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]

There you go again.

The only agenda fans have as far as I can see is for the club to be successful. We all want the same thing, it's just that some of us think we might need some outside help in getting there, I don't know why folk are so against that.

The propaganda on view at the moment really isn't sexy.

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

[QUOTE=Jaded;2151310]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?[/QUOTE]

As yours seems to be a genuine question (as opposed to some who have an anal fetish, judging from past replies - you know who you are) the repetition or re-wording is an attempt to prevent the neutrals from being swayed by the utter bollox that some spout about "needing vast sums to get out of this league without which we're doomed!"

FWIW, I gave up two years income in an attempt to prevent this club from falling by the wayside in 2001 and 2002 being a co-founder and first chair of the Trust. My allegiance to the club has been 100% and will remain so to my last breath. I have fewer years remaining than some of those who seek an instant solution to our NL predicament, and it would be very easy to jump on the Sugar Daddy bandwagon if I felt that it would bring a worthwhile and lasting reward for Wrexham AFC and its fans. Instead, I prefer a less risky route than sacrificing security to sup with the type of devil we endured prior to the Trust taking over.

I accept that there will be many who because of their ages have no experience of Wrexham as a real force. With us being one of the top 92 clubs in England and Wales for so many years and recalling so many games where our performances were nearer to the top of that pyramid than the bottom drives me to seek the right solution for the club and its fans. If only every one of you could experience those joys!


Still, those who criticise the Trust's evolution for the club - rising safely, even if slowly - will eventually steer the club in the direction that they feel is right - even if it isn't - unless there's somebody to speak out against them. You may think of my stance as old-fashioned. I have no real concern about that - other than not having seen a viable alternative put forward. Plenty of criticisms offered, but nothing that works in our Club's circumstances.

Old fashioned values will die out as those who hold them die off. You may like what replaces them even less!

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Well said. Our frontmen will reflect where we are at pretty soon.

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

[QUOTE=The Only Way Is Up;2151329]As yours seems to be a genuine question (as opposed to some who have an anal fetish, judging from past replies - you know who you are) the repetition or re-wording is an attempt to prevent the neutrals from being swayed by the utter bollox that some spout about "needing vast sums to get out of this league without which we're doomed!"

FWIW, I gave up two years income in an attempt to prevent this club from falling by the wayside in 2001 and 2002 being a co-founder and first chair of the Trust. My allegiance to the club has been 100% and will remain so to my last breath. I have fewer years remaining than some of those who seek an instant solution to our NL predicament, and it would be very easy to jump on the Sugar Daddy bandwagon if I felt that it would bring a worthwhile and lasting reward for Wrexham AFC and its fans. Instead, I prefer a less risky route than sacrificing security to sup with the type of devil we endured prior to the Trust taking over.

I accept that there will be many who because of their ages have no experience of Wrexham as a real force. With us being one of the top 92 clubs in England and Wales for so many years and recalling so many games where our performances were nearer to the top of that pyramid than the bottom drives me to seek the right solution for the club and its fans. If only every one of you could experience those joys!


Still, those who criticise the Trust's evolution for the club - rising safely, even if slowly - will eventually steer the club in the direction that they feel is right - even if it isn't - unless there's somebody to speak out against them. You may think of my stance as old-fashioned. I have no real concern about that - other than not having seen a viable alternative put forward. Plenty of criticisms offered, but nothing that works in our Club's circumstances.

Old fashioned values will die out as those who hold them die off. You may like what replaces them even less![/QUOTE]

Thanks for the reply.

Do you really think people are likely to be swayed by the ‘bollox’, as you put it? For me, I’m seeing more people being concerned by the decline of a once glorious youth system, the failure to fully support our disabled fans with another viewing platform, and the lack of urgency in chasing up lapsed memberships (to give some examples) than by a small minority of people thinking a sugar daddy would guarantee us a 40 goal a season striker.

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

[QUOTE=podders;2151298]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.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree.

The question is a loaded one because of his agenda.

There are well run clubs in the FL as well as badly run ones. We are in neither of those groups because we are, unfortunately, outside the FL and struggling to get back into it. Hence why we need SR to finally deliver the miracle that has alluded so many other managers.

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

All we have to do to see people being swayed by "bollox" is to watch the political parties broadcasts in the run up to elections. If there was no hope of swaying opinions, the various parties wouldn't bother with those broadcasts.

It's a bit like the tobacco companies' arguments a few years ago that advertising didn't affect the sales of cigarettes. Of course it did! Why else would any company spend millions on advertising their products? Granted, it was important for company A to make sure it didn't lose sales to company B if company B was advertising more than company A... It's a well known quote that "half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, but the trouble is that I don't know which half!"

If one group of fans (large or small) keeps on saying that we need more external investment - even if it carries the ultimate risk of the club's failure, more and more will start believing them unless a counter-argument is presented to redress the balance.


In football, the cross-section of fans involved will include experienced business people who may be outnumbered by other fans who are only interested in seeing their team win. It's a familiar criticism of the Trust Board by the latter many of whom assume that because the Board have day-jobs that they are "inferior" in the task of running the club than someone who has made a fortune out of selling giant dildos for example. There's no correlation there. Some of us soon saw through the bulls**t that Guterman peddled, while others were still thinking he was going to be our saviour. Fortunately, the repeated warnings from the DJs eventually got through to pretty much every fan, and the rest is history.

Debate is healthy. It tends to reveal problems and to stimulate good ideas, but it will only do this when adversaries recognise that theirs is a common cause and start pulling together to find solutions instead of back-biting. The sickener is when some folk fail to consider both sides of the argument, or ignore everyone else's viewpoint except their own. on RP we see posts that ask the same questions again and again despite them having been answered earlier in that thread or in others. That's when banging your own head against a brick wall becomes too painful, which can cost the club input from valuable sources as they give up in despair.

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

Yes I would want to be in Villa's shoes, in the Championship playoffs almost in the Premiership - better than the pit we are in. They will never go bust, and owners will come and go.
To balance the argument about being safer as fan owned club, means we need fans with deep pockets, willing to not just chip in £20, but maybe sponsor a stand for £1M, or a developer who would turn the kop into a show piece facility built for nothing but maybe gets a share of any events that take place like concerts. This is the only true way we would get Wales back on a regular basis.

So yes I would love to be Villa, but with better money management.

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... [COLOR="Red"]But in general instead of a club being an owners play thing our club is a certain fews play thing.[/COLOR]

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]

You were going so well for the first couple of lines, then the digs at the few just make you look bitter and jealous. Any worthwhile point is lost.

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

There's a lot of fans who would applaud your persistence in promoting the model we have, me included. unfortunately for a growing minority, patience is in short supply.
I agree with you that we can succeed but feel that the club need to be a bit more open with the way they hope to achieve success.
I accept that the reserves have to be sacrificed in order to maximise funding of the first team rather than run a squad of 24 players.
I am concerned that the youth programme appears to be suffering and would like some answers to the various questions regarding coaching staff and openings for the young players to make their mark with the first team.
I'm more than satisfied that the trust and Club boards have made great strides off the field but as pointed out there is more that we can do to encourage new members to join and get involved.
It's now down to the manager and his recruitment to drive us further forward and upwards. Build a winning team and the support will increase as will the finances to further enhance the team.