Breaking News Trust asked by club to contribute to tour AGAIN

[Its Only A Game]

For me, the size of the contribution isn't a major issue. The trust have said they were prepared to give the club up to 12K to keep their funds at 50K. Having donated 10K to the yoofs they were already still prepared to supply another 2K anyway, so the extra 3K to fund the tour isn't a major issue, as trust funds would still stand at 47K instead of 50K. No great shakes there.

But.......

I think what is important is that the club realise that the trust is not the clubs piggy bank to raid as and when it see's fit. So I think the yes/no really depends on how the club went about it

If they sounded out the trust, gave them an idea of figures, got a provisional yes/no then booked it then I think thats fine. But if they booked it, then came to the trust crying that they didn't have enough money and they wanted to trust to chip in then thats just plain wrong.

When the spanish tour was announced, I stupidly assumed that meant the clubs finances must be in a better state or they wouldn't be paying out on foreign tours.........looks like i was wrong :sad:

 

[fbm]

For me, the size of the contribution isn't a major issue. The trust have said they were prepared to give the club up to 12K to keep their funds at 50K. Having donated 10K to the yoofs they were already still prepared to supply another 2K anyway, so the extra 3K to fund the tour isn't a major issue, as trust funds would still stand at 47K instead of 50K. No great shakes there.

But.......

I think what is important is that the club realise that the trust is not the clubs piggy bank to raid as and when it see's fit. So I think the yes/no really depends on how the club went about it

If they sounded out the trust, gave them an idea of figures, got a provisional yes/no then booked it then I think thats fine. But if they booked it, then came to the trust crying that they didn't have enough money and they wanted to trust to chip in then thats just plain wrong.
When the spanish tour was announced, I stupidly assumed that meant the clubs finances must be in a better state or they wouldn't be paying out on foreign tours.........looks like i was wrong :sad:

But I don't think they have, have they? They've just asked for help, which isn't exactly crying that they don't have enough.

 

[Its Only A Game]

But I don't think they have, have they? They've just asked for help, which isn't exactly crying that they don't have enough.

Thats exactly the point i was trying to get across. It really to me depends on how they have gone about it and from the trusts communication it doesn't really make it clear whether it was a) provisionally agreed b) provisionally rejected or c) booked and advertised before they knew the answer

 

[united we stand]

Having read all of the above I still can't make my mind up on this, and I can see why the board is spilt.

To me this is very different from last year when the trusts money made the difference between having a tour and not having a tour.
Once the original decision had been made not to give a donation for the tour was this made clear to the club -I assume Yes , and the letter indicates tht this is the case

Therefore what has changed since that means that the trust board is now split having already made a decision ?

This is a genuine question as I beleive the more info you have leads to better decisions

 

[TrueBlue]

Having read all of the above I still can't make my mind up on this, and I can see why the board is spilt.

To me this is very different from last year when the trusts money made the difference between having a tour and not having a tour.
Once the original decision had been made not to give a donation for the tour was this made clear to the club -I assume Yes , and the letter indicates tht this is the case

Therefore what has changed since that means that the trust board is now split having already made a decision ?

This is a genuine question as I beleive the more info you have leads to better decisions

The point is though we need to set our stance and we need to stick with it - vote no and we can then show the club that they need to change their attitude

 

[Jam_Man]

The point is though we need to set our stance and we need to stick with it - vote no and we can then show the club that they need to change their attitude

So the stance should be the club should never ask for the Trust to assist in preseason tours ?

Whilst I do think they should consilt prior to arrangements being made (if they werent) I have no problem with the trust contributing.

Its for the teams benefit after all.

 

[TrueBlue]

So the stance should be the club should never ask for the Trust to assist in preseason tours ?

Whilst I do think they should consilt prior to arrangements being made (if they werent) I have no problem with the trust contributing.

Its for the teams benefit after all.

No come on don't be silly! - we all want to help the club as best we can but there are boundaries and these are being ****ed on

 

[Jam_Man]

No come on don't be silly! - we all want to help the club as best we can but there are boundaries and these are being ****ed on

Im not sure where your boundaries are though.

So if 2 months ago the club said we are looking to do a tour to Spain would the Trust be interested in contributing what should the Trust do in your opinion ?

 

[TrueBlue]

Im not sure where your boundaries are though.

So if 2 months ago the club said we are looking to do a tour to Spain would the Trust be interested in contributing what should the Trust do in your opinion ?

Contribute based on the fact that we see the figures and hear from the manager why this is needed.

But to charge into booking something assuming we will just wedge out.... NO!

 

[Cricko]

Im not sure where your boundaries are though.

So if 2 months ago the club said we are looking to do a tour to Spain would the Trust be interested in contributing what should the Trust do in your opinion ?

Which is exactly the case as quoted in the Trust Liaison notes from May.

7. Youth Team Sponsorship
GL was aware that the Trust wished to continue to sponsor the Youth team but also that
only a certain amount of cash was available overall to support the Club next season. With
the Club hoping that the Trust would also assist in financing the pre-season tour, as in 2011,

 

[Fish]

The point is though we need to set our stance and we need to stick with it - vote no and we can then show the club that they need to change their attitude

That's a bit of a gamble without knowing why the club has asked the Trust for a contribution at this stage:
1) It could be that a sponsor pulled out, leaving them unexpectedly short
2) It reads as if the tour will happen whatever, and the club is only asking for help
Your bull in a china shop grandstanding approach would only be appropriate if we had conclusive proof that the club had deliberately pre-booked everything on an assumption that they could go to the Trust afterwards to stump up whatever cash they needed. I'm not saying that's NOT what's happened but we need more proof before jumping to such a significant conclusion.

