A.S.F.C. FF Bid..... - Page 5

ukcowboy · 23-06-2009, 22:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

Is the ASSF a bit like The Freemasons?

Less than two months ago, when the ASSF was first suggested by the likes of Ilyas,Rob etc,most of the people who regularly frequent this board were all for the idea.

A PUBLIC meeting was held at Ilyas's home and from that the ASSF was 'born',again much hailed by most on here.

I,amongst others, were able to attend that meeting,a lot of people were unable to attend due to work and/or family commitments.However from that first meeting a group of us volunteered to form the ASSF committee and try to push forward for the good of ASFC.

From that first meeting the people who volunteered thier time and commitment to the cause had to act swiftly and form a company, with Directors (chosen from the people who had volunteered),Chair,Treasurer,Secretary etc.

Meetings were also held with Solicitors so that everything could and would be done legally......................All of this was done with the sole intention of making sure our Club would not go to the wall.

Once again,most people on here were supportive and excited by the whole idea.

These things take time and effort to ensure that everything is above board and legal,just as Macca has said in His earlier post.

Now, IMHO, to be likened to the 'Freemasons' is a huge insult to those people who are trying to ensure Stanley's future as a Football Club,we are NOT being 'secretive', and nor are we 'witholding information' from anyone, it is exactly as Macca has pointed out, there is NOTHING CONCERETE to report.

Whilst I understand everyones concern, please,please refrain from using such nonsensical remarks as the one quoted above, as it neither helpful nor a realistic appraisal of the situation. Lets stick together on this one,it was never going to be easy,but progress is possible if we all PULL in the same direction.

I am not spokes person for the ASSF, however I am a member of the committee (and proud to be involved), and Im sorry but I took exception to TM's post, hence this reply.

VALAIRIAN · 23-06-2009, 22:20

Nice post UK. Some very valid points

Bagpuss · 23-06-2009, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

"but we" - "You need to concentrate on matters closer to home"

Bloody hell that's telling me, I thought I was one of the we, looks like I was wrong so I will ****** off to my own message board Liverpool FC with my tail between my legs.

VALAIRIAN · 23-06-2009, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

Bloody hell that's telling me, I thought I was one of the we, looks like I was wrong so I will ****** off to my own message board Liverpool FC with my tail between my legs.

Nice one Baggy....

Tin Monkey · 24-06-2009, 05:52

Nice to see some "us and them" intimations emerging already. The freemasons comment was tongue-in-cheek, but as I've said before, I lost interest a long time ago.

But hey! Let's face it. It just wouldn't be Stanley if it wasn't tinpot!

loweiy · 24-06-2009, 08:13

I am a member of the committee and hope we can all help the future of Stanley.

In matters this important I think we all need to take stock and think before posting

Stephen Lowe (loweiy)

caretaker · 24-06-2009, 09:51

Dont go Baggy, I will miss your wifes photo!

Doug · 24-06-2009, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by caretaker

Dont go Baggy, I will miss your wifes photo!

If that's his wife then the sooner he buggers off the better.......

JEFF · 24-06-2009, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

I wouldn't go that far but I would have liked things to move a bit more quickly, from an outsiders view it seems the momentum we had is going but what do I know.

What things would you have liked to move a bit more quickly?

Revived Red · 24-06-2009, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

Back to the FF, the whole point of the FF is that we, the fans, do as much as we can to establish funds, and directives to ensure that we never again find ourselves in such a ****state as we were in last month. With a new chairman there is no immediate need to create a stampede to some position of power, and there is no need to start exerting pressure on the current regime. However, the FF has an amount of money that the club needs, and we expect to increase that amount of money by significant amounts over the coming months. Exactly how the club obtains access to these funds is the key question. We cannot and will not hand over cheques for no return. There has to be a relinquishment of power for that to happen. Shares or a position on the board for our directors are the requirement. This will ensure that 'the fans' have access to the financial state of the club at all times. It will ensure that we have some input as to the major decisions taken by the club and we will know that our voices will be heard. Once that point of view has been heard it will be down to the powers that be to make the decisions.

I have read macca's post over and over again. The implications of the paragraph quoted above seem enormous.

First of all, I note that some of the committee have now identified themselves elsewhere in this thread. This is a very welcome move. I think that the entire committee should be named. If they did not want to be named, they should never have put themselves forward to be representing the fans in the handling of huge sums of money.

Macca is absolutely correct in saying that the key question is how the club gains access to the new funds.

But then macca's words become more worrying.

"We cannot and will not hand over cheques for no return." Who decides on the return expected/demanded?

"Shares or a position on the board for our directors are the requirement". I was under the impression that the FF did not intend to buy shares - but maybe I am wrong there. Is it expected that ALL the directors will join the board of ASFC?

