AFC Wimbledon crowd funding

[dylanisabaddog 6,133]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/24/afc-wimbledon-fan-flabbergasted-as-sinkhole-fundraiser-hits-50000-target

 

[NewNestCarrow 290]

11 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/24/afc-wimbledon-fan-flabbergasted-as-sinkhole-fundraiser-hits-50000-target

 

I have just donated £3 to this crowdfunder.

And before y'all shout at me for being tight, that is almost exactly the same % of my income as the NUFC donation of £15k.

[Nuff Said 5,960]

7 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

I have just donated £3 to this crowdfunder.

And before y'all shout at me for being tight, that is almost exactly the same % of my income as the NUFC donation of £15k.

It’s easy to be snarky about Newcastle’s donation, I was when I first read it, but they didn’t have to do it.

[Robert N. LiM 6,274]

31 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

It’s easy to be snarky about Newcastle’s donation, I was when I first read it, but they didn’t have to do it.

I imagine when AFC Wimbledon were offered that £15k, they chopped Newcastle's arm off. Sorry, bit.

[shefcanary 2,950]

Just now, Robert N. LiM said:

I imagine when AFC Wimbledon were offered that £15k, they chopped Newcastle's arm off. Sorry, bit.

They'll also earn a fair whack from the rearranged match as well, far more than a night at their own ground?

[Robert N. LiM 6,274]

10 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

They'll also earn a fair whack from the rearranged match as well, far more than a night at their own ground?

Redistributing wealth from the Saudi government to a fan-owned football club sounds a like a good thing to me.

[Branston Pickle 4,145]

47 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

They'll also earn a fair whack from the rearranged match as well, far more than a night at their own ground?

As will Newcastle though. Might have been better to let AFC have (or a bigger portion of) the receipts or something?  

[JonnyJonnyRowe 972]

4 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Redistributing wealth from the Saudi government to a fan-owned football club sounds a like a good thing to me.

People always knock the Saudi government and rich Saudi's, but their state pension age is 65, three years lower than ours, they have universal free healthcare with a system as good as the NHS, all of their universities are free (no tuition fees), the life expectancy of their people is increasing at a much faster rate than ours, and their rate of food poverty is about one fifth of what it is in the UK despite being mostly desert. 

If they are in some way inherently bad people then the above wouldn't be the case. Their rich look after their plebs a lot better than our rich, ours flee to tax havens to hoard their wealth or are parasitic and leech off of the treasury like Michelle Mone and hubby.

The issues with Saudi Arabia relate to their social conservatism, but they're only really about 70 years behind the UK on that which in the grand scheme of things, isn't that long. Two generations. 

I mean, you could have Richard Branson's woke virtue signalling and the rainbow flag logos, and the climate tokenism, but he ultimately pays zero tax while the British Isles sees a serious poverty crisis and falls apart at the seams. Or you could have a rich Saudi who has old fashioned 1950s views about homosexuality and the intelligence of women, but who pays their tax which ultimately helps to fund Saudi's superior public services and welfare state. 

I'm not really sure that you can look at our super rich, mostly based in Monaco for tax purposes and getting a helicopter in to do business, and argue that they are better people than Saudi Arabia's super rich, quite the opposite in many respects. 

Edited September 24 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[essex canary 622]

11 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

People always knock the Saudi government and rich Saudi's, but their state pension age is 65, three years lower than ours, they have universal free healthcare with a system as good as the NHS, all of their universities are free (no tuition fees), the life expectancy of their people is increasing at a much faster rate than ours, and their rate of food poverty is about one fifth of what it is in the UK despite being mostly desert. 

If they are in some way inherently bad people then the above wouldn't be the case. Their rich look after their plebs a lot better than our rich, ours flee to tax havens to hoard their wealth or are parasitic and leech off of the treasury like Michelle Mone and hubby.

The issues with Saudi Arabia relate to their social conservatism, but they're only really about 70 years behind the UK on that which in the grand scheme of things, isn't that long. Two generations. 

I mean, you could have Richard Branson's woke virtue signalling and the rainbow flag logos, and the climate tokenism, but he ultimately pays zero tax while the British Isles sees a serious poverty crisis and falls apart at the seams. Or you could have a rich Saudi who has old fashioned 1950s views about homosexuality and the intelligence of women, but who pays their tax which ultimately helps to fund Saudi's superior public services and welfare state. 

I'm not really sure that you can look at our super rich, mostly based in Monaco for tax purposes and getting a helicopter in to do business, and argue that they are better people than Saudi Arabia's super rich, quite the opposite in many respects. 

Would be interesting to know how much the British/American owned Football Clubs are contributing to help out Wimbledon?

