I didn't miss the point; that is the point.
As much as I love costa coffee, I don't think about it for a good percentage of every day and it doesn't fill me with the emotions this rugby club does; that's what makes it different.
It's not just about the money, there is so much more invested than just money.
As for wider speculation and interest, we are sitting ducks due to the recent history of the club (and perhaps a victim of our illustrious past) and the state of affairs in the game at present.
We are easy news.

The difference is when you are emotionally invested, you don't actually give anything to the club. The £225 is simply a prepayment for entry to the ground.
You don't hold any "stake" in the club.
I take your and Kinley's point though. We are certainly tied to the club in both money and emotion.

Just seen a tweet from AG about some fantastic software he has got for running double glazing companies. If only one was designed for running rugby league clubs.

That depends on wether you consider a financial stake to be the only stake.
Personally as a supporter my emotional attachment to the club is worth a million times more than any financial stake I could ever have.
This is the point I have been making over the last few posts.

I have a couple of questions. After reading through the 20 odd pages about this winding up [size=150PETITION (not order)[/size, [uI wonder how many people would even know about it if the club had not issued a statement?[/u I could be wrong but I have seen no mention of it anywhere from any media outlet. The only thing I have read is on here and on the official club website. As far as I can see the club have made an error and rectified it, but this has become an argument about customers and stakeholders. My second question is, [uas a supporter what gives some people the right to think they are entitled to know who the involved parties are and the details of the petition?[/u

As supporters we have been given an explanation about the petition and we have been told the reasons why the parties are not being named, surely that should be the end of it. The biggest problem have is, as Wakefield supporters some people are not happy unless they can rock the boat.

Twenty three pages not all asking the same question.
In answer to your first, would we know at all if it weren't for a Cas fan posting it on here? This raises one further question: should the club have preempted this and made a statement first?
For me the answer is yes.
If you go along with that view then the statement needed to be concise, in my view it wasn't and that led to further opportunity to speculate.
Is it in the supporters interests to know anyway?
In my opinion yes we have some right to know how the club we support is being run and if we are to congratulate success we should at the very least be given a thorough explanation when a balls up is made, and be free to discuss it
Does that make it a witch hunt, a conspiracy theory or human interest? The latter for me.
I consider myself a stake holder in this club, I want success for it so badly it hurts. I will bang the drum when we get it right as loud as any, and I will ask questions when I think they need asking.
The question asking wasn't permitted by some in the past and answers were rarely given truthfully if at all, we should never be in that position.
Blinkered supporters got us nowhere in the past and they'll get us nowhere now or in the future.
If we want the best we have a duty to ask questions, if those running the club want it as bad as the supporters they won't have any problem with that, and for the most part they have welcomed this.
Sometimes egos though and personal interest make that difficult though.

Quote ="kinleycat"Twenty three pages not all asking the same question. In answer to your first, would we know at all if it weren't for a Cas fan posting it on here? This raises one further question: should the club have preempted this and made a statement first? For me the answer is yes.'" Anybody can see for themselves by going here (regardless of who you support) its in the public domain:- www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/ ... ort=newest Only question I would be asking is if the HMCR are visiting regularly why didn't they spot the non-payment in the first place ? Nothing major to worry about i'm sure of that.

Quote ="kinleycat"Twenty three pages not all asking the same question. In answer to your first, would we know at all if it weren't for a Cas fan posting it on here? This raises one further question: should the club have preempted this and made a statement first? For me the answer is yes.'" Anybody can see for themselves by going here (regardless of who you support) its in the public domain:- www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/ ... ort=newest Only question I would be asking is if the HMCR are visiting regularly why didn't they spot the non-payment in the first place ? Nothing major to worry about i'm sure of that.

I'm afraid you're wrong on the 'stakeholder' argument; in every facet of the modern interpretation of the expression, we are indeed stakeholders - in business terms, it's used to describe anyone with an interest or concern. I wrote a dissertation on the subject from the perspective of a charitable organisation, who are in a similar position to a sports club, in that they have more stakeholders than most, some of whom are invested far beyond the normal customer relationship.

I think that's what TRB was alluding to earlier - a sports club has a group of stakeholders (us) who see themselves as far more than just customers; we're difficult to win over and impossible to please all of the time and we tend to view the business owner as someone who is merely looking after something that ultimately, belongs to us; when things go wrong, we take it very personally and because we can't go to another provider to get the same product, we vent our frustrations on the current owner.

