Just recycling this from Owlstalk - I reckon this is as good an opportunity as any for fans (whether they're fans of Wednesdayite or not :P) to let them know what you think about Wednesday, Wednesdayite and the state we're in...

Wednesdayite Fan Survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=5tUCiRqcpOUpUP8qXQa35w_3d_3d)

Never agreed with the Charterhouse take-over. I want my two seats for life back, the shares (85p) are worthless at this moment.
Will it happen? No. Should Allen expect to get shares back he gave away - similarly NO. That very action said everything about the value of shares ordinary shareholders were given in exchange for their seats' privilege. If he wants them back, pay the rate to get them back, just like someone has to to get his horse back after winning a selling race. Supply and demand is how it works, you shouldn't expect things back that you GIVE away.

I think there a disgrace and are holding our club back,a club they claim to support.The sooner they go the better.

I think there a disgrace and are holding our club back,a club they claim to support.The sooner they go the better.

i really hope you are fully briefed regarding the situation and not simply believing all you read or hear!???

i really hope you are fully briefed regarding the situation and not simply believing all you read or hear!???
I couldn't agree more!

theres no reason that dave allen cant sell , wednesdayite are not doing anything wrong, they said they would sit down and talk with dave allen HE SAID NO

i really hope you are fully briefed regarding the situation and not simply believing all you read or hear!???


Why when you say you are anti-wednesdayite does someone claim you don't know the facts.

I have found that many who are members of Wednesdayite don't actually know all the facts.

If Wednesdayite had had there way, we'd be in the state Leeds are now - and changing the name to 'wednesdayite' after that debacle still can't change that fact.

Wednesdayite = Scum

(an no, I don't particularly like Allen, either)

I think Dave Allen & Wednesdayite are doing a fantastic job down in S6.

Keep up the good work :D

I think Dave Allen & Wednesdayite are doing a fantastic job down in S6.

Keep up the good work :D


i 2nd that each month the gap gets bigger and bigger :hihi:

There was a similar a thread a few weeks ago and there was a gentleman from wednesdayite who posted some points...

These are points made by D_J_M.. in my opinion he makes some excellent points.

Oh dear; what a lot of ignorance and petulance we have seen in this topic. You've read a couple of pages in The Star and scanned the chairman's programme notes and you now think you're an expert on the business aspects of running a football club. Not for a second have some of you paused to consider that there might be an alternative viewpoint. Forgive me, for this is a long message but there are some things you need to think about before shouting out your ill-informed abuse. And I don't speak officially for the organisation, I am nothing but an ordinary man in the street who happens to have joined them.

Wednesdayite are ordinary fans just like I assume a number of you are. If you go to Hillsborough they will be all around you. They don't have secret meetings to throw petrol bombs into the boardroom, they won't torture your cat, there is no uprising being discussed. Their remit is to spend their own time and money on trying to help the club however they can by raising funds, offering services, raising the profile of SWFC in the community and carrying out charitable schemes. If they are so committed to removing the chairman, why do they keep voting overwhelmingly to try and work with him even as he does little but hurl insults and lies back at them? How shameful that they should be accused of being on a power trip or even anti-SWFC by the equivalent of a bunch of pitchfork and torch-wielding redneck yokels out of nothing more than their fear of outsiders.

Their work has included offering free football coaching to primary schools, buying match tickets for the underprivileged or other community groups, giving young season ticket holders the £5 club shop voucher that SWFC has withdrawn. They offer supporters travel to away matches, a lounge to meet and have a beer before a game and a car park opposite the ground. Forgive me, but where is the subversion in that?

It is often said that at something like 1,100 members they are a small minority of the club's support (about 5% of the average home gate). But how does that compare with the 3 men who run the club from the boardroom and have a financial interest in it, one of whom wasn't even interested in the game about 7 years ago and is apparently desperate to get out now? Are these millionaires just as committed to supporting the club as you? Wednesdayite is fully democratic, follows the wishes of it's membership and has no secret agenda. Can you really say the same about Allen and his cronies?

