£40 fund fell short, so will the £2 million? (Ian Hart column)

[Inkerman]

did i slag the club off?

No I don't believe that you did - my point was more general in so much that some people are, either on this board, on Harty's phone in or "in the pubs and clubs".

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

ok

 

[Brovion]

It is dis-heartening isn't it.

If the board do nothing they get slagged off for it. If they ask for support they get slagged off for it. If they put money in they get slagged off for it not being enough.

Strikes me that running a Football Club is a no win occupation.

Quite. You also missed off another category for criticism: if they DO put a lot of money in then they're not doing it for the club but only because they want to see a return on their investment.

Good point on the difference between the '40 Note' and '250 Note' funds in your earlier post. As this one has the full weight and resources of the club behind it may reach the parts other fan-based fund-raising initiatives couldn't.

(Then of course you get people like me moaning that it should be done via a Share Issue or a Supporters' Trust - it really is a no-win situation).

 

[Inkerman]

4 letters with "An important communication from the Albion" printed on teh outside of the envelope were on my doormat this morning. Only one more to come for the full set.
That's awareness building in a way that the £40 Notes Fund weren't able to do. Now I have to decide what to do.

 

[Hungry Joe.]

Got my letter this morning. Was slightly concerned by one part of the wording (I'm a Civil Servant so excuse me for being a little worried over small print and wording - I work with Social Security regulations!). I previously believed that a donation of £250 or over would get a named seat at the new stadium but the letter clearly states that a donation of "over £250" will get a named seat. If this is the case, ie your donation has to be £250.01 or more to get a named seat, I can envisage a lot of dissapointed and seriously miffed contributors who paid £250 on the nose thinking they'd get a seat with their name on.

 

[The Large One]

The club did mention and clarify this on Wednesday night. The qualification is OVER £250. So that means it's AT LEAST £250.01.

 

[Hungry Joe.]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Hungry Joe.]

Thinking about that, what a f***ing stupid idea. Why not just make it £250 or more? Loads of people are bound to do £250 if they don't check or understand the way it's worded. I'd hate to think this was a cynical ploy by the club to get people to donate £250 and then not get a named seat (if they wish to have one that is). If it's not intentional then why do it like that? At least they could have clarified it, as you have Large One, in the letter. I know from Income Support regulations that loads of people misunderstand and make mistakes on similarly worded capital or permitted working hours rules.

 

[Titanic]

Insider's answer on 'Ask the Club' clearly says £250 or more.

http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34294

 

[Hungry Joe.]

Now I'm really confused! I hope he's right as that would be sensible but The Large One's post says the club said different on Wednesday night.

 

[El Presidente]

The Indsider is correct. I have sent £250 so expect a name on a seat!

 

[El Presidente]

Quite. You also missed off another category for criticism: if they DO put a lot of money in then they're not doing it for the club but only because they want to see a return on their investment.

I appreciate your concerns but that is rubbish. The club will never make a profit so the shareholders will never see their money again. If you wanted a return on your money you would never put it into a football club with no ground, no money, a fickle fan base and a future dependent upon the whim and mood of a politician.

The only way the shareholders can get a return on their money is if the club reverses the losses made to date and then starts to make meaningful profits (never in my view on figures I have calculated elsewhere) or generates sufficient cash to repay loand made by the board( again highly unlikely as the capital costs of Falmer (if it takes place) and the servicing of the debt will always drain the club of liquid resources. And if we don't get Falmer then we are f***ed, end of.

Criticise the board if you must, (E.g Hinshelwood, Jeff Wood) but accusing them of trying to fleece the fans to line their own pockets is way out of order.

 

[Brovion]

I appreciate your concerns but that is rubbish. The club will never make a profit so the shareholders will never see their money again. If you wanted a return on your money you would never put it into a football club with no ground, no money, a fickle fan base and a future dependent upon the whim and mood of a politician.

