- Aug 1, 2013
- 2,939
- 2,085
- Thread starter
- #41
And you've whooshed over the point again Paul.
Comedy Show
- Thread starter Tony1874
- Start date
- Status
And you've whooshed over the point again Paul.
- May 21, 2014
- 836
- 486
No, you have! Tarring all Wittoners with the same brush (yet again)! Clearly you don't realise there are some wittoners who respect and understand the transparency and integrity of YOUR newly formed club! I give up, the last post from me on here anyway. Good luck, I'd rather you succeed than V*cs (from a loyal witton albion supporter)
- Jun 24, 2013
- 629
- 313
Paul I think toddys point, and my gut feeling, is that given the chance you new tenants will take advantage of the situation, which includes use of the stadium. They may never own it... But that still doesn't mean you should rest in you laurels...
I believe this has happened before?
- May 21, 2014
- 836
- 486
I DIDN'T, BUT WITH YOUR ATTITUDE I MUST HAVE DONE BECAUSE I AM A WITTONER!! WE EAT, SLEEP AND REPEAT ALL TOGETHER EVERY ONE OF US! NONSENSE!!
- May 21, 2014
- 836
- 486
Agree entirely mate, thank you for understanding where I am coming from on this. There are some (a lot) of Wittoners not wanting to see this happen, I just wish some of your fans could understand this.
- Aug 1, 2013
- 2,939
- 2,085
- Thread starter
- #47
To not agree with Vics overspending would suggest you agreed with it, in which it makes the current groundshare situation absolutely acceptable to you and in either case the result is still the same.
- May 21, 2014
- 836
- 486
I might be wrong but I'd take a punt that you followed Vics and supported that club a lot more than me over the years.
- Aug 1, 2013
- 2,939
- 2,085
- Thread starter
- #49
That's correct Paul but I learnt my lesson from the Connett era and enforced a self imposed ban in 2009 when Rushe dropped to the same moral & financial level.
It's the shamelessness that gets me, the trail of upset the club has left in the town, businesses left unpaid...and there they are grinning like village idiots on TV rubbing everyone's noses in it.
I wonder what gates they need to pay the rent and pay the wages. It must be over 300-400? Does this not concern them, and if it doesn't where is the money coming from?
I wonder what gates they need to pay the rent and pay the wages. It must be over 300-400? Does this not concern them, and if it doesn't where is the money coming from?
I don't believe the board should respond,the comments made on here and the letter's to the BBC are proof of the feelings of the people of Northwich.If more individuals complained to the BBC either by phone or letter,then maybe the true story might be told,then the true reason they left Northwich might be told.The reason for the formation of 1874 would then get to a wider part of the local population.I also believe them going on the BBC was a serious own goal,it has now opened up this reaction and put focus on the true fact's.If enough people complain to the BBC then maybe they will do a balance report of the facts.
- Aug 1, 2013
- 2,939
- 2,085
- Aug 1, 2013
- 2,939
- 2,085
- Thread starter
- #57
FAO CJ....
We're not suggesting that Witton are overspending, just spending JRFC's overspend.
Last edited:
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
I have been a Wittoner all my life - well ever since Dad took me to Pop's when I was about 4 before a game at the Central Ground - and I have never waivered. The local rivalry with Vics has been great over the years, despite being on the receiving end for most of that time whilst watching you lot from afar revel in cup runs and playing in higher leagues (after you campaigned against our proposed membership of the old NPL !!). During those halcyon years of Vics' success, I never heard Vics fans complaining about where the money was coming from to pay the team and enjoy the benefits of Conference status. During this period, Wittoners had to keep their heads down and fight to support a team at lower levels where they could afford to play. The sale of the Central Ground and our flirtation in the top flight ended in disaster when we went into receivership - but the supporters and directors had to pay ALL our debts to survive and keep hold of Wincham Park. 20 years down the line we are still here, but have learned some harsh lessons.
To maintain a successful team in the senior non leagues, needs some serious money. How many of the successful non-league teams in our area (perhaps with the exception of FC United with their great fan base) have succeeded on their gate income? How many clubs have succeeded due to huge investment over and above their match day takings? I am sure there are loads that you could name, even in NWCL. I am not casting any doubt or suggestion on these clubs, but just trying to make the point that if many clubs relied purely on their gate income, they would be playing at a much lower level.
At Witton, we don't have any major backer or shareholder prepared or able to dig deep and make extra funds available to the club. The Directors (whom the shareholders appoint to run the club) therefore have to make use of all the options available to them to ensure that they can provide the funds so that the team and club can be as successful as it can. The social club has been revamped and is being successfully regenerated to bring more revenue into the club. This process has been ongoing for the past couple of years and hopefully will continue. The other major asset we have is the pitch. We cannot afford a stadium that is being used every other week. Its a great ground, but its expensive to run and if it wasn't for volunteers it would be in rack and ruin by now. So the directors have to take steps to maximise the use of that facility.
