Cronky Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. What's the point of them owning the club, if they're not going to influence the decisions that are made? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. What's the point of them owning the club, if they're not going to influence the decisions that are made? They do things like vote for a president etc who then chooses a manager and delegates downward. It's insanity that fans who own shares in a club would actually be hands on. The beauty of course is that the president can be changed if they are doing a bad job, not so our current owner. Membership of course could be reigion wide and infact international as the club grows through its ethics, philosophy and playing style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. Off you go then Parky. It's all yours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. What's the point of them owning the club, if they're not going to influence the decisions that are made? They do things like vote for a president etc who then chooses a manager and delegates downward. It's insanity that fans who own shares in a club would actually be hands on. The beauty of course is that the president can be changed if they are doing a bad job, not so our current owner. Membership of course could be reigion wide and infact international as the club grows through its ethics, philosophy and playing style. Different to a PLC in what significant way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. What's the point of them owning the club, if they're not going to influence the decisions that are made? They do things like vote for a president etc who then chooses a manager and delegates downward. It's insanity that fans who own shares in a club would actually be hands on. The beauty of course is that the president can be changed if they are doing a bad job, not so our current owner. Membership of course could be reigion wide and infact international as the club grows through its ethics, philosophy and playing style. Well that's a more limited role than many are hoping for, but personally I think one of the problems of our club is that the fans have too much influence, not too little. That's what kept Shearer in the first team long after he should have been shipped out, it created a lot of pressure on Sir Bob, and it influenced the foolish decision to invite Keegan back a second time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. What's the point of them owning the club, if they're not going to influence the decisions that are made? They do things like vote for a president etc who then chooses a manager and delegates downward. It's insanity that fans who own shares in a club would actually be hands on. The beauty of course is that the president can be changed if they are doing a bad job, not so our current owner. Membership of course could be reigion wide and infact international as the club grows through its ethics, philosophy and playing style. Different to a PLC in what significant way? Majority shareholders get the biggest say and basically control the club ie FFS and the shareholders payouts. There would be no payouts to any of the fan owners ever. The role of chairman would come up for renewal every four years and the man in charge can continue to run for it or a new man could come in. Fans can get on the board and even if they are not voted in the board will meet with fans at regular terms to put there point across. So very different really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Is a president not what they have, for example, at Real Madrid? I know they've been successful, but I hate that every year some dude promises a mega signing to appease the fans and get re-ellected. Whether the manager wants these players or not seems to be irrelevant, and they do appear to have a rapid turnover of managers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 There's an old and accurate saying about a camel being a horse designed by commitee...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. What's the point of them owning the club, if they're not going to influence the decisions that are made? They do things like vote for a president etc who then chooses a manager and delegates downward. It's insanity that fans who own shares in a club would actually be hands on. The beauty of course is that the president can be changed if they are doing a bad job, not so our current owner. Membership of course could be reigion wide and infact international as the club grows through its ethics, philosophy and playing style. Different to a PLC in what significant way? Majority shareholders get the biggest say and basically control the club ie FFS and the shareholders payouts. There would be no payouts to any of the fan owners ever. The role of chairman would come up for renewal every four years and the man in charge can continue to run for it or a new man could come in. Fans can get on the board and even if they are not voted in the board will meet with fans at regular terms to put there point across. So very different really. Yup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicsfingeredmong Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 This set-up is still open to corruption at the highest level ie. chairmen signing players - ie as a tablet for re-election - whom a manager or may not see as part of their 1st team building plans. Real poaching high profile players from Barca in the past ie. Figo. This is also extends to managers not being able to offload 'fan favourites' despite a player being a spent force out on the pitch. Raul, an untouchable figure at Real despite his wavering form, is one case in point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 This set-up is still open to corruption at the highest level ie. chairmen signing players - ie as a tablet for re-election - whom a manager or may not see as part of their 1st team building plans. Real poaching high profile players from Barca in the past ie. Figo. This is also extends to managers not being able to offload 'fan favourites' despite a player being a spent force out on the pitch. Raul, an untouchable figure at Real despite his wavering form, is one case in point. Only if fans are daft enough to fall for it. Remember the fans decide who takes over. The manager holds all the cards on who comes in or at least does if thats how the fans decide the club should be run when electing a chairman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicsfingeredmong Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 This set-up is still open to corruption at the highest level ie. chairmen signing players - ie as a tablet for re-election - whom a manager or may not see as part of their 1st team building plans. Real