for a minute there I thought it read like Valley Gold was the new trust, ie up for a bashing! I'm not a member of Valley Gold, so this is just an opinion, and I understand some of you have contributed sizeable contributions cumatively, but that seems like a fair response from Rikofold
From what I have read in the rules, nowhere does it state when and how much can be handed over to CAFC, does anyone know who audits how the the monies handed over to CAFC are spent? By the way the financial year for VG is July 1st to 30th June.
Which would make H2 ie the 2nd half of the financial year June 2016.
@rikofold said " we don't intend to consider any donations until later in the year - and we've said several times on here and directly to Henry by email that that means in the second half of the year."
Hence my request for clarification of what you mean by second half of "the year"
Calender year? Financial Year? Some other? Simple question.
You're describing the problem the committee has. Some members don't want Valley Gold funds to go to the club whilst RD owns it, others are insisting we hand over the money they gave for the academy.
The scheme is managed by a balanced committee, but what the fans reps have said is that we don't intend to consider any donations until later in the year - and we've said several times on here and directly to Henry by email that that means in the second half of the year.
However, Valley Gold is a scheme where the primary purpose is to give funds to the Academy. We can't just pretend that isn't the case, and it creates potentially legal difficulties in deciding to do something else with the funds. We might get round that with a members' survey, but we need to ensure every member has an opportunity to contribute to that and there are costs involved that we must keep within Gambling Act limits.
The reality is that it really is a small minority of people who feel as strongly as people are expressing on here. Only 28 people requested a members' meeting, and I suspect several of those may have since cancelled their membership. It is hardly unreasonable to assume that people continuing to give money to the scheme understand and consent to where it's going.
That said, I think the circumstances at present merit canvassing the opinion of members before we make any decision regarding funding, and as I've said we're looking into how best to achieve that. That's all I'm saying on this now.
How do we sustain an acceptable level of performance on the pitch whilst we are uncovering these gems? Of these gems that I have seen in the past few years
Shelvey Gomez Lookman Solly (I would include, I don't think he'd be here now but for that injury)
Jury is still out on Cousins for me as to whether or not he's a gem. I think he is a good player, I don't think he's the sort of player that will be sold for a huge transfer fee.
That's maybe 4 or 5 in the last 8 years. I'm not knocking this in any way, shape or form, I'm just saying that this is the production line with an excellent academy. Those 4 alone aren't going to be a team built for promotion.
This just highlights the flaws in RD's model for me. Over burden the academy and blood too many youngsters (which we have done) and the first team plummets down the league. Yes, you turn over the odd gem that financially make you a bit of money every few years, but the 'club' doesn't prosper
Bit unfair not to include Jenkinson if you are going back 8 years. Then there is Huddart and Palmer plus Ajayi. If we had kept all of them I suggest a team of:
Would be quite good in the Championship with a few older heads to steer them along...and we could have spent the £8M or so wasted by RD on Vardy to play upfront with Lookman! Even had Poyet and others on the bench.
Would never happen in this day and age though no matter who owned us.
How do we sustain an acceptable level of performance on the pitch whilst we are uncovering these gems? Of these gems that I have seen in the past few years
Shelvey Gomez Lookman Solly (I would include, I don't think he'd be here now but for that injury)
Jury is still out on Cousins for me as to whether or not he's a gem. I think he is a good player, I don't think he's the sort of player that will be sold for a huge transfer fee.
That's maybe 4 or 5 in the last 8 years. I'm not knocking this in any way, shape or form, I'm just saying that this is the production line with an excellent academy. Those 4 alone aren't going to be a team built for promotion.
This just highlights the flaws in RD's model for me. Over burden the academy and blood too many youngsters (which we have done) and the first team plummets down the league. Yes, you turn over the odd gem that financially make you a bit of money every few years, but the 'club' doesn't prosper
Bit unfair not to include Jenkinson if you are going back 8 years. Then there is Huddart and Palmer plus Ajayi. If we had kept all of them I suggest a team of:
Would be quite good in the Championship with a few older heads to steer them along...and we could have spent the £8M or so wasted by RD on Vardy to play upfront with Lookman! Even had Poyet and others on the bench.