Wednesdayite could not possibly have supported Ken Bates takeover plans as they were not formed until AFTER this episode was over. They were born out of the discredited Owls Trust where John Hemmingham (who followed Bates to Leeds) decided without asking the membership to back the newcomer. It was a shabby episode to be sure and one that has done significant damage to the relationship between the club and it's fans. As far as I'm aware there are little or no links between the defunct Owls Trust and Wednesdayite.

Anyway, to the issues surrounding the shareholding in the club.

Wednesdayite's 10.07% prevents anyone taking over the whole business as company rules state anyone obtaining 90% can compulsorily take over the rest. Although it's unlikely that anyone would buy the entire club and then try and turn Hillsborough into a supermarket, precisely this scenario almost unfolded at Wrexham. And this 10% also enables them to propose motions at AGMs and call an EGM to hold those running the club at least somewhat responsible to their public. Of course, in reality this has been of negligible benefit given that about 40% of the shareholders never use their voting rights which enables the board's 31% to effectively control the club with no opposition. However, Allen's claim that Wednesdayite cause trouble and are constantly calling such meetings is utterly false as to date they have done so precisely ZERO times.

Their shareholding is not just about the here and now but are a foundation to build on for future generations of supporters. But they have no ambition to run the club themselves as some believe and ridicule them for. As a supporter's trust it is in their constitution, but it is an unrealistic and aspirational goal only in the same way that the United Nations seeks to bring about world peace. The practical and financial hurdles are much too great to consider this as a viable option.

Aren't you curious why Carson Yeung was supposedly put off at the 31% holding he could have at SWFC that would effectively control the club (remember 40% never use their votes) but was happy to accept less than that at Birmingham where other major shareholders could sideline him if they so chose? It has also been a similar story at Aston Villa, Manchester United and a handful of other clubs.

Any single party or collective group owning 30% of SWFC are compelled by company law to offer the market rate for the remaining shares to all other owners of them. So if a new investor bought all the board members' stakes he would trigger this clause. In all likelihood, a good number would accept the offer and thus significantly increase the new man's overall holding. There would be no need to buy Wednesdayite's shares to achieve this end.

Further, the board (either the current one or the new one) could underwrite a share rights issue. They could create new shares in the company (let's say 2 for 1 to keep things simple that would double the number at a stroke). All current owners would have the right to buy the number of new shares that would maintain their original stake (ie. someone owning 100 shares would be able to buy another 100 and keep their overall percentage the same). Many people would choose not to take up this offer, at which point the new shares would be purchased by the underwriters. This too would result in a considerable increase in the board's holding and make Wednesdayite's shares unneccessary again.

Between them, Wednesdayite and SWFC's board own around 41% of the overall shareholding. That means there are 59% out there ready to be bought by whoever wants them (assuming the owner agrees). But apart from a small purchase a couple of years ago, there is no evidence that Allen has made any effort to do so. Hardly consistent with someone attempting to gain more shares to sell to a new investor is it?

And why should Wednesdayite feel compelled to sell anyway? Are all other shareholders being similarly pressured? What is it about a supporter's group that makes them different from others like Dave Richards who owns something like 1.5% or other less prominent individuals? What right has Allen got to all but demand that someone else's property (which he never owned in the first place so can hardly claim their 'return') be handed over to him?

In my opinion, Allen is attempting to maximise his own profits. The much publicised £500k offered by him to Wednesdayite values the shares at around 5p each. It has been reported that Paul Gregg made an offer as much as seven times higher to Allen for his shares. According to Alan Biggs in The Telegraph, Allen prevented Gregg from approaching Wednesdayite directly. Now can you see Allen's motives any more clearly? Why buy other's shares at the going rate when you can try and get a large block on the cheap to then sell at a massive profit? There is no purpose served in Allen's strategy that benefits the club or it's supporters, only himself.

