[Jaded]

Originally Posted by TomWFC

Saying things like "appear" to have contacted employers and using words such as "hearsay"...

Employers have been contacted and, if evidence is out there, it needs to be shown and everyone needs to see it.

Hearsay means something that can't be substantiated. To someone who doesn't know the people involved, then without evidence, there's no way of substantiating the claims.

Now, to ME, as someone who's been following stuff for years, it's fairly obvious that Bagger, for example, is significantly more trustworthy than the current WST board, because Bagger has been posting here for years and has been consistent, has to my knowledge never lied or said anything that's not true, while the board can't say that - with the claims about the loans being one occasion where it's clear they were lying on at least one occasion.

There is evidence that the Trust board have been, at the very least, deliberately confusing about the loans.

https://wst.org.uk/wp/?p=1353 says

Following the brief publication of unredacted minutes from the Trust Board meeting of 20th May 2020, the Society Board of Wrexham Supporters Trust would like to clarify that Don Bircham is not being investigated into anything to do with Football Club matters, including the breach of the Board Members Policy.

We apologise to Don for his name being mentioned in this section, which caused this impression. Peter Jones, Chairman of the WST, has also called Don to offer his apologies in person.

Further to this, and following the investigation into the club accounts in regards to the three loans made, the Society Board are satisfied that the interest-free loans made by Don to the Football Club, were made with other Directors’ knowledge and in the best interest of the Football Club at the time.

https://wst.org.uk/wp/?p=1251 says

Directors Loans
Following on from last week’s communication. We have been made aware of a further Directors loan made by former Chief Executive Don Bircham. This was made by Mr Bircham as the result of a cash flow issue in May 2015. This related to a late payment to the club that season.

Mr Bircham paid the money into our account at the beginning of May and was paid back before the end of the month. The two transactions cancelled each other out and were not picked up at the time. Of course we are grateful to Mr Bircham for taking the action he felt was necessary at that time and we value his contribution to the club, not least as a long-term sponsor.

However, it is important to note that Club Board is now bound by the Governing Board and Operational Board Policy and this prevents the Club Board, or individual directors, from making individual financial decisions of this nature. The interests of members are protected by the following two clauses.

6.4 If any lending is required by the Operational Board, this must be agreed by the Trust Board.

and

6.6 Should the Trust Board be asked to authorise any spend of over one percent of the annual budgeted turnover, it should be presented with a written business case, and consideration given to sharing with the membership.

The "were not picked up on at the time" strongly suggests the rest of the Trust board were unaware of the loans, which is obviously not the case - as they admitted in the post further up, the people who were Directors of the club were, at the very least.

If there is similar evidence to prove that someone at the club contacted employers, I think Four Four Two, Two Hundred Percent and others would absolutely be interested. But without that evidence, I don't think the major magazines/newspapers/sites will go near that claim.