Would never happen in this day and age though no matter who owned us.
Apologies, yes forgot about Jenkinson. Agree with you there
Are Palmer and Ajayi new ones coming through? My point was more for the 5/6 that have made it or could go into a team challenging for promotion, there have been numerous Foxes etc that won't. That's why we need that balance. I fear we are only going to overload the team with more youngsters next year when they're not ready. Some of them never will be
You're describing the problem the committee has. Some members don't want Valley Gold funds to go to the club whilst RD owns it, others are insisting we hand over the money they gave for the academy.
The scheme is managed by a balanced committee, but what the fans reps have said is that we don't intend to consider any donations until later in the year - and we've said several times on here and directly to Henry by email that that means in the second half of the year.
However, Valley Gold is a scheme where the primary purpose is to give funds to the Academy. We can't just pretend that isn't the case, and it creates potentially legal difficulties in deciding to do something else with the funds. We might get round that with a members' survey, but we need to ensure every member has an opportunity to contribute to that and there are costs involved that we must keep within Gambling Act limits.
The reality is that it really is a small minority of people who feel as strongly as people are expressing on here. Only 28 people requested a members' meeting, and I suspect several of those may have since cancelled their membership. It is hardly unreasonable to assume that people continuing to give money to the scheme understand and consent to where it's going.
That said, I think the circumstances at present merit canvassing the opinion of members before we make any decision regarding funding, and as I've said we're looking into how best to achieve that. That's all I'm saying on this now.
How small are we talking? About 2%?
Fewer than that asked for the members' meeting.
Look I do understand how people feel, I'm hardly unsympathetic but I simply ask that you trust us in a difficult situation that isn't helped by being subject to the law.
The reality is that if the club doesnt benefit from the scheme it becomes untenable. Paul and I have a difficult task to find a balance - our primary responsibility is to the scheme after all. The club's financial year runs to the same schedule as Valley Gold's so any decision to delay considering donations to the second half of 2016 has a direct impact on their p&l - notwithstanding, stockpiling funds on an arbitrary basis isn't a long term option.
I'd prefer to see donations as leverage and without the promise of them there is no such leverage. If by their actions the Academy is indeed just a player farm I think there's an argument that the club aren't using the funds in good faith in terms of why they were given. But it remains a fact that only one Academy player has been sold by the club, and he had a release clause. It's really not a straightforward situation.
I'd ask people to trust us a bit more. We're not in the business of misleading members, the statement was the strongest we could get past the whole committee. I'd have thought that was obvious by now, and Matt's email to a lifer previously posted on here made clear that we addressed the issue very strongly with the club.
Oh, and if people feel it's a scheme they can no longer support I do understand and, with sadness, accept that. I remain of the view that the Academy is an investment in the future, and if CARD is successful it will be a future regime who benefits the most, not this one.
Re Steve Avory's comments, he is a huge supporter of Valley Gold. He's been able to do things that without the scheme wouldn't have happened, international tournaments being just one example. The latest newsletter tells members how their money is being spent.
You're describing the problem the committee has. Some members don't want Valley Gold funds to go to the club whilst RD owns it, others are insisting we hand over the money they gave for the academy.
The scheme is managed by a balanced committee, but what the fans reps have said is that we don't intend to consider any donations until later in the year - and we've said several times on here and directly to Henry by email that that means in the second half of the year.
However, Valley Gold is a scheme where the primary purpose is to give funds to the Academy. We can't just pretend that isn't the case, and it creates potentially legal difficulties in deciding to do something else with the funds. We might get round that with a members' survey, but we need to ensure every member has an opportunity to contribute to that and there are costs involved that we must keep within Gambling Act limits.
The reality is that it really is a small minority of people who feel as strongly as people are expressing on here. Only 28 people requested a members' meeting, and I suspect several of those may have since cancelled their membership. It is hardly unreasonable to assume that people continuing to give money to the scheme understand and consent to where it's going.
That said, I think the circumstances at present merit canvassing the opinion of members before we make any decision regarding funding, and as I've said we're looking into how best to achieve that. That's all I'm saying on this now.
How small are we talking? About 2%?
Fewer than that asked for the members' meeting.
