Club Statement re: DUSF

[massacre65]

Is a fan's group not really more like a charity?You are essentially donating money to a cause. You may be justified in having a say as to where the money goes, but folk donating to charities don't expect their money back.

I agree but not when it is a loan. The only reason a loan became an option was because of the situation caused by the Coronavirus. That's also not to say the loan couldn't at some point when normality resumes, be converted to an investment/donation?

[stokearab]

I agree but not when it is a loan. The only reason a loan became an option was because of the situation caused by the Coronavirus. That's also not to say the loan couldn't at some point when normality resumes, be converted to an investment/donation?

But if this "loan" carried with it the condition of shares or a seat on the board no wonder MO got offended. We'll maybe never know but it sounds like the principals of DUSF massively overplayed their importance here, seriously annoyed Mr Ogren and he's lost trust and patience with them.

Also, for DUSF to admit that they were putting a deal to MO without having put it to their members first doesn't sit well with me.

I give the benefit of the doubt 100% to the Club in this.

[Shedboy1971]

Im so far out of the loop with supporters groups so i could be very wrong here, but i do know folk at the club itself. Hazard a guess that security against something was offered on a loan rather than a gift and that has caused friction. How it could escalate without egos and bluster is nearly impossible - from both ends. Sad really as i am sure they have done lots of good as well but clearly a massive breakdown. Time to rationalise our groups surely.

[offshore_arab83]

But if this "loan" carried with it the condition of shares or a seat on the board

fwiw i dont think they wanted a seat on the board, they're not like the 'other' mob who thrive on hospo. Are there not still unallocated shares within United? Maybe they wanted them? I also dont think MO knew much about this, nae way he's written that statement IMO, aye he's put his name to it but thats as far as it goes if you ask me

[Shedboy1971]

fwiw i dont think they wanted a seat on the board, they're not like the 'other' mob who thrive on hospo. Are there not still unallocated shares within United? Maybe they wanted them? I also dont think MO knew much about this, nae way he's written that statement IMO, aye he's put his name to it but thats as far as it goes if you ask me

you are very warm with the shares part i reckon

[offshore_arab83]

you are very warm with the shares part i reckon

maybe mate, end of the day some shares to an organisation would be a nice to have if available and of course it's giving something back to members who pay in every single month

[TerryTheTerror]

That was one proposal to help the club in the very short term. Subject to members approval of course.
It's quite normal that if you loan someone money that they repay it? If not - geez a shot of a tenner? :-)

Thanks but I do know what a loan is. However, that's not really my question is it? Put more simply, why do DUSF need something back for the money? And what about the question of what DUSF are going to do with the money now?

[GFLower]

fwiw i dont think they wanted a seat on the board, they're not like the 'other' mob who thrive on hospo. Are there not still unallocated shares within United? Maybe they wanted them? I also dont think MO knew much about this, nae way he's written that statement IMO, aye he's put his name to it but thats as far as it goes if you ask me

Boy you dinnae have hae it in for the Trust, having a pop at every opportunity. Do you have any evidence that they didn't ask for a seat on the board? Perhaps someone can enlighten me at the setting up of DUSF was there ever any mention of loans, shares, seats on the board? Whatever the negotiating position of the DUSF reps they certainly havnae half pissed off those at the club and at the same time perhaps their own membership while at it. FWIW I am not an Arabtrust member or any other group either.

[TheBoyBennison]

But if this "loan" carried with it the condition of shares or a seat on the board no wonder MO got offended. We'll maybe never know but it sounds like the principals of DUSF massively overplayed their importance here, seriously annoyed Mr Ogren and he's lost trust and patience with them.

Also, for DUSF to admit that they were putting a deal to MO without having put it to their members first doesn't sit well with me.

I give the benefit of the doubt 100% to the Club in this.

The Foundation has made it very clear that they don't want a seat on the Board. They're not interested in lanyards.

From what I can gather, it's as if some folk expected the Foundation to stuff a bunch of cash into a sports bag and leave it at the Tannadice reception for them to spend it on whatever. Not a penny of Foundation money gets spent without a ballot of the Foundation members first.

From what I've seen elsewhere, it sounds like the club asked the Foundation to keep the recent dialogue quiet. It appears that the Foundation respected that.

[Wullie]

But if this "loan" carried with it the condition of shares or a seat on the board no wonder MO got offended. We'll maybe never know but it sounds like the principals of DUSF massively overplayed their importance here, seriously annoyed Mr Ogren and he's lost trust and patience with them.

Also, for DUSF to admit that they were putting a deal to MO without having put it to their members first doesn't sit well with me.

I give the benefit of the doubt 100% to the Club in this.

Bit in bold, the Foundation were simply talking to the club about investment, if a proposal with the club was agreed, the members would then vote on whether to go for it.

They can't just fire on and throw money at something.

That's my understanding.