"It will ensure that we have some input as to the major decisions taken by the club and we will know that our voices will be heard." Who exactly is "we"? The committee/directors of the FF? The whole FF - whatever that may be? Those who have contributed financially to the FF? The fans? It should, of course, be the latter - but how will those empowered to look after the FF know that they have the fans behind their proposals and decisions?

Please note that I am not trying to be difficult or awkward in any way. I am trying to get straight in my own mind (a) how the FF will be structured and organised; and (b) how it will link to ASFC.

I realise that many decisions still have to be made and that these things take time - but time is not really on our side. We seem to be struggling to keep/attract players through funding problems. The funding appears to be available. I suppose that I am saying that the establishment of the FF with the consequent need to sort out all legal niceties and then get on with organising it is in danger of distracting attention from the key issue of getting funding into ASFC.

Apologies if I have gone on too long. I'm just worried that we may be in danger of creating another talking shop and, ironically, alienating fans. The evidence is starting to appear.

JEFF · 24-06-2009, 13:23

Quote:

If they did not want to be named, they should never have put themselves forward to be representing the fans in the handling of huge sums of money.

I don't think that anywhere has it been said that the committee did not want to be named.

Quote:

I realise that many decisions still have to be made and that these things take time - but time is not really on our side. We seem to be struggling to keep/attract players through funding problems. The funding appears to be available. I suppose that I am saying that the establishment of the FF with the consequent need to sort out all legal niceties and then get on with organising it is in danger of distracting attention from the key issue of getting funding into ASFC.

Eric Whalley and David O'Neil have said that they do not need any outside funding.

The funding is available but not just to be 'given' to Stanley. There must be a share issue in order that the Company ASSF can buy shares and so be in a position to have a place on the board (one place).

It is Eric Whalley and David O'Niell who are delaying things so if you want to blame somebody then blame them not ASSF. As far as I understand it ASSF will be a Company set up to raise money to invest in Stanley if and when Whalley and O'Neill admit Stanley need help and cash investment. Nobody can invest in Stanley unless they are invited to do so or until the current Chariman and Board of Directors admit that they need help, but Whalley and O'Neill say that everything is in order and all arrangements have been made, so, at the moment there is nothing anybody or ASSF can do.

Revived Red · 24-06-2009, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

I don't think that anywhere has it been said that the committee did not want to be named.

I agree. Sorry - I was just trying to reinforce macca's point when he wrote: "I sent an email to everybody concerned last night imploring that we should put this information out as soon as possible. I have had some responses but not all. Nobody has yet given a reason why not to do but it is only right that I/we should wait on all responses."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

Eric Whalley and David O'Neil have said that they do not need any outside funding.

The funding is available but not just to be 'given' to Stanley. There must be a share issue in order that the Company ASSF can buy shares and so be in a position to have a place on the board (one place).

It is Eric Whalley and David O'Niell who are delaying things so if you want to blame somebody then blame them not ASSF.

"Blame" does not really come into it. As I said, I simply trying to sort out the situation in my own mind. If I plan to donate to the FF, I need to know the mechanism(s) by which that donation will be used.

Thanks, Jeff, for the rest of the post which really summarises the position. (1) The past chairman and present chairman (or present chairman and future chairman

) of ASFC say they do not need any funds - despite the obvious fact that players are not signing because of lack of funding. (2) There is no way that FF can supply the funding.

We can all draw our own conclusions from that. People have been commenting on lack of momentum etc - I think it will be very difficult to establish momentum in these circumstances. But that's just my opinion.

maccawozzagod · 24-06-2009, 16:10

'we' at all times when discussing the ASSF mean 'the fans'.

'We' for the time being is actually the committee until such time as we can fully canvas opinion on things. not everybody will like every decision that is made, but the whole point is that more people than the previous ONE, are going to be involved in making the decisions that possibly affect the existence of the club.

One example that can be drawn was brought up by you Revived Red. You refer to the fact that we can't afford to keep hold of players, most notably I assume you mean Kenny Arthur, and that it would appear that funding is there to do that. Well for what its worth my opinion is that money should not be poured into the team itself. Once that money is gone there is no real mechanism in place for gaining more large sums other than the genorosity of benefactors. Money should be poured into finding ways of generating our own money. As I said thats my opinion and people may vote me down on it. If so then ASSF blows all its money on signing Kenny, Mullers, Jimmy etc to large contracts and next year we find ourselves back in the same boat.

As for momentum, the best thing The Don could do would be to carry on the EW route of see no evil, hear no evil - as that would help to bring the momentum back to us

Bagpuss · 24-06-2009, 18:31

Just a quickie while I try to read this thread again, what is David Lloyds role now Eric has said he will step aside?

VALAIRIAN · 24-06-2009, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

Just a quickie while I try to read this thread again, what is David Lloyds role now Eric has said he will step aside?

Ilyas, had the idea of using DL as a face,front man of the FF/ASSF, he is well known and from Accy. The initial idea - and I think this is where your question comes from Baggy - was to use DL as a go between, as he is a friend of EW and IK