And you are 100% sure of that are you.

Blind faith = money down the toilet ans skint

TBF I think you can discount the "share scheme" as too many people at this point no too little, blind faith or not.
It is too big a amount to find in too short a time, unless they're are major investors wishing to contribute in this manner and take a lesser steak in the club, and then do some funding afterwards.
The two options I see, both involve administration sadly:
1) SD involved after admin, along with administrator.
2) shrewd purchase of the club by investor, who has so far not taken the risk, and they will do this 100%, no need/wish for SD, or perhaps some SD involvement.

I won't disagree with you on that , but as I said , it is your club , your decision

Not everybody with an interest or potential to invest will be able to attend. Also any news from the meeting will be second hand, and open to any interpretation those attending want to put on it.

Plus why get the ST mixed up with giving out the facts from the club, surely the best thing is for the club to make an open statement of its intentions on the club website.

To address the first point, this is taken from the sticky thread about the ST meeting:


In terms of the club's statements so far, the shortened version of what they've said is "We need to raise £500k & can't raise this solely from the directors or the bank. If supporters can raise £500k in an escrow account, we'll tell them more to see if they agree with how the money will be spent. If they agree, they can allow the money to be released to the club. If not, they get their money back."

Thats good then because no ones asking anyone to invest, the trust will not be asking for money and minutes of the meeting will be for all to share, the meetings been called because of the state we are in, its been called earlier than it maybe would have but needs must.

They are not "giving out facts from the club" they are not the voice of the club but they will answer any questions that they have an answer to.

And the known facts are all that I've tried to promote, I'm certainly not pro BoD and neither am I as scathing in my condemnation of them as some others are.

Where there is doubt because of a lack of information I've said so and I've only tried to clarify the situation regarding the ESCROW and any funds in it.

Sorry fella but that is utter codswallop!

The fans behind the ST are working hard to set up the Trust because they want clarity, truth, influence and a truly impartial position from which to judge the BoD or any new BoD with objectivity.

The whole movement has been fueled by the lack of truth and clear information from the club so there's no way the ST will kick off by 'spinning' a line from the club to suit its own ends.

I cannot see why there seems to be hostility in some quarters towards a proposed Supporters' Trust!

A supporters' Trust is totally separate from the club. It may provide a vehicle for acquiring a holding in the club and board representation. Then again it may not! That is entirely a decision for the members of that Trust, not those who those members empower to run it - invariably as unpaid volunteers with s shedload of (often unappreciated) work to do.

If I was a Wakey supporter (I am not, but don't pillory me for being a concerned well-wisher), and knowing what I know about the nature and role of Supporters' Trusts, and about the wider financial state of the club (and some other clubs and indeed most of the game outside of the sugar-daddied clubs) I would see a Trust as being a no-brainer. Quite possibly the best way forward for everyone.

And, don't forget, it is always easier for a club to communicate with and discuss issues of common concern or interest with a single body, with a mandate to speak on behalf of enough of the fans to have the credibility, than with fans individually or disparate groups. Unless, of course, a club is actively seeking to "divide and conquer"...

OK, just my observations from a position of a bit of experience. But what do I know?

But remember - a Supporters' Trust is very similar to a co-operative: owned and run by its members for its members, and - importantly, and I assume this would be the case at Wakey too - one member one vote. And totally democratic - indeed, you would not believe the sodding hoops those volunteers charged by the members with running a Trust have to jump through to maintain and ensure that democracy. Believe me...

And, unlike an ISA, you are talking about an organisation incorporated under the Industrial & Provident Societies Acts 1965-1978, that is subject to a wide range of statutory and general regulation to protect the members and anyone dealing with it. As well as being under the Guidance of Supporters' Direct who - again believe me - will not put up with anything that is not totally in the interests of the members.

So, as I said, why would anyone be hostile or suspicious, certainly without going to hear what is said? And, provided enough of you turn out, including the sceptics, then there will be enough reporting back to dispel any worries about spin on what is "regurgitated" back? I'd say that argument had gone way past "strong" and was making serious ground on "irrefutable"?

But again, what do I know, eh? Sorry if anyone thinks I am interfering. I am not, and have no reason or grounds to. But I hate injustice, and that is what impels me to comment.

Sincerely, again

A concerned observer and well-wisher.

I would guess, for some (and I say this without knowledge of who is who on here!), there is still some ill-feeling from when the Supporters Club merged with WISA back in the day, and that some have benefited from that by being employed by the club, or being within as 'inner circle' if you will. Just a hunch.

Perhaps. Add to that the fact that some of the other more persistent critics are not even Wakey fans and I think you've probably covered the whole spectrum.