poaching high profile players from Barca in the past ie. Figo. This is also extends to managers not being able to offload 'fan favourites' despite a player being a spent force out on the pitch. Raul, an untouchable figure at Real despite his wavering form, is one case in point. Only if fans are daft enough to fall for it. Remember the fans decide who takes over. The manager holds all the cards on who comes in or at least does if thats how the fans decide the club should be run when electing a chairman. After having read stuff like 'Ashley is a breath of fresh air' and the like for over a year i have my doubts mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 If clubs were runs as fans' collectives, Arsenal would never have appointed Wenger and Ferguson would have been booted out of Man U after two seasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 If clubs were runs as fans' collectives, Arsenal would never have appointed Wenger and Ferguson would have been booted out of Man U after two seasons. Truth. Be careful what you wish for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgs Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 in a couple of years i will buy it outright and put it back where it belongs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 OK, say this is the deal: £250m needed to buy the club You the fan are required to stump up £5,000 spread over 5 years to pay, you can pay weekly, monthly, yearly or all up front, whatever suits your financial needs best For your money you get 1 vote (for life) when it comes to Appointing a board every 4 years who then get elected based on vote results to run the club based on a 10 commandments style this is how we do business at NUFC kind of guide. You get 1 vote for life on important decisions like whether to rename stadium rights etc. You do not and never will get to vote which manager gets appointed or sacked or which players get signed or sold, that is down to the board you elect and who they choose as manager. You get free entry to reserve and academy games for life, free TV world subscription at nufc.co.uk for life, and other freebies like magazines etc. You also get to attend open training sessions for life (imagine thousands of fans watching training sessions, would make the players feel 10ft tall and develop a real close bond between fans and players) What kind of NUFC do you get? One that is owned by a fans trust and not any one individual or collective group of businessmen, the club can never be bought or sold again. You get a club that you have an active role in helping to shape based on your vote right and a club that is geared towards serving the community. Season ticket prices will never raise above that of inflation, the club will never fleece fans, every single penny the club makes will go back into the club, every last penny. Would you buy into that kind of club? I would and I'll tell you this I'd swap that club for the one we have now, even if that means playing outside of the Premier League, being unable to go for superstar players and winning things etc. So if the fans don't get to decide on the hiring and sacking of managers, then what prevents the board from sacking Keagan in the same circumstances that Ashley did, which I'm assuming is a major reason for your suggestion in the first place. At least now, he making those decisions using his money. Under your proposal Ashley can sack Keagen with our money....No thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. What's the point of them owning the club, if they're not going to influence the decisions that are made? They do things like vote for a president etc who then chooses a manager and delegates downward. It's insanity that fans who own shares in a club would actually be hands on. The beauty of course is that the president can be changed if they are doing a bad job, not so our current owner. Membership of course could be reigion wide and infact international as the club grows through its ethics, philosophy and playing style. Different to a PLC in what significant way? 4. Majority shareholders get the biggest say and basically control the club ie FFS and the shareholders payouts. There would be no payouts to any of the fan owners ever. 1. The role of chairman would come up for renewal every four years and the man in charge can continue to run for it or a new man could come in. 2. Fans can get on the board 3. and even if they are not voted in the board will meet with fans at regular terms to put there point across. So very different really. Well not really. 1. The role of chairman comes up for revue in a PLC too and board members can stand for election and re-election by the shareholders, so that's exactly the same. 2. Fans could get on the board in a PLC as well, if they got the support of enough shareholders, which boils down to exactly the same thing too. 3. Meeting with the fans is simply a matter of policy and could be done by the club regardless of who owns it, so is pretty much irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that whatever the fans say at these meetings would be put into practice by the people running the club? If you are that's a pretty risky thing to do, what if what they suggest is totally wrong for the club? We're back to the club being run by amateurs thing again. If you're saying that only good ideas would be considered, then surely anyone who's running the club well would give consideration to a good idea, wouldn't they? So all your're left with is that people with more shares would have a greater say than those with less and that money would leave the club in the form of dividends. I'm not going to argue the point about dividends as that's obviously true, but I don't see how you can avoid the other happening under the ownership of fans either. Let me explain: 4. What's the club worth on the open market? Well the figures I've been seeing are around £250m to £300m, for this example let's say it's at the lower of the scale, I don't think I need it to be more to make my point, but if it was it'd just enhance what I'm about to say even more. I'm also not including any money that would be needed for working capital which would increase the figure even further. For the fans to buy the club at £250m requires: 250,000,000 fans paying £1 each or 1,000,000 fans paying £250 each or 250,000 fans paying £1,000 each or 100,000 fans paying £2,500 each or 52,387 fans paying £4,772.18 each (ie the capacity of the ground) or 25,000 fans paying £10,000 each or 10,000 fans paying £25,000 each You can probably see where I'm going with this? Can you see any combination which you think is likely to happen? I can't. Unless you're going to go down to a small handful of very rich "fans" putting together a consortium to take over