The Pitchfork Fund.

[Saint James]

I have made my views clear on the Facebook thread and like Egg I have respect for a number of those involved in the Trust and Club (Martin Weiler springs to mind immediately). However, Stuart is spot on the money that there is widespread disenchantment among significant numbers of fans with the complete inertia and seeming inability of the Trust model to get to grips with the cost base of the club. The Trust hierarchy imo seem unable to grasp or appreciate that if/when the club runs out of cash Trust ownership is over and out. Years of members subscriptions loaned to the club will be lost and it will be too late for recriminations. We may well limp to the end of the season on the back of diminishing gate receipts but when the inevitable reduction in season ticket income along with the potential loss of major sponsorship monies happens in early summer - what next?

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

I have made my views clear on the Facebook thread and like Egg I have respect for a number of those involved in the Trust and Club (Martin Weiler springs to mind immediately). However, Stuart is spot on the money that there is widespread disenchantment among significant numbers of fans with the complete inertia and seeming inability of the Trust model to get to grips with the cost base of the club. The Trust hierarchy imo seem unable to grasp or appreciate that if/when the club runs out of cash Trust ownership is over and out. Years of members subscriptions loaned to the club will be lost and it will be too late for recriminations. We may well limp to the end of the season on the back of diminishing gate receipts but when the inevitable reduction in season ticket income along with the potential loss of major sponsorship monies happens in early summer - what next?

Whilst not suggesting that the Pitchfork Fund is the answer to this serious problem, St. James clearly defines another cogent reason why lumbering through a long drawn out nomination and Trust election campaign that wouldn't even reach fruition until the beginning of next season would not be the answer to this particular problem either, even if movers and shakers could be persuaded to stand and did get elected.

 

[LOG]

The Trust hierarchy imo seem unable to grasp or appreciate that if/when the club runs out of cash Trust ownership is over and out. Years of members subscriptions loaned to the club will be lost and it will be too late for recriminations.

This is one of my reservations about this whole idea.

If people reduce or stop donations to the Trust, whether that is the intention of the initiative or not, it could have a knock on effect on the Trust's ability to continue its donation to the Club. This, in turn, puts the existing c£800k Trust loan at heightened risk.

For the record, i don't have an issue with alternative ideas such as this but, as i see it, this is promoting what is, at best, a negative action and, at worse, increased inaction when, in reality, fans and/or Trust members should be encouraged to contribute positively, by which i don't mean only financially.

 

[Hants_red]

Exactly. That's why I'd happily contribute to a fighting fund which, for instance, hosted meetings for disaffected supporters to thrash out the issues with a view to devising a strategy to ensure that come the next elections we had a slate of candidates, with the same agenda, who were known well beyond ExeWeb and stood every chance of being elected and affecting change.

Could a public meeting be held prior to the Rochdale game on the 22nd? Or is that too soon?

 

[Saint James]

This is one of my reservations about this whole idea.

If people reduce or stop donations to the Trust, whether that is the intention of the initiative or not, it could have a knock on effect on the Trust's ability to continue its donation to the Club. This, in turn, puts the existing c£800k Trust loan at heightened risk.

For the record, i don't have an issue with alternative ideas such as this but, as i see it, this is promoting what is, at best, a negative action and, at worse, increased inaction when, in reality, fans and/or Trust members should be encouraged to contribute positively, by which i don't mean only financially.

They (as in disenchanted members or ex members) have already done so (stopped contributing). The reason this fund is essential is that the club (and Trust) may have no alternative but to seek emergency funding by supporters. Without this fund the club lies wide open to being taken over by those most of us will rue taking control. We know from recent history raising money in a short time frame is almost impossible. This fund allows a realistic timeframe to get a fighting fund together and one which would enable serious negotiation on how that money was made available (e.g. player wages only etc.)

 

[LOG]

They (as inj disenchanted members or ex members) have already done so (stopped contributing). The reason this fund is essential is that the club (and Trust) may have no alternative but to seek emergency funding by supporters. Without this fund the club lies wide open to being taken over by those most of us will rue taking control.

Perhaps, but is that why this fund is being proposed only it's not something i've read in the 10 pages so far?

Which, in itself, is another issue. What is this fund actually for?

 

[RaeUK]

LOG, the premise held in the OP was - to a degree - deliberately loose. A means of collecting and harnessing the funds that the Trust is missing out on. The hope then would be to show the Trust what could be if they reached out more to the fanbase. A bit of leverage. The rest is up for debate.
The Supporter's Club have tentatively said they would consider taking this project on subject to internal discussion and agreement. However, that comes with a little sprinkling of SC ethos, aims and aspirations that were not necessarily contained in the original thinking. It is this latter that Mr James of the WMN has picked up on, presumably from facebook.

 

[RaeUK]

* missed the Edit slot *

One thing it isn't about is taking money AWAY from the Trust. Not in the slightest.

 

[LOG]

LOG, the premise held in the OP was - to a degree - deliberately loose. A means of collecting and harnessing the funds that the Trust is missing out on. The hope then would be to show the Trust what could be if they reached out more to the fanbase. A bit of leverage. The rest is up for debate.

Aye, but on one hand you've got people talking about funding specific projects rather than it disappearing into the black hole, which i can fully support, but, on the other, you've got people talking about using it as emergency funding for when the proverbial hits the fan, putting it into the black hole in other words.

It will do no harm to build a fund from money which the Trust isn't actually missing but, equally, i think it would be far healthier for people to be encouraged to actually become involved in the process rather than withdraw.

In reply to your edit - that's as maybe, but, such is the delight of the internet, it's how some may interpret it.

 

[Hants_red]

One thing it isn't about is taking money AWAY from the Trust. Not in the slightest.

There does seem to be a discussion on Twitter that is suggesting that.