Look I do understand how people feel, I'm hardly unsympathetic but I simply ask that you trust us in a difficult situation that isn't helped by being subject to the law.
The reality is that if the club doesnt benefit from the scheme it becomes untenable. Paul and I have a difficult task to find a balance - our primary responsibility is to the scheme after all. The club's financial year runs to the same schedule as Valley Gold's so any decision to delay considering donations to the second half of 2016 has a direct impact on their p&l - notwithstanding, stockpiling funds on an arbitrary basis isn't a long term option.
I'd prefer to see donations as leverage and without the promise of them there is no such leverage. If by their actions the Academy is indeed just a player farm I think there's an argument that the club aren't using the funds in good faith in terms of why they were given. But it remains a fact that only one Academy player has been sold by the club, and he had a release clause. It's really not a straightforward situation.
I'd ask people to trust us a bit more. We're not in the business of misleading members, the statement was the strongest we could get past the whole committee. I'd have thought that was obvious by now, and Matt's email to a lifer previously posted on here made clear that we addressed the issue very strongly with the club.
So you will agree the best way to keep the money out of their hands is for there to be no money. Only fools would carry on as members.
Not at all - the best way would be for RD to no longer own the club. Personally I don't want to see the end of Valley Gold. It's our remaining link to the days of exile and I'd rather it saw out this regime and helped deliver the best possible players for future owners.
Not at all - the best way would be for RD to no longer own the club. Personally I don't want to see the end of Valley Gold. It's our remaining link to the days of exile and I'd rather it saw out this regime and helped deliver the best possible players for future owners.
@rikofold thank you very much for your continuing contribution on this subject; you are clearly in a tricky situation so your posts are much appreciated. I am a member of Valley Gold and will be remaining so for the time being. I am anti regime but not as militant as some others on here so appreciate that it will give me priority on away tickets (particularly with the huge numbers that will be travelling next season!) despite me not being a season ticket holder anymore and, with less people in it, I might stand a better chance of winning my money back.....
Comments
@rikofold said " we don't intend to consider any donations until later in the year - and we've said several times on here and directly to Henry by email that that means in the second half of the year."
Hence my request for clarification of what you mean by second half of "the year"
Calender year? Financial Year? Some other? Simple question.
June, Yes or No ?
Huddart
Solly, Gomez, Ajayi, Jenks
Harriot, Cousins, Shelvey, Palmer
Lookman, ?
Would be quite good in the Championship with a few older heads to steer them along...and we could have spent the £8M or so wasted by RD on Vardy to play upfront with Lookman! Even had Poyet and others on the bench.
Would never happen in this day and age though no matter who owned us.
Are Palmer and Ajayi new ones coming through? My point was more for the 5/6 that have made it or could go into a team challenging for promotion, there have been numerous Foxes etc that won't. That's why we need that balance. I fear we are only going to overload the team with more youngsters next year when they're not ready. Some of them never will be
Look I do understand how people feel, I'm hardly unsympathetic but I simply ask that you trust us in a difficult situation that isn't helped by being subject to the law.
The reality is that if the club doesnt benefit from the scheme it becomes untenable. Paul and I have a difficult task to find a balance - our primary responsibility is to the scheme after all. The club's financial year runs to the same schedule as Valley Gold's so any decision to delay considering donations to the second half of 2016 has a direct impact on their p&l - notwithstanding, stockpiling funds on an arbitrary basis isn't a long term option.
I'd prefer to see donations as leverage and without the promise of them there is no such leverage. If by their actions the Academy is indeed just a player farm I think there's an argument that the club aren't using the funds in good faith in terms of why they were given. But it remains a fact that only one Academy player has been sold by the club, and he had a release clause. It's really not a straightforward situation.
I'd ask people to trust us a bit more. We're not in the business of misleading members, the statement was the strongest we could get past the whole committee. I'd have thought that was obvious by now, and Matt's email to a lifer previously posted on here made clear that we addressed the issue very strongly with the club.
Re Steve Avory's comments, he is a huge supporter of Valley Gold. He's been able to do things that without the scheme wouldn't have happened, international tournaments being just one example. The latest newsletter tells members how their money is being spent.