And to top it all, Dave Coupe of the Shareholders Association well and truly whipped the rug out from under Allen's feet by potentially making available the 20% necessary to get to the magic majority figure of 51% by recommending that all other shareholders consider selling to the SWFC board if it facilitates a takeover or new investment. This makes Wednesdayite's 10% irrelevant once and for all in the context of Allen's ranting.

How can you support a chairman who labels dissenters 'scum', 'yobs', 'cretins' or even singles out one lady who dared to ask him a question at an AGM as a 'venemous bitch'? Why do you believe that ordinary fans in your street and your neighbourhood are evil and power hungry for joining a supporter's group that desires nothing but to see the club as successful as it can be or because they know a little more than you do about ceratin aspects of the business?

Bear in mind that Dave Allen and the board have overseen a doubling of the debt in the last seven years or so from £16m to overall liabilities of £35m as of the last set of accounts. We have recorded bottom line losses of at least £1m for ALL of these financial years. These are not made up numbers, they are a matter of official and public record out of SWFC itself. Some of our peers such as Ipswich, Norwich, Wolves, Southampton and even Sheffield United embarrass us in terms of commercial initiatives and financial performance (between them they average about £2m per year more in turnover than we do as I recall). Again, these are facts, not hearsay. It is also not widely understood that although Allen does have a seven figure sum tied up in the club, he is accruing large sums of interest upon it. The club can't afford to pay even the interest, never mind the loans themselves, but Allen is still earning from them regardless. And the amounts he's earning from the club are several times higher than the modest amounts he's gifted to the club. He will profit very nicely when he finally leaves from his loans and his shares and all this having overseen a catastrophic financial performance, disrepsectful if not contemptible appearances in the media, division of the fans and the second lowest league placing in the club's 140 year history.

I hope some of you can take the time to understand some of the deeper issues involved here rather than accepting the obvious.


D_J_M - I hope you don't mind me quoting you.

I totally agree with DJM if Allen wanted to get rid of his shares sooo much he could make the public aware get some press coverage and someone would buy them for a decent rate, as Paul Gregg most likely would have. The thing is Dave Allen isn't too bothered about getting rid of his shares as the longer he stays there the more money he'll get back from his loans as DJM when a future investor/s come in and hopefully get rid of the debt.

It is not Wednesdayite's fault we are in our current predicament. Like DJM said if a potential investor did have the best interests of SWFC at heart he/she would have no problem with working with Wednesdayite.

There was a similar a thread a few weeks ago and there was a gentleman from wednesdayite who posted some points...

These are points made by D_J_M.. in my opinion he makes some excellent points.

Oh dear; what a lot of ignorance and petulance we have seen in this topic. You've read a couple of pages in The Star and scanned the chairman's programme notes and you now think you're an expert on the business aspects of running a football club. Not for a second have some of you paused to consider that there might be an alternative viewpoint. Forgive me, for this is a long message but there are some things you need to think about before shouting out your ill-informed abuse. And I don't speak officially for the organisation, I am nothing but an ordinary man in the street who happens to have joined them.

Wednesdayite are ordinary fans just like I assume a number of you are. If you go to Hillsborough they will be all around you. They don't have secret meetings to throw petrol bombs into the boardroom, they won't torture your cat, there is no uprising being discussed. Their remit is to spend their own time and money on trying to help the club however they can by raising funds, offering services, raising the profile of SWFC in the community and carrying out charitable schemes. If they are so committed to removing the chairman, why do they keep voting overwhelmingly to try and work with him even as he does little but hurl insults and lies back at them? How shameful that they should be accused of being on a power trip or even anti-SWFC by the equivalent of a bunch of pitchfork and torch-wielding redneck yokels out of nothing more than their fear of outsiders.

Their work has included offering free football coaching to primary schools, buying match tickets for the underprivileged or other community groups, giving young season ticket holders the £5 club shop voucher that SWFC has withdrawn. They offer supporters travel to away matches, a lounge to meet and have a beer before a game and a car park opposite the ground. Forgive me, but where is the subversion in that?