[Nexus_Canary 1,206]

You know what this is what cup opponents should be doing for cup opponents.
Its easy to sneer when £15k from Newcastle is like us sending a shiny 20pence coin, but still they didnt have to send a single penny, so fair play Newcastle, i applaud this especially that the Prem is becoming totally devoid of class or concern  for the lower leagues. 

[NewNestCarrow 290]

5 hours ago, NewNestCarrow said:

I have just donated £3 to this crowdfunder.

And before y'all shout at me for being tight, that is almost exactly the same % of my income as the NUFC donation of £15k.

To those who have replied:

1) NUFC made sure their donation is public knowledge. They could easily have kept it private by just sending a donation, or arranging a split of the Cup receipts that is more in AFC's favour.  This is a PR move. 

Other football clubs may well have reached out to AFC - privately - offering help or expertise. What they have not done is shouted from the rooftops about it.

2) If I throw a penny in the beggar's cup does make me generous?  Of course not.  And if I get a photographer to ensure that my penny donation is made public what does that say about me?

3) Do we think that NUFC have been pushing the PL for a better financial settlement for the EFL?  Or do we think that NUFC are toeing the PL line to ensure that their place at the top table is protected?  So let's not kid ourselves that NUFC have any interest in the wider football pyramid.

Of course if most football clubs hadn't turned into money-grabbing leeches during the last 10-15 years then my sneering would be totally unfounded, but we all know that Cash is King these days.

 

 

[NewNestCarrow 290]

5 hours ago, shefcanary said:

They'll also earn a fair whack from the rearranged match as well, far more than a night at their own ground?

Gate receipts at Sid James' Park will be around three-times what they would have at Plough Lane.

So NUFC will also be banking considerably more cash.

[Capt. Pants 5,006]

I would imagine Wimbledon will be claiming on insurance for the flood damage, so might make a nice little earner from this initially.

However it begs the question what else is under the pitch. It's bound to flood again.

[essex canary 622]

9 hours ago, NewNestCarrow said:

Gate receipts at Sid James' Park will be around three-times what they would have at Plough Lane.

So NUFC will also be banking considerably more cash.

As both teams share 45% each perhaps around £150,000 each. That places the £15 000 into context. 

[TheGunnShow 7,376]

12 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

People always knock the Saudi government and rich Saudi's, but their state pension age is 65, three years lower than ours, they have universal free healthcare with a system as good as the NHS, all of their universities are free (no tuition fees), the life expectancy of their people is increasing at a much faster rate than ours, and their rate of food poverty is about one fifth of what it is in the UK despite being mostly desert. 

If they are in some way inherently bad people then the above wouldn't be the case. Their rich look after their plebs a lot better than our rich, ours flee to tax havens to hoard their wealth or are parasitic and leech off of the treasury like Michelle Mone and hubby.

The issues with Saudi Arabia relate to their social conservatism, but they're only really about 70 years behind the UK on that which in the grand scheme of things, isn't that long. Two generations. 

I mean, you could have Richard Branson's woke virtue signalling and the rainbow flag logos, and the climate tokenism, but he ultimately pays zero tax while the British Isles sees a serious poverty crisis and falls apart at the seams. Or you could have a rich Saudi who has old fashioned 1950s views about homosexuality and the intelligence of women, but who pays their tax which ultimately helps to fund Saudi's superior public services and welfare state. 

I'm not really sure that you can look at our super rich, mostly based in Monaco for tax purposes and getting a helicopter in to do business, and argue that they are better people than Saudi Arabia's super rich, quite the opposite in many respects. 

I dunno, I'd have thought the killing of Khashoggi, lack of press freedom in general as well as their financing of terrorism might have also made a lot of people sceptical.

And let's face it, their views on matters such as homosexuality are as repugnantly bigoted as they are hilariously ill-informed.

EDIT: Basically, saying it's just "social conservatism" is selling it rather short.

Edited September 25 by TheGunnShow

[JonnyJonnyRowe 972]

13 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I dunno, I'd have thought the killing of Khashoggi, lack of press freedom in general as well as their financing of terrorism might have also made a lot of people sceptical.

I'm sceptical of 'sports washing' in general. I don't quite know whether the Saudi's are engaging in sports washing or if they just have a near endless pile of cash that they are looking for ways to spend somehow, or a mix of both. The US and the UK may say that assassinations are illegal and not practiced, but Osama Bin Laden looked very much like an assassination to me, as did Jeffrey Epstein - he knew far too much about powerful figures in both the US and the UK. 

13 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

And let's face it, their views on matters such as homosexuality are as repugnantly bigoted as they are hilariously ill-informed.