As I understand, but not knowing the details, the Board searched for alternative uses and users of the Ground. One of those options was for 1874 to come back to Northwich at Wincham Park. For reasons that are absolutely nothing to do with Witton and everything to do with 1874, you decided not to take up that offer. No one is making any adverse comment about that decision. Everyone respects the decision you made and the reasons why. So we were left with the offer from the Flixton division.
I think everyone at Witton has reservations about the agreement. Some of the fans absolutely do not agree that the deal should have been done. However, what we do have is a board of Directors and a Chairman who have steered us through some very tricky moments and in whom the majority of fans trust to make the best decision for our club, based on all the information they would have to hand. They are not numpties. They would have known that this deal is contentious, but we trust them to act in the best interests of our club. I also personally think that the wider football community (not knowing all the facts maybe) would have difficulty understanding why we wouldn't help another another member of the footballing community as we did Runcorn, Nantwich and of course the original NVFC.
So my point is this - The Board of WAFC are working in the best interest of WAFC. It is not up to our Directors to oversee the accounts of NVFC, but the governance committees of the leagues and the FA. If you have doubts about the funding of NVFC, then perhaps its those bodies who should be made aware of your concerns. If the club isn't being funded through acceptable channels, then the governing body needs to take action - not WAFC. I can understand the 1874 view, but one could argue that no one assuaged this view in the 70's and 80's. Seems some folks have had a "road to Damascus" moment and are now quite zealous about it.
As for the BBC reporting, I agree with you totally. I don't know who set that up with the Beeb but they absolutely fell for it !!
Good luck for the new season, I hope you continue the excellent progress and that we see you back at WP before too long.
To maintain a successful team in the senior non leagues, needs some serious money. How many of the successful non-league teams in our area (perhaps with the exception of FC United with their great fan base) have succeeded on their gate income? How many clubs have succeeded due to huge investment over and above their match day takings? I am sure there are loads that you could name, even in NWCL. I am not casting any doubt or suggestion on these clubs, but just trying to make the point that if many clubs relied purely on their gate income, they would be playing at a much lower level.
At Witton, we don't have any major backer or shareholder prepared or able to dig deep and make extra funds available to the club. The Directors (whom the shareholders appoint to run the club) therefore have to make use of all the options available to them to ensure that they can provide the funds so that the team and club can be as successful as it can. The social club has been revamped and is being successfully regenerated to bring more revenue into the club. This process has been ongoing for the past couple of years and hopefully will continue. The other major asset we have is the pitch. We cannot afford a stadium that is being used every other week. Its a great ground, but its expensive to run and if it wasn't for volunteers it would be in rack and ruin by now. So the directors have to take steps to maximise the use of that facility.
As I understand, but not knowing the details, the Board searched for alternative uses and users of the Ground. One of those options was for 1874 to come back to Northwich at Wincham Park. For reasons that are absolutely nothing to do with Witton and everything to do with 1874, you decided not to take up that offer. No one is making any adverse comment about that decision. Everyone respects the decision you made and the reasons why. So we were left with the offer from the Flixton division.
I think everyone at Witton has reservations about the agreement. Some of the fans absolutely do not agree that the deal should have been done. However, what we do have is a board of Directors and a Chairman who have steered us through some very tricky moments and in whom the majority of fans trust to make the best decision for our club, based on all the information they would have to hand. They are not numpties. They would have known that this deal is contentious, but we trust them to act in the best interests of our club. I also personally think that the wider football community (not knowing all the facts maybe) would have difficulty understanding why we wouldn't help another another member of the footballing community as we did Runcorn, Nantwich and of course the original NVFC.
So my point is this - The Board of WAFC are working in the best interest of WAFC. It is not up to our Directors to oversee the accounts of NVFC, but the governance committees of the leagues and the FA. If you have doubts about the funding of NVFC, then perhaps its those bodies who should be made aware of your concerns. If the club isn't being funded through acceptable channels, then the governing body needs to take action - not WAFC. I can understand the 1874 view, but one could argue that no one assuaged this view in the 70's and 80's. Seems some folks have had a "road to Damascus" moment and are now quite zealous about it.
As for the BBC reporting, I agree with you totally. I don't know who set that up with the Beeb but they absolutely fell for it !!
Good luck for the new season, I hope you continue the excellent progress and that we see you back at WP before too long.
- Status