It is often said that at something like 1,100 members they are a small minority of the club's support (about 5% of the average home gate). But how does that compare with the 3 men who run the club from the boardroom and have a financial interest in it, one of whom wasn't even interested in the game about 7 years ago and is apparently desperate to get out now? Are these millionaires just as committed to supporting the club as you? Wednesdayite is fully democratic, follows the wishes of it's membership and has no secret agenda. Can you really say the same about Allen and his cronies?

Wednesdayite could not possibly have supported Ken Bates takeover plans as they were not formed until AFTER this episode was over. They were born out of the discredited Owls Trust where John Hemmingham (who followed Bates to Leeds) decided without asking the membership to back the newcomer. It was a shabby episode to be sure and one that has done significant damage to the relationship between the club and it's fans. As far as I'm aware there are little or no links between the defunct Owls Trust and Wednesdayite.

Anyway, to the issues surrounding the shareholding in the club.

Wednesdayite's 10.07% prevents anyone taking over the whole business as company rules state anyone obtaining 90% can compulsorily take over the rest. Although it's unlikely that anyone would buy the entire club and then try and turn Hillsborough into a supermarket, precisely this scenario almost unfolded at Wrexham. And this 10% also enables them to propose motions at AGMs and call an EGM to hold those running the club at least somewhat responsible to their public. Of course, in reality this has been of negligible benefit given that about 40% of the shareholders never use their voting rights which enables the board's 31% to effectively control the club with no opposition. However, Allen's claim that Wednesdayite cause trouble and are constantly calling such meetings is utterly false as to date they have done so precisely ZERO times.

Their shareholding is not just about the here and now but are a foundation to build on for future generations of supporters. But they have no ambition to run the club themselves as some believe and ridicule them for. As a supporter's trust it is in their constitution, but it is an unrealistic and aspirational goal only in the same way that the United Nations seeks to bring about world peace. The practical and financial hurdles are much too great to consider this as a viable option.

Aren't you curious why Carson Yeung was supposedly put off at the 31% holding he could have at SWFC that would effectively control the club (remember 40% never use their votes) but was happy to accept less than that at Birmingham where other major shareholders could sideline him if they so chose? It has also been a similar story at Aston Villa, Manchester United and a handful of other clubs.

Any single party or collective group owning 30% of SWFC are compelled by company law to offer the market rate for the remaining shares to all other owners of them. So if a new investor bought all the board members' stakes he would trigger this clause. In all likelihood, a good number would accept the offer and thus significantly increase the new man's overall holding. There would be no need to buy Wednesdayite's shares to achieve this end.

Further, the board (either the current one or the new one) could underwrite a share rights issue. They could create new shares in the company (let's say 2 for 1 to keep things simple that would double the number at a stroke). All current owners would have the right to buy the number of new shares that would maintain their original stake (ie. someone owning 100 shares would be able to buy another 100 and keep their overall percentage the same). Many people would choose not to take up this offer, at which point the new shares would be purchased by the underwriters. This too would result in a considerable increase in the board's holding and make Wednesdayite's shares unneccessary again.

Between them, Wednesdayite and SWFC's board own around 41% of the overall shareholding. That means there are 59% out there ready to be bought by whoever wants them (assuming the owner agrees). But apart from a small purchase a couple of years ago, there is no evidence that Allen has made any effort to do so. Hardly consistent with someone attempting to gain more shares to sell to a new investor is it?

And why should Wednesdayite feel compelled to sell anyway? Are all other shareholders being similarly pressured? What is it about a supporter's group that makes them different from others like Dave Richards who owns something like 1.5% or other less prominent individuals? What right has Allen got to all but demand that someone else's property (which he never owned in the first place so can hardly claim their 'return') be handed over to him?

