These notes are based on the only documents (no longer available) which could be found on the web. The information provides an insight into the likely reasons why WHUST has not survived. This is of obvious importance to WHAM! who would not wish to repeat any mistakes made by WHUST.
At the WHUST AGM in September 2003, it was made clear that the Trust "could not veer from its pro-fan agenda and therefore could never join the anti-Brown campaign".
It is likely that the fate of WHUST was sealed from that date as the West Ham Board, and the fans, realised that the 'revolutionary' forces did not have enough votes and the support of major shareholders to bring about change.
Weaknesses of WHUST revealed in the documents available
1. A shortage of active members
Amanda Matthews (who re-appears later in connection with the "Stand up, sit down" campaign) says that, of the original members, only two remain. On 15 January 2004, she appeals for more help for the 8 active members.
2. A lack of focus
It can't make up its mind if its main purpose is to raise funds to buy shares so that it can influence the football club or to act as a forum for the whole range of opinions you can expect from football fans.
3. Poor use of the resources it does have
Much effort is spent in replying to every point raised by fans on the website.
4. Some dotty ideas
These probably appear as a consequence of other weaknesses. For example 'we do have a healthy amount in the bank at our disposal, which we have earmarked to use to double our membership, in doing so will then be able to invest in more shares'.
But supposing this does not produce any new members? Or very few? What then, with no funds, is the future of the trust?
5. A lack of financial control
There is no indication that priorities have been properly assessed and finances directed accordingly, in other words having a plan with a realistic budget.
6. A lack of influence
As someone pointed out (18 September 2003), with just over 300 members at £20 each for each of the two years the Trust has been running, the total raised equals £12 000. Spending just half of that could have bought (21 May 2003), at £3 a share (including dealing costs), 2 000 shares. The Trust had 200!
Every effort has been made to ensure that the facts in this analysis are accurate and that the comment is fair. If you would like to discuss the matters raised, please respond, either on this site or by direct communication.
No comments:
Post a Comment