Secondly, you simply don't understand the difference between a creditor (as the Trust was when it LENT the club £60k, expecting the money to be paid back) and an investor, who GIVES the club money, in return for owning a share of the company and becoming a shareholder. The Trust is NOT a shareholder to the extent that would be necessary to be able to 'demand' a seat on the board.

 

[Blue_Shrimper1959]

I think the main issue here is the fact the club booked the tour and then asked for money, and not the other way round, so I agree with others when it's a matter of principal rather than money.

That being said, we are probably 3-4 players short in the squad, all of whom would be on between £1k-£2k. This has been the case since contracts would've kicked in from the start of July, so if Luggy had made all his signings before pre-season does that mean we couldn't have paid them? Because by my maths there's more than £5k for the past couple of weeks in unused wages.

I find it hard to believe the club can't afford this on their own, especially with sponsorship for the tour, or at the very least one of our wealthier directors loan the money to the club until a few home games have generated some income.

 

[londonblue]

Yet it would still look far better all round if they suggested the contribution before booking it. Perceptions count for a lot and if they asked after the tour was booked then it can look, as this thread shows, that they are desperate for the Trusts help.

I see it the other way. Had they asked for help before the tour was booked it would give the impression that without the Trust's help the tour wouldn't go ahead, which would be seen by some as blackmail.

 

[Kent Shrimper]

That's a bit of a gamble without knowing why the club has asked the Trust for a contribution at this stage:
1) It could be that a sponsor pulled out, leaving them unexpectedly short
2) It reads as if the tour will happen whatever, and the club is only asking for help
Your bull in a china shop grandstanding approach would only be appropriate if we had conclusive proof that the club had deliberately pre-booked everything on an assumption that they could go to the Trust afterwards to stump up whatever cash they needed. I'm not saying that's NOT what's happened but we need more proof before jumping to such a significant conclusion.

Secondly, you simply don't understand the difference between a creditor (as the Trust was when it LENT the club £60k, expecting the money to be paid back) and an investor, who GIVES the club money, in return for owning a share of the company and becoming a shareholder. The Trust is NOT a shareholder to the extent that would be necessary to be able to 'demand' a seat on the board.

I think TB understands exactly, However i don't think you understand that RM offered the trust a place on the board which has since been reneged but the club still want the Trusts help.

 

[Jam_Man]

Contribute based on the fact that we see the figures and hear from the manager why this is needed.

But to charge into booking something assuming we will just wedge out.... NO!

Which is exactly the case as quoted in the Trust Liaison notes from May.

7. Youth Team Sponsorship
GL was aware that the Trust wished to continue to sponsor the Youth team but also that
only a certain amount of cash was available overall to support the Club next season. With
the Club hoping that the Trust would also assist in financing the pre-season tour, as in 2011,

So TB, as per the above as this wasnt charged into and raised some time ago then whats the issue?

I see it the other way. Had they asked for help before the tour was booked it would give the impression that without the Trust's help the tour wouldn't go ahead, which would be seen by some as blackmail.

Well they did ask prior to it being booked so thats not the case.

 

[TrueBlue]

That's a bit of a gamble without knowing why the club has asked the Trust for a contribution at this stage:
1) It could be that a sponsor pulled out, leaving them unexpectedly short
2) It reads as if the tour will happen whatever, and the club is only asking for help
Your bull in a china shop grandstanding approach would only be appropriate if we had conclusive proof that the club had deliberately pre-booked everything on an assumption that they could go to the Trust afterwards to stump up whatever cash they needed. I'm not saying that's NOT what's happened but we need more proof before jumping to such a significant conclusion.

Secondly, you simply don't understand the difference between a creditor (as the Trust was when it LENT the club £60k, expecting the money to be paid back) and an investor, who GIVES the club money, in return for owning a share of the company and becoming a shareholder. The Trust is NOT a shareholder to the extent that would be necessary to be able to 'demand' a seat on the board.

We tried to invest at the time but the club said they wanted to loan it!

 

[Earls Hall Blue]

No, imo

The club is going to tour anyway, otherwise whoever is in charge of costing these things has questions to answer.

While I agree with the comment that helping the 1st team prepare is as important as helping the youth setup, Im sure Trust funding for the 1st team can be better spent to help them.

 

[BLUEBLOOD]

How about the touring party (25 of them??) stump up £100 each .. not bad for a little jolly up in the sun, which what this is lets be honest about it

There's half the £5k straight up

OK i know our players aren't rolling in cash, but in the general scheme of things, man in the street etc.. they ARE well paid so are well capable of dipping into their own pockets

 

[fbm]

I'm sorry guys, I just really don't see the problem. Perhaps I'm being thick.

May 2012 - The Trust liason notes as posted by Cricko indicate that the club hopes the Trust will assist with financing the pre-season tour as they did before.

June - The club organises the tour and arranges sponsorship.

July - The club asks the Trust if it will help with finance to the tune of £5K.

Now to me the issue isn't whether the Trust says yes or no; I just don't get why various trust members are getting so upset about the club actually asking.

Is there any real justification for saying "No" other than to somehow be seen to punish the club or, more specifically, RM, for having the audacity to ask now rather than putting a written request in 3 months ago, preferably in triplicate and on grovelling knees, begging?

It strikes me that some people are looking at this as though the club is a naughty child asking for extra pocket money.

I repeat - the motto is "To help, not hinder."

 

[Holy Joe]

I've voted no - key reason for me is that the donation of £5k would eat into the capital (savings pot) rather than the annual income of the Trust. The savings pot should be saved for an emergency.