It's not an impossible situation for a business to manage, but I think it does require that they do things differently to other organisations; in the charity world, that's achieved by installing a board of trustees - a non-executive board who act as custodians of the organisation's mission and values; Spirit of 1873 could have done something similar by giving the Trust a seat on the BoD, but chose not to - a move that probably damaged both the Trust and their own lines of communication with supporters.

It's been sorted and if it wasn't for the wakey obsessed cas fans nobody would ever known the London Gazette isn't a daily read for most folk. Loads of clubs/organisation will have appeared in there sorted it out and nobody would have ever known. I know it shouldn't have happened and hope lessons have been learnt. We are in a better financial position than a lot of SL clubs especially them ginger lot over the common.
We will be selling more ST than ever we have an exciting team for next season and moving to a nice new stadium that will do for me.
LOVE OUR CLUB LOVE OUR CITY

Comparing our financial position to any other club is irrelevant. Let's get out own house in order and let others do the same.

Calm down dear.

That is a cracking post bren2k, sums things up perfectly.

Yes I agree, lets move on it is getting rather well

Phew. Just back from weeks walking holiday.
No internet.
Met by all this.
Thought the very worst initially.
Hope all really is OK.
Interesting all this customer/stakeholder business.
I remember I posted re. another issue that the fans had a right to know what was going on and was shot to pieces by at least two who are now criticising the management for a lack of transparency.

Spot on.

Sums it up perfect for me

got to go ,watching sum paint dry

Quote ="trinfan71"I could be wrong but I have seen no mention of it anywhere from any media outlet. The only thing I have read is on here and on the official club website.'" www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... cial-fears www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ition.html I could add more, it is out there.

Quote ="trinfan71"I could be wrong but I have seen no mention of it anywhere from any media outlet. The only thing I have read is on here and on the official club website.'" www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... cial-fears www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ition.html I could add more, it is out there.

Quote ="18th Man"www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12208/8197591/Wakefield-Wildcats-allay-financial-fears www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ition.html I could add more, it is out there.'" Lazy journalism, it's been in the public domain for a week!!

Quote ="18th Man"www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12208/8197591/Wakefield-Wildcats-allay-financial-fears www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ition.html I could add more, it is out there.'" Lazy journalism, it's been in the public domain for a week!!

Quote ="18th Man"www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12208/8197591/Wakefield-Wildcats-allay-financial-fears www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ition.html I could add more, it is out there.'" This getting boring now

Quote ="18th Man"www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12208/8197591/Wakefield-Wildcats-allay-financial-fears www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ition.html I could add more, it is out there.'" This getting boring now

Switch it off and lets watch the test card

Time to let this one rest now. Lets hope lessons have been learned and procedures and the correct people are being put in place to ensure there is no repeat. Move on and get behind them, the future is still bright!

I do understand that, and I feel the same way.
My point is simply that the emotional stake is only for you not the club.

How I interpret a stake is that you have something invested in the club but also something that has value to the club.
There is no value to the club apart from attracting others with you.

Same with Bren2k point about charity. There is a different level of scrutiny in the charitable organisation because they gain by being a charity, financially and legally. The rules are different if you prove yourself to be a charity so you have extra power as if you prove any wrong doing you have the government and especially the tax man on your side. For a sporting club,if it is run badly you only have a customer's power. You can withdraw your custom and of course if everybody did it you would have implied power to change things but it is only implied. If the sporting club decided they didn't like it they could just run the club into the ground and end it all. A charity can't do that. The level of scrutiny is different and the effect of bad management is felt further.

Like I said, I understand what you are saying and I do feel the same way.
What I disagree with (and it appears I am on my own) is that supporters feel they have more power because they are stakeholders but I feel they are simply customers with a strong opinion about the company they are purchasing from. Of course all sporting clubs are like this and they are very different to other businesses but I would say they are closer to an old cinema or hotel that people love. People have strong opinions but unless you buy it, you have no power just fond memories.
A supporters trust, with a real role on the board is the only supporter power really.

Obviously Bren if you have done a thesis on this you have thought about this much more deeply than I have. Its just my opinion but I'm open to changing it. I just don't quite see it the same way you do.

Just to close on this I think the resons and explanation on YR last night were clear as to why this petition was brought by HMRC and also the process of bringing a petition

What was said?