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

[QUOTE=Quay Red;2151435]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.[/QUOTE]

Definitely agree with all of this.

[QUOTE=Stafford Red;2151431]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.[/QUOTE]


Arr it wasn't meant the way I worded it I stand corrected by you.

But in correcting you also, bitter and jealous as you put it of who? If you're insinuating the board I certainly don't envy the big job they have... And I'm no bitter with anyone life's to short more important things in life than football.
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

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

[QUOTE=wil;2151264]Are there any clubs that are successful with private owners ? Just asking as it is coming across time and again that with a fan owned club there is no chance of success ( which is B.S. in my opinion), or if a club has a benefactor owner, then they will certainly go pop. Which is equally B.S.[/QUOTE]

What success has any 100% fans owned club had to backup your theory that it is bullshit?

Swansea weren’t before you throw that one in there, Barcelona technically are but their lowest paid player of the first team squad probably equates to our budget.

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

[QUOTE=wil;2151264]Are there any clubs that are successful with private owners ? Just asking as it is coming across time and again that with a fan owned club there is no chance of success ( which is B.S. in my opinion), or if a club has a benefactor owner, then they will certainly go pop. Which is equally B.S.[/QUOTE]

Depends really WHO is the benefactor and WHO is the owner.
Some are genuine fans who want to help the club they love. Some are people with an ego who want to play 'manager 2018' for a while until they either get bored or run out of cash. Then you have the Vaughans and Hamiltons :(

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

[QUOTE=Quay Red;2151435]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.[/QUOTE]

Solid post this. 100%.

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

Sugar daddies for Wrexham = rocking horse shit + unicorns.

Take your pick.

I would love to be proved wrong though :)

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

The % of failing fans owned clubs is higher than the alternative. Telford,Stockport,Chester..... That's a fair few. Successes include Pompey (although they've quickly sacked it off) and Wycombe. Cant think of any others that have been promoted.

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

[QUOTE=REDJB;2151515]The % of failing fans owned clubs is higher than the alternative. Telford,Stockport,Chester..... That's a fair few. Successes include Pompey (although they've quickly sacked it off) and Wycombe. Cant think of any others that have been promoted.[/QUOTE]

Extraordinary statement. Are you allowed to say that in the politically correct fans ownership Disneyland ?

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

[QUOTE=Foxy;2151522]Extraordinary statement. Are you allowed to say that in the politically correct fans ownership Disneyland ?[/QUOTE]

Everybody understands your position and your viewpoints, but I’m afraid it’s post like this that make you seem bitter and petulant. Posts such as these just perpertuate the idea of you being over-zealously against fan ownership and people always against you.

Surely something like “I currently disagree with our current model and don’t see eye to eye with those that are running things currently” would suffice?

Instead you insist with condescending, sarcastic, patronising and border-line vitriolic posts that consistently have an under-handed dig at the current ownership model and it’s limitations.

We get you’re not on board, that’s ok, the tone of your posts is often uneccessary.

Let it be, let it be...