, and many supporters feel like they ‘morally own’ their Club, but when Supporters Direct talks about ‘supporter ownership’ (or similar phrases like ‘community ownership’) we mean that; - A minimum of 50% +1 of the voting rights of the Club to be controlled collectively by a democratic entity which has an open and inclusive membership It is therefore abundantly clear that the aim of Supporters Direct and therefore our own ST was always to seek and achieve ownership of the club and this explains their clear and ongoing anti-Anderson stance. My view for what is worth is that the instigators of the ST and who have been there since its creation to present day have always had an hidden agenda to take ownership of the club and thus have been eager to drive out the current owner to achieve this and once it become abundantly clear to them that they could never dislodge Mr Anderson they have basically packed it all in and that is why we here nothing from the ST and no AGM's have been arranged nor accounts submitted. The link is here which clearly states the SD's reason for being. https://supporters-direct.org/faqs Edited May 23, 2018 by Sluffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Enough of all that bollocks Where’s my war chest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites man Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Enough of all that bollocks Where’s my war chest Cardiff chucked in an extra £1m for Madine yesterday. You can imagine them doing so in wheelbarrows full of 1p coins, like a disgruntled middle aged man paying a parking fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Carlos Posted May 24, 2018 Moderators Share Posted May 24, 2018 Iles has said it was a seven figure sum! The only 7 figure sum I'd pay has pence in too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 I wonder if Madine will ever play a game in the PL? - I'd not be surprised to see him loaned out before the start of the season, and it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility for him to come back here I wouldn't have thought. I do hope not though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrycowdrill Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 This team needs to evolve, fresher legs all over the park i couldnt think of anything worse than him coming back. On loan or otherwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 This team needs to evolve, fresher legs all over the park i couldnt think of anything worse than him coming back. On loan or otherwise On loan, it wouldn't be a bad move. We need a striker of that type from somewhere. When he left us he was one of the best in the championship at doing what he does. Parky gets the best out of him. Could be win win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 When he left us he was one of the best in the championship at doing what he does. Which is what? He scored a few goals, but let's not pretend he was a great hold up player or that he was running defences ragged - he just had a little purple patch and we managed to milk it, at the end of the day, he's just a bog average player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwfcfan5 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Which is what? He scored a few goals, but let's not pretend he was a great hold up player or that he was running defences ragged - he just had a little purple patch and we managed to milk it, at the end of the day, he's just a bog average player He was leading the line really well and scoring all types of goals. The player who left us, I'd have back any day of the week. I agree the risk is whether he recaptures that form. But we're not going to sign a sure thing anywhere with our budget. Any loan deal for him would be later in August by which time we'll know if we've managed to sign anyone better as the main deadline closes early August. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.