Spiderpig Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Exactly. With a club like ours, you need a rich fan who is happy to run the club at or around breakeven, with no expectation of ever making a profit. Otherwise you might end up with an asset stripper who will sell the ground and piss off to Colombia before a new ground is built. Running the club at breakeven...no expectation of making a profit...if thats the plan to run a multi million pound turn over business then we really are fecked. Thats the problem we have,the club is facing the very real prospect of being run by the WS does anybody really think for a minute that they are up to it ? Like it or not the club is a business 1st and football club 2nd so it needs to be run like one ie proper plans in place to increase revenues, keep costs down, expand and develop playing staff and facilites etc. Oh and probably not all consortiums if any are Columbian drug cartels unless thats your experience of any you deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I don't have a huge amount of confidence in the WS board as it currently stands to run the club. But I do think the likes of Jim McMahon would still be involved whether that is through standing for election (as a WS member already) or other ways. So that gives me a little comfort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Running the club at breakeven...no expectation of making a profit...if thats the plan to run a multi million pound turn over business then we really are fecked. Thats the problem we have,the club is facing the very real prospect of being run by the WS does anybody really think for a minute that they are up to it ? Like it or not the club is a business 1st and football club 2nd so it needs to be run like one ie proper plans in place to increase revenues, keep costs down, expand and develop playing staff and facilites etc. Oh and probably not all consortiums if any are Columbian drug cartels unless thats your experience of any you deal with. You've not quite grasped the Society ideal... we get that. Your rhetoric has become tiresome - if you don't wish to obtain membership, that's your choice, those who are members, would-be members & other naysayers don't need reminding of a perceived 'bowling club' existence. If you feel that strongly, join up - the vehicle is there to attempt change from the inside if you think your efforts would be better served. By your own admission, the business 'needs to be run like one ie proper plans in place to increase revenues, keep costs down, expand and develop playing staff and facilites etc' - this will still be the case even if (I'll use this term loosely) the Society take over ownership of the club. There are individuals appointed like those in their current position to make these decisions on the Society's behalf. To expect the current Society Board to be the main driver on your claim would be folly as this isn't their forte, if it was, they would already be employed at the club in that capacity. Whilst they will seek to advise, not every decision will be made by the Society. The impracticalities of this are further compounded by the groundswell that our support rarely agree on the shade shite should be. For the record, I'm an existing member & not the only one who remains to be convinced to commit further funds, but, that's for another debate. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 You've not quite grasped the Society ideal... we get that. Your rhetoric has become tiresome - if you don't wish to obtain membership, that's your choice, those who are members, would-be members & other naysayers don't need reminding of a perceived 'bowling club' existence. If you feel that strongly, join up - the vehicle is there to attempt change from the inside if you think your efforts would be better served. Oh i get the WS society ideal ok i just think its not right for the club in its present form. If this had been launched as a simple share issue to allow fans to purchase a stake in the club up to 51% or whatever percentage was deemed a controlling interest then potentially a lot more people would have got involved and taken up the offer. Obviously there would have to have been sufficient safeguards in place to prevent any 1 individual gaining overall control. What we have now are WS members contributing significant cash year on year to eventually buy a controlling interest and provide a financial reserve to help the club out when times get tough. If the club was living within its means then this extra income would not be required so no need for fans to continually contribute year on year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Oh i get the WS society ideal ok i just think its not right for the club in its present form. If this had been launched as a simple share issue to allow fans to purchase a stake in the club up to 51% or whatever percentage was deemed a controlling interest then potentially a lot more people would have got involved and taken up the offer. Obviously there would have to have been sufficient safeguards in place to prevent any 1 individual gaining overall control. What we have now are WS members contributing significant cash year on year to eventually buy a controlling interest and provide a financial reserve to help the club out when times get tough. If the club was living within its means then this extra income would not be required so no need for fans to continually contribute year on year. Not right for the club in its present form? Pray tell us what is because it's widely acknowledged that the Society is the only show on the road. Despite having plenty to say, you offer no alternative... You may well be correct on the share issue point, but, why did the former owner shy away from that very ideal in order he recoup some of his outlay? Obviously there would have to have been sufficient safeguards? We do, it's called the 'Well Society. As for becoming a club shareholder - I'm sure the club have been approachable in the past for ordinary supporters to do just that and a few from this very board are now shareholders & can enjoy any benefits whatever they may be. Disagree on 'What we have now are WS members contributing significant cash year on year to eventually buy a controlling interest and provide a financial reserve to help the club out when times get tough' - The majority are contributing now to establish their membership in the first instance surely? 'If the club was living within its means then this extra income would not be required so no need for fans to continually contribute year on year' Now you previously mentioned 'proper plans in place to increase revenues, keep costs down, expand and develop playing staff and facilites etc' we'll just gloss over your contradiction - I'd expect any Society contributions are only one of many revenue streams to achieve this no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.