Claim back your season ticket refund (#NotAPennyMore)

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

Do you have someone lined up with the money to do what Wimbledon have done? Or could you suggest some contacts you have that they can engage with to do something similar?

Here’s the rub - you have to welcome the conversations to make people want to have them. I put someone forward pre takeover - the person that stepped up to save the club on bond day - the suggestion of creating a 25% share block to increase capital to fund the acquisition of ground or Colliers was welcomed by the then Chair but shot down by Peter. Loss of assets but 100% ownership was preferable. I even think mandate might have been mentioned.

So I’ll reverse the question - if it was offered again do you think the attitude would be any different now?

[Rob Edwards]

Originally Posted by Wirral Red

If you don't want Boris you look for an alternative that would do a better job , Sunak or Starmer possibly. This is where your anti board fanaticism falls down , you don't seem to be able to provide an alternative list of suitable candidates whether you would stand yourself or not.

The Board and the ownership model are failing at present.
Your way of thinking is it does not matter how many expensive mistakes the Board make, they should stay in place if no one else can be voted on.These are individuals who have wasted game changing sell-ons and made 3 consecutive ridiculous managerial appointments- they are serial failures.Their latest party trick is seemingly being wiling to sacrifice our conference status for an inadequate school field training ground project.They should show some humility,admit they have failed and put the club up for sale so we can get actual competent people on the board for once.

[Todd Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

Here’s the rub - you have to welcome the conversations to make people want to have them. I put someone forward pre takeover - the person that stepped up to save the club on bond day - the suggestion of creating a 25% share block to increase capital to fund the acquisition of ground or Colliers was welcomed by the then Chair but shot down by Peter. Loss of assets but 100% ownership was preferable. I even think mandate might have been mentioned.

So I’ll reverse the question - if it was offered again do you think the attitude would be any different now?

State your alternative ownership plan to the current owners and let them decide. I’m sure that even if you don’t have anything concrete, something indicative would get a lot of support, depending on their background.

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

State your alternative ownership plan to the current owners and let them decide. I’m sure that even if you don’t have anything concrete, something indicative would get a lot of support, depending on their background.

If by owners you mean the Trust hierarchy
I did, they didn’t.

If they have changed their mind they can ask.

If you mean the fans - see recent poll

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

State your alternative ownership plan to the current owners and let them decide. I’m sure that even if you don’t have anything concrete, something indicative would get a lot of support, depending on their background.

I thought BV was quite clear that his preferred ownership plan was along the lines of Wimbledon.

[ozzy red]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

Anti board fanaticism? Its anti failure fanaticism. You are obviously fine with failure and apathy rules in your world.

I don't need to provide any alternative list, why should I?

The ones there now aren't suitable, this is proven fact, yet you'll vote for them? *Slow clap*

So it doesn't fall down at all, because its not down to me or any fan to go around recruiting candidates. The fact you even suggest this shows the sheer desperation. Its cringeworthy and embarrassing how the likes of you defend this lot. And then you laud yourself as some sort of hero for letting the club keep your ST money whilst on the other hand your feeding the failing and flawed ownership model. How ironic.

Ask yourself why people aren't putting themselves forward?
Its because anyone with opposing views who does is likely to be the subject of a smear campaign. It happened with the EGM, so don't even try and deny it.

Also I don't even want the WST anyone near the club anymore so why would I buy into all this election bollocks? Its futile. Speak to the many who have resigned from the WST board in recent times. You're clearly out of touch.

Phil
This is a serious and well debated topic, best left to those who can articulate points of view without abuse.
Your consistently aggressive approach does nothing for your argument.

[dragonspark]

i see various posters are enquiring if those of dissent have any viable options, which is a viable question, in the main part there is no alternative that is publicly known of, plenty of whispers but nothing set in stone, therefore what is stopping the board from placing an advert in"The Times" or "Wall Street Journal" etc informing wealthy people of the potential of this football club

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Colomiers Phoenix

Leave him alone, one day he will have to find other things to do with his time other than to troll on here - not knowing him or his circumstances considering his hours spent on here - perhaps a job or a seat on the board - God forbid
awaiting response from usual suspects

Love G

Alright John / Neil / 'G', on the night shift again are we? Do hope you're well.

Of course, you know all about trolling, fake accounts etc don't you? A true 'expert'.

[Haruki]

Originally Posted by Colomiers Phoenix

Leave him alone, one day he will have to find other things to do with his time other than to troll on here - not knowing him or his circumstances considering his hours spent on here - perhaps a job or a seat on the board - God forbid
awaiting response from usual suspects

Love G

Thank you for your “independent” post