the club then I don't think it's feasible and that's hardly what I'd call the fans taking over the club, would you? So you're going to need people who can afford it to chip in more than those that can't. How many people do you think will be happy to chip in a few tens of thousands of pounds, only to end up with the same share and rights as those who've shelled out a tenner? Not many!! Therefore you're going to have to allow people to own bigger chunks of the club than others and you're going to have to give them greater rights and power because of it. So it's not that different really is it! Dividends is the only genuine difference and even that seemingly clear blue water might become muddied if anyone had given this enough thought to have proposed a definition of what the fans would actually own for their contribution: - Would they be able to sell it, or transfer it in any way? - What happens if/when they die for example? - Could a family have more than one share? - How would that be different from an individual having more than one share? - Is it a single, one-off payment, or some kind of repeating fee? - If it's a repeating fee, does that mean that the fan only has a say for that period? - If it's a single fee how does the club raise more money? etc, etc, etc. It only takes a couple of minutes thought to show this idea up for what it is: a total fantasy!! Mind you delusions seem all the rage at the moment. (that's not aimed at you Phil) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 My biggest worry would be HTT putting some small print in about having to have Sam Allardyce as manager. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 My biggest worry would be HTT putting some small print in about having to have Sam Allardyce as manager. I'm more worried about what happens to HTT's vote when he walks out on the club again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 My biggest worry would be HTT putting some small print in about having to have Sam Allardyce as manager. I'm more worried about what happens to HTT's vote when he walks out on the club again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazy Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I voted no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. What's the point of them owning the club, if they're not going to influence the decisions that are made? They do things like vote for a president etc who then chooses a manager and delegates downward. It's insanity that fans who own shares in a club would actually be hands on. The beauty of course is that the president can be changed if they are doing a bad job, not so our current owner. Membership of course could be reigion wide and infact international as the club grows through its ethics, philosophy and playing style. Different to a PLC in what significant way? 4. Majority shareholders get the biggest say and basically control the club ie FFS and the shareholders payouts. There would be no payouts to any of the fan owners ever. 1. The role of chairman would come up for renewal every four years and the man in charge can continue to run for it or a new man could come in. 2. Fans can get on the board 3. and even if they are not voted in the board will meet with fans at regular terms to put there point across. So very different really. Well not really. 1. The role of chairman comes up for revue in a PLC too and board members can stand for election and re-election by the shareholders, so that's exactly the same. 2. Fans could get on the board in a PLC as well, if they got the support of enough shareholders, which boils down to exactly the same thing too. 3. Meeting with the fans is simply a matter of policy and could be done by the club regardless of who owns it, so is pretty much irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that whatever the fans say at these meetings would be put into practice by the people running the club? If you are that's a pretty risky thing to do, what if what they suggest is totally wrong for the club? We're back to the club being run by amateurs thing again. If you're saying that only good ideas would be considered, then surely anyone who's running the club well would give consideration to a good idea, wouldn't they? So all your're left with is that people with more shares would have a greater say than those with less and that money would leave the club in the form of dividends. I'm not going to argue the point about dividends as that's obviously true, but I don't see how you can avoid the other happening under the ownership of fans either. Let me explain: 4. What's the club worth on the open market? Well the figures I've been seeing are around £250m to £300m, for this example let's say it's at the lower of the scale, I don't think I need it to be more to make my point, but if it was it'd just enhance what I'm about to say even more. I'm also not including any money that would be needed for working capital which would increase the figure even further. For the fans to buy the club at £250m requires: 250,000,000 fans paying £1 each or 1,000,000 fans paying £250 each or 250,000 fans paying £1,000 each or 100,000 fans paying £2,500 each or 52,387 fans paying £4,772.18 each (ie the capacity of the ground) or 25,000 fans paying £10,000 each or 10,000 fans paying £25,000 each You can probably see where I'm going with this? Can you see any combination which you think is likely to happen? I can't. Unless you're going to go down to a small handful of very rich "fans" putting together a consortium to take over the club then I don't think it's feasible and that's hardly what I'd call the fans taking over the club, would you? So you're going to need people who can afford it to chip in more than those that can't. How many people do you think will be happy to chip in a few tens of thousands of pounds, only to end up with the same share and rights as those who've shelled out a tenner? Not many!! Therefore you're going to have to allow people to own bigger chunks of the club than others and you're going to have to give them greater rights and power because of it. So it's not that different really is it! Dividends is the only genuine difference and even that seemingly clear blue water might become muddied if anyone had given this enough thought to have proposed a definition of what the fans would actually own for their contribution: - Would they be able to sell it, or transfer it in any way? - What happens if/when they die for example? - Could a family have more than one share? - How would that be different from an individual having more than one share? - Is it a single, one-off payment, or some kind of repeating fee? - If it's a repeating fee, does that mean that the fan only has a say for that period? - If it's a single fee