In my opinion, Allen is attempting to maximise his own profits. The much publicised £500k offered by him to Wednesdayite values the shares at around 5p each. It has been reported that Paul Gregg made an offer as much as seven times higher to Allen for his shares. According to Alan Biggs in The Telegraph, Allen prevented Gregg from approaching Wednesdayite directly. Now can you see Allen's motives any more clearly? Why buy other's shares at the going rate when you can try and get a large block on the cheap to then sell at a massive profit? There is no purpose served in Allen's strategy that benefits the club or it's supporters, only himself.

And to top it all, Dave Coupe of the Shareholders Association well and truly whipped the rug out from under Allen's feet by potentially making available the 20% necessary to get to the magic majority figure of 51% by recommending that all other shareholders consider selling to the SWFC board if it facilitates a takeover or new investment. This makes Wednesdayite's 10% irrelevant once and for all in the context of Allen's ranting.

How can you support a chairman who labels dissenters 'scum', 'yobs', 'cretins' or even singles out one lady who dared to ask him a question at an AGM as a 'venemous bitch'? Why do you believe that ordinary fans in your street and your neighbourhood are evil and power hungry for joining a supporter's group that desires nothing but to see the club as successful as it can be or because they know a little more than you do about ceratin aspects of the business?

Bear in mind that Dave Allen and the board have overseen a doubling of the debt in the last seven years or so from £16m to overall liabilities of £35m as of the last set of accounts. We have recorded bottom line losses of at least £1m for ALL of these financial years. These are not made up numbers, they are a matter of official and public record out of SWFC itself. Some of our peers such as Ipswich, Norwich, Wolves, Southampton and even Sheffield United embarrass us in terms of commercial initiatives and financial performance (between them they average about £2m per year more in turnover than we do as I recall). Again, these are facts, not hearsay. It is also not widely understood that although Allen does have a seven figure sum tied up in the club, he is accruing large sums of interest upon it. The club can't afford to pay even the interest, never mind the loans themselves, but Allen is still earning from them regardless. And the amounts he's earning from the club are several times higher than the modest amounts he's gifted to the club. He will profit very nicely when he finally leaves from his loans and his shares and all this having overseen a catastrophic financial performance, disrepsectful if not contemptible appearances in the media, division of the fans and the second lowest league placing in the club's 140 year history.

I hope some of you can take the time to understand some of the deeper issues involved here rather than accepting the obvious.


D_J_M - I hope you don't mind me quoting you.

the club can only move on without wednesdayite. do the honerable thing and disappear.

Mikey.. be honest.. did you read the above (all of it)?

Mikey.. be honest.. did you read the above (all of it)?


no. its all irelevant. nobody will buy the club while wednesdayite hold the shares. they are ruining our chances of any sort of success. they may be nice people, true fans, honest and honerable, they may be right about allen. but nobody want to invest in the club while they are there. in the name of god go!

ive read it now and it says it al its them v allen. in regards to the share issue they state many ifs and buts. nobody will risk millions without defiately getting control. it may be that wednesdayite are waiting to make some money out of the club for themselves.

From a personel point of view this comes down to a gut instinct.. I believe all the subs paying members of 'wednesdayite' are more committed to the club than the current directors.. One group offer all their time free the other us very generous 'loans' which are the first point to be agreed on any of their external buy outs.

Wednesdayite said tonight if a investor came they would be like ly if for the good of the club give the shares to them. Though remember Wednesdayite is not one person Wednesdayite would have to ask its members thats why they say its likely they would give their shares to an investor. It's members would if a investor with the best interests of the club at heart willingly vote to give it shares to this investor.

In reply to Mikey10's comment of course Wednesdayite aren't in it to make money. As I said Wednesdayite's decisions are not made by one person Wednesdayite's decisions are taken through ballots of its 1200 members. It's members are average Wednesday fans who you unknowingly walk past/sit next to/stand in que's next to at Hillsborough every week, they are like me and you. They want the best for the club it's members never got into Wednesdayite to make money, they joined as they saw it as a vehicle to make the average fans voiced heared. Also everyone has a equal share in Wednesdayite there is no one perosn e.g. the chairman of Wednesdayite who for example has a 20% share therefore that person vote would be of more influence, every member has one vote of the same value