Yes, my point was that homosexuality was still illegal in the UK until 1967, we're only a couple of generations ahead in terms or progress. If you were convicted before that point you still need to submit an application to the Home Office to have it pardoned/disregarded and removed from your criminal record. And it was only last year, in 2023, that females were able to apply to have convictions for same-sex relations removed from their criminal records. Men have been able to do it since 2012. Yes, there are men who had to live with a criminal record for 45+ years since decriminalisation, and women who have had to live with that for 56+ years, if indeed they are lucky enough to be alive. Tens or hundreds of thousands of men and women and have died as criminals for loving somebody of the same gender.

My point is that sometimes people look at other countries values in order to be holier than thou and self-righteous, but in the process find it too easy to forget that their own countries sh*t does still stink. 

Edited September 25 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[shefcanary 2,950]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

I would imagine Wimbledon will be claiming on insurance for the flood damage, so might make a nice little earner from this initially.

However it begs the question what else is under the pitch. It's bound to flood again.

It is more about the flood defences of the nearby river. Aside from the "once in hundred years September rainfall", it does seem the ground development did not take account of the fact it is basically on a flood plain.

@dylanisabaddog I'm sure will have a view on this and how it will happen at Carrow Road before 2050.

[TheGunnShow 7,376]

6 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I'm sceptical of 'sports washing' in general. I don't quite know whether the Saudi's are engaging in sports washing or if they just have a near endless pile of cash that they are looking for ways to spend somehow, or a mix of both. The US and the UK may say that assassinations are illegal and not practiced, but Osama Bin Laden looked very much like an assassination to me, as did Jeffrey Epstein - he knew too much. 

Yes, my point was that homosexuality was still illegal in the UK until 1967, we're only a couple of generations ahead in terms or progress. If you were convicted before that point you still need to submit an application to the Home Office to have it pardoned/disregarded and removed from your criminal record. And it was only last year, in 2023, that females were able to apply to have convictions for same-sex relations removed from their criminal records. Men have been able to do it since 2012. Yes, there are men who had to live with a criminal record for 45+ years since decriminalisation, and women who have had to live with that for 56 years, if indeed they are lucky enough to be alive. Tens or hundreds of thousands of men and women and have died as criminals for loving somebody of their same gender.

My point is that sometimes people look at other countries values in order to be holier than thou and self-righteous, but in the process find it too easy to forget that their own sh*t does still stink. 

Agree with the second point, I'm simply saying that labelling it as social conservatism when you consider that they assassinated a dissident journalist (and sought to hide it) instead of the head honcho of a major terrorist group that had carried out a serious attack on American soil... 

The main point is this though, it's far more than just social conservatism. And if other countries have learned from their mistakes, it's more than reasonable as far as I can see to point this out.

Edited September 25 by TheGunnShow

[JonnyJonnyRowe 972]

31 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'm simply saying that labelling it as social conservatism when you consider that they assassinated a dissident journalist (and sought to hide it) instead of the head honcho of a major terrorist group that had carried out a serious attack on American soil... 

Take your point about the social conservatism angle. 

Just a reminder though that Julian Assange was never charged with a crime, and I'm sure at various points of his 7 years under effective house arrest in the Ecuadorian embassy (during which we permanently based Metropolitan Police Officers outside waiting for him to try and leave) and his 5 years in a UK prison he wished they'd have just put a bullet in his head. 

It all very much appears to have been a very successful attempt to shut him up. So much for the 'press freedom' that you appear to believe we have. 

So again, easy to point at other countries but can't do that while being in complete denial at some of the actions of your own. 

Edited September 25 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[pete 371]

Who revealed NUFC contributed?  I would guess it was AFC Wimbledon, when interveiwed on telly it was announced.  Not that NUFC will have reflected in their generosity.

[shefcanary 2,950]

16 minutes ago, pete said:

Who revealed NUFC contributed?  I would guess it was AFC Wimbledon, when interveiwed on telly it was announced.  Not that NUFC will have reflected in their generosity.

It was on the Go Fund Me page (or whatever fundraising site it was on), as detailed above, an entry of NUFC against the £15K donation. That is the only public statement.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

Will this money count as revenue?

I presume that the EFL still has FFP rules in place so will this affect AFC WImbledon, possibly giving them an unfair advantage?

[essex canary 622]

 

42 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Will this money count as revenue?

I presume that the EFL still has FFP rules in place so will this affect AFC WImbledon, possibly giving them an unfair advantage?

£15,000. Your moniker says it all.

AFC Wimbledon's Plough Lane Bond sets the standard for Fan Fiinance schemes. There Governance does too with the Fans Trust running the Club.

Best concentrate on those with a fascination for Camels whichever way round.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

 

£15,000. Your moniker says it all.

AFC Wimbledon's Plough Lane Bond sets the standard for Fan Fiinance schemes. There Governance does too with the Fans Trust running the Club.

Best concentrate on those with a fascination for Camels whichever way round.

WTF are you on about  now?