how does the club raise more money? etc, etc, etc. It only takes a couple of minutes thought to show this idea up for what it is: a total fantasy!! Mind you delusions seem all the rage at the moment. (that's not aimed at you Phil) i know, i wonder how thousands of companies round the world,( including many of the most sucessful) manage to operate with thousands of minor share holders, must be total fantasy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Would it mean that more money was available to allow us to compete with other clubs? - No Would it mean that more sensible decisions were made, on footballing and other matters? - No Why is that fella? Corporate finance, top level professional sport, marketing - professionals don't always get things right, but you'd back them to do so more often than inexperienced amateurs. Also, the way you approach decisions when you're on the inside and your job and livelihood depends on it is a bit different from how you see things from the luxury of an outside position. The club can't be run by a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks. To turn it round, I'd be interested to know why people think we'd generate more income and produce better decisions with a fans' collective. The amaeturs own the club Bobby they don't run it. What's the point of them owning the club, if they're not going to influence the decisions that are made? They do things like vote for a president etc who then chooses a manager and delegates downward. It's insanity that fans who own shares in a club would actually be hands on. The beauty of course is that the president can be changed if they are doing a bad job, not so our current owner. Membership of course could be reigion wide and infact international as the club grows through its ethics, philosophy and playing style. Different to a PLC in what significant way? 4. Majority shareholders get the biggest say and basically control the club ie FFS and the shareholders payouts. There would be no payouts to any of the fan owners ever. 1. The role of chairman would come up for renewal every four years and the man in charge can continue to run for it or a new man could come in. 2. Fans can get on the board 3. and even if they are not voted in the board will meet with fans at regular terms to put there point across. So very different really. Well not really. 1. The role of chairman comes up for revue in a PLC too and board members can stand for election and re-election by the shareholders, so that's exactly the same. 2. Fans could get on the board in a PLC as well, if they got the support of enough shareholders, which boils down to exactly the same thing too. 3. Meeting with the fans is simply a matter of policy and could be done by the club regardless of who owns it, so is pretty much irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that whatever the fans say at these meetings would be put into practice by the people running the club? If you are that's a pretty risky thing to do, what if what they suggest is totally wrong for the club? We're back to the club being run by amateurs thing again. If you're saying that only good ideas would be considered, then surely anyone who's running the club well would give consideration to a good idea, wouldn't they? So all your're left with is that people with more shares would have a greater say than those with less and that money would leave the club in the form of dividends. I'm not going to argue the point about dividends as that's obviously true, but I don't see how you can avoid the other happening under the ownership of fans either. Let me explain: 4. What's the club worth on the open market? Well the figures I've been seeing are around £250m to £300m, for this example let's say it's at the lower of the scale, I don't think I need it to be more to make my point, but if it was it'd just enhance what I'm about to say even more. I'm also not including any money that would be needed for working capital which would increase the figure even further. For the fans to buy the club at £250m requires: 250,000,000 fans paying £1 each or 1,000,000 fans paying £250 each or 250,000 fans paying £1,000 each or 100,000 fans paying £2,500 each or 52,387 fans paying £4,772.18 each (ie the capacity of the ground) or 25,000 fans paying £10,000 each or 10,000 fans paying £25,000 each You can probably see where I'm going with this? Can you see any combination which you think is likely to happen? I can't. Unless you're going to go down to a small handful of very rich "fans" putting together a consortium to take over the club then I don't think it's feasible and that's hardly what I'd call the fans taking over the club, would you? So you're going to need people who can afford it to chip in more than those that can't. How many people do you think will be happy to chip in a few tens of thousands of pounds, only to end up with the same share and rights as those who've shelled out a tenner? Not many!! Therefore you're going to have to allow people to own bigger chunks of the club than others and you're going to have to give them greater rights and power because of it. So it's not that different really is it! Dividends is the only genuine difference and even that seemingly clear blue water might become muddied if anyone had given this enough thought to have proposed a definition of what the fans would actually own for their contribution: - Would they be able to sell it, or transfer it in any way? - What happens if/when they die for example? - Could a family have more than one share? - How would that be different from an individual having more than one share? - Is it a single, one-off payment, or some kind of repeating fee? - If it's a repeating fee, does that mean that the fan only has a say for that period? - If it's a single fee how does the club raise more money? etc, etc, etc. It only takes a couple of minutes thought to show this idea up for what it is: a total fantasy!! Mind you delusions seem all the rage at the moment. (that's not aimed at you Phil) i know, i wonder how thousands of companies round the world,( including many of the most sucessful) manage to operate with thousands of minor share holders, must be total fantasy. Is it reading, or thinking, you have a problem with? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 just have a problem with you claiming that a business cant be run with shareholders, or that it would be fantasy. plcs have millions of shareholders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 just have a problem with you claiming that a business cant be run with shareholders, or that it would be fantasy. plcs have millions of shareholders. It would certainly be a fantasy to claim that was what I said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now