Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
 

[QUOTE=John Neals Dynasty;2151296]And that folks is the Krux of the matter good post.... All this holier than thou crap about fan ownership when other clubs have money problems..... Making out that we are kind of superior to private owned clubs is getting pathetic.... We might be owned by ourselves in principle... But in general instead of a club being an owners play thing our club is a certain fews play thing.

We are where we are and yes we're financially sound at the moment thanks to a loyal fanbase.. But because of that some need to accept it has its limitations when it comes to competing against wealthier clubs..

It's no surprise that not one of the countries top flight clubs...the mancs, the scousers, chelski, spurs, Arsenal etc etc: are fan owned.

Because in simple terms you can only go so far with a hand too mouth life.

This is not criticising fan ownership just a look at the otherside of the fence. It's obvious through lack of money we probably have another season of excuses ahead.


But as I said we are where we are so let's get on with it not gloat everytime a club privately owned has financial problems... Many corner shops go bust also due to no forward thinking.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size][/QUOTE]

Good post.

Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
 

I think for a fan owned club to flourish they need to be in the football league.
The fact they limit wages to a % of a clubs turnover makes it a more level playing field.

Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
 

I think for a fan owned club to flourish they need to be in the football league.
The fact they limit wages to a % of a clubs turnover makes it a more level playing field.

Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
 

[QUOTE=sparky;2151267]Jesus. I think we all get the point your are constantly making by starting yet another thread on the subject. Sadly, yet again, you are conveniently missing the point that many are making.

Nobody is really asking or expecting or maybe even wants the type of sugar daddy that you keep banging on about, but for crying out loud, we couldn't half do with some financial help here. There might just be some middle ground but sadly I fear we will sink a bit lower before that sets in with some.

[B]Maybe next time how about a thread about hybrid models that have worked and are working. The debate (at least we are having one I suppose) at the moment is far too black and white for my liking.[/B][/QUOTE]

Tell you what then, why don't you create a threat about these hybrid models you're seemingly fond of, explaining why they work so well, and how they would be suitable for us, if you can?

If I seem to be repeating myself, it just might have something to do with the fact that valid points made are "constantly" being forgotten by other posters with a different - and negative - agenda, creating the need to remind some folk that the grass in the "private ownership" or Sugar Daddy" field isn't ALWAYS as green as they make it out to be.

Truth be told, those who understand the fans ownership model become just as frustrated by the need to repeat themselves to those who fail to grasp why it WILL work for Wrexham in the absence of any other sensible solution.

Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
 

[QUOTE=The Only Way Is Up;2151304]Tell you what then, why don't you create a threat about these hybrid models you're seemingly fond of, explaining why they work so well, and how they would be suitable for us, if you can?

If I seem to be repeating myself, it just might have something to do with the fact that valid points made are "constantly" being forgotten by other posters with a different - and negative - agenda, creating the need to remind some folk that the grass in the "private ownership" or Sugar Daddy" field isn't ALWAYS as green as they make it out to be.

Truth be told, those who understand the fans ownership model become just as frustrated by the need to repeat themselves to those who fail to grasp why it WILL work for Wrexham in the absence of any other sensible solution.[/QUOTE]

Thats a helpful attitude.

Well done.

Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
 

[QUOTE=The Only Way Is Up;2151304]Tell you what then, why don't you create a threat about these hybrid models you're seemingly fond of, explaining why they work so well, and how they would be suitable for us, if you can?

If I seem to be repeating myself, it just might have something to do with the fact that valid points made are "constantly" being forgotten by other posters with a different - and negative - agenda, creating the need to remind some folk that the grass in the "private ownership" or Sugar Daddy" field isn't ALWAYS as green as they make it out to be.

Truth be told, those who understand the fans ownership model become just as frustrated by the need to repeat themselves to those who fail to grasp why it WILL work for Wrexham in the absence of any other sensible solution.[/QUOTE]
Lol

[QUOTE=The Only Way Is Up;2151304]Tell you what then, why don't you create a threat about these hybrid models you're seemingly fond of, explaining why they work so well, and how they would be suitable for us, if you can?

If I seem to be repeating myself, it just might have something to do with the fact that valid points made are "constantly" being forgotten by other posters with a different - and negative - agenda, creating the need to remind some folk that the grass in the "private ownership" or Sugar Daddy" field isn't ALWAYS as green as they make it out to be.

Truth be told, those who understand the fans ownership model become just as frustrated by the need to repeat themselves to those who fail to grasp why it WILL work for Wrexham in the absence of any other sensible solution.[/QUOTE]



But that's your opinion which you are entitled to, those who you are sniping at who have a different opinion have as much right to say it, because their opinion is different to your's does not make them negative anymore than your opinion is being negative.... It's just opinions, just like everyone has an arse everyone has an opinion.... Neither of the opposite opinions has been proven to be right yet
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
 

It all depends how the sugar daddies have funded their plaything.

If this is with repayable loans then there is no security for the club as if the sugar daddy gets fed up then the club simply don't have the means to repay and would go to the wall.

On the other hand a sugar daddy putting money into a club that could not repay risks losing it all anyway. Its like a bank loan. If you owe the bank £10k then you have the risk if you owe the bank £100k then they have the risk :)

Re: Sugar Daddies mean security for the Club and its fans. Correct?
 

[QUOTE=The Only Way Is Up;2151304]Tell you what then, why don't you create a threat about these hybrid models you're seemingly fond of, explaining why they work so well, and how they would be suitable for us, if you can?

If I seem to be repeating myself, it just might have something to do with the fact that valid points made are "constantly" being forgotten by other posters with a different - and negative - agenda, creating the need to remind some folk that the grass in the "private ownership" or Sugar Daddy" field isn't ALWAYS as green as they make it out to be.

Truth be told, those who understand the fans ownership model become just as frustrated by the need to repeat themselves to those who fail to grasp why it WILL work for Wrexham in the absence of any other sensible solution.[/QUOTE]

Out of interest, why do you feel the need to repeat yourself? I think there are probably a handful of people here who don’t believe in fans’ ownership. I’m unconvinced that they’re likely to change their mind after all these years. Is it necessary that they become converts? Or is it ok for them to just carry on supporting the club, spending their money, and in some cases sponsoring us, even if their opinions are different from ours?