The only way the shareholders can get a return on their money is if the club reverses the losses made to date and then starts to make meaningful profits (never in my view on figures I have calculated elsewhere) or generates sufficient cash to repay loand made by the board( again highly unlikely as the capital costs of Falmer (if it takes place) and the servicing of the debt will always drain the club of liquid resources. And if we don't get Falmer then we are f***ed, end of.

Criticise the board if you must, (E.g Hinshelwood, Jeff Wood) but accusing them of trying to fleece the fans to line their own pockets is way out of order.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I am most definitely NOT saying that people only invest in the club because they want a return. I was merely pointing out that it IS one of the criticisms levelled at the people who have currently lent/given money to the club and Inkerman left it off his list. I'm sure he won't mind me namechecking him but 'Charlies Shinpad' holds this view. I however tend to think they're doing it more for love.

 

[The Large One]

Now I'm really confused! I hope he's right as that would be sensible but The Large One's post says the club said different on Wednesday night.

I can re-iterate what Dick said. However, it was to a friend of his, so could have been winding him up. The conversation, in front of everyone, went something along the lines of:

Person (no names): Just to confirm, if I put in £250, it's not a draw for a seat - only for the lifetime season tickets?

DK: No, everyone who donates £250 gets a name on a seat.

Person: Oh good, in that case put me down for four.

DK: Well I say that, except it's £251 - or £250 and a penny!

Person: Oh bloody hell, that's gonna cost me an extra 4p...

However, if enough people go up in arms about it, I can't believe that the club wouldn't relent - especially for the sake of a mere penny.

 

[El Presidente]

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I am most definitely NOT saying that people only invest in the club because they want a return. I was merely pointing out that it IS one of the criticisms levelled at the people who have currently lent/given money to the club and Inkerman left it off his list. I'm sure he won't mind me namechecking him but 'Charlies Shinpad' holds this view. I however tend to think they're doing it more for love.

Fair enough squire. I think you will find that these individuals have lent money rather than bought shares in the club because it is an easier process.

The club is keen to ensure that it does not fall into the hands of one person, which is the danger that arises if investors bought shares when they put money into the Albion.

However, if they lend the club money then they do not have such power. As for withdrawing the money, I think you will find that the bank manager will simply bounce the cheque if that happens, as the club is significantly overdrawn.

 

[Hungry Joe.]

I can re-iterate what Dick said. However, it was to a friend of his, so could have been winding him up. The conversation, in front of everyone, went something along the lines of:

Person (no names): Just to confirm, if I put in £250, it's not a draw for a seat - only for the lifetime season tickets?

DK: No, everyone who donates £250 gets a name on a seat.

Person: Oh good, in that case put me down for four.

DK: Well I say that, except it's £251 - or £250 and a penny!

Person: Oh bloody hell, that's gonna cost me an extra 4p...

However, if enough people go up in arms about it, I can't believe that the club wouldn't relent - especially for the sake of a mere penny.

Oh bollocks, I'm worried again now! I think someone from the club does need to clear this up. Can Insider reveal his source? I've just done my on-line donation and the standard option did say £250 (although there was a field for non-standard amounts). Either the letter is misleading, which is pretty poor if it is, or they do mean £250.01 or more.

 

[El Presidente]

The Insider speaks on behalf of the club so £250 is the de minimus for a name on a seat.

Dick was only pulling the leg of his mate and the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

 

[clapham_gull]

Am I missing something here ? If you have donated £250 and had expected to get a seat - why don't you just send them another quid (or even 50p) and point out that you've already donated £250.

You don't have to donate £250.01p in one go in anycase !!!!!

I asked the insider about the donation and if it is split over a few months you still qualify.

You ain't missed the boat (sorry "seat")

 

[Hungry Joe.]

The Insider speaks on behalf of the club so £250 is the de minimus for a name on a seat.

Dick was only pulling the leg of his mate and the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

I take your point but it's not helped by the wording of the letter. In plain English "over £250" means "£250.01 or more". I have had legal challenges on this point so I do know that is the definition. I'll relax and shut up now though.