Chaddy_Ender Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 What do we get for our 3% then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 A 3% non-voting sharholding and a director on the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 But how many owners would put 100% investment in for 90% of the company? It was only a very brief conversation and shares etc are something i know very little about but i do think labour's proposals need thickening up quite alot. But how many owners would have the bloke who represents the 3% make the majority of their board statements? Especially when there are 3 others, one of them the CEO, who don't say anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 But how many owners would put 100% investment in for 90% of the company? It was only a very brief conversation and shares etc are something i know very little about but i do think labour's proposals need thickening up quite alot. Labour's proposal would mean, with the right appointment by the fans, that a person on the board would at least have a say in matters, even if he was out voted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scapegoat Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Whilst we have a "fan" representative on the board and a good sensible chairman - if SC sold to someone else then we'd be in with a chance of getting someone akin to Blackpool/Leeds. I am sure that SC would try to ensure that this did not happen, but he could have no say in any further changes in ownership so if not straight away, it could be the next one. I cannot see our 3% representative having an impact in those circumstances. So I agree, definitely more on the riskier side of the spectrum. With regards to "our" director. What is the status of that role? I seem to recall it was a voted position (?), but if so what is the term of office? Does the person have to be re-selected or is it a once in, stay in approach? If it is the latter then the benefit of that position would seem to be reduced as it becomes more and distant from the supporters it represents. Not sure if anyone has seen any evidence of that recently ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 But how many owners would have the bloke who represents the 3% make the majority of their board statements? Especially when there are 3 others, one of them the CEO, who don't say anything. You could argue that's the 'robust fan liaison', although it's more like you're being told about club affairs by your gaffer rather than a colleague. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 With regards to "our" director. What is the status of that role? I seem to recall it was a voted position (?), but if so what is the term of office? Does the person have to be re-selected or is it a once in, stay in approach? If it is the latter then the benefit of that position would seem to be reduced as it becomes more and distant from the supporters it represents. Not sure if anyone has seen any evidence of that recently ;-) The position is due for renewal next year, he has explained himself! He can be voted out but will cling on for dear life. It has nothing to do with any 'immunity' that he is a Plank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 We might have a 'fan on the board' but we're far from the other end of the spectrum to Leeds and Blackpool. If anything we're closer to their end than the other end... Very much so, the OAFC model is a privately run club working within a tight budget, hoping to strike it lucky sometime. It also presents the fans with a share that limits them to voice concerns about types of beer and asking for a smoking area - for what the fans put into the trust funds and the club. it doesn't offer much more than that. Before I get lept on, its works - however fans have to wait very patiently for it to work, and you have to put faith in the business acumen/integrity of the private owner. I'd say there's a group of fan owned clubs like Wimbledon, Pompey at the 'glitzy' end, teams like 1874 and Darlington almost starting from scratch at the other, with Wycombe and Exeter somewhere in-between. However I think there are a group of clubs that aren't fan owned yet have strong family-club supporting board members and chairmen that want the best for their clubs and will do their damnedest to make it work; Burnley immediately spring to mind - I think Oldham also fit into this category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 If a fan on the board is forced by labour, forgetting our own situation, then there are ways around ignoring them. "Board" meetings may take place, but the real decisions and discussions could take place 1000's of miles away. Regardless of anyone's view of Barry, it is clear to me that he is involved in the board meetings and that he has some sort of working relationship with Corney. So would you rather have someone involved and in-the-know, even if they don't disseminate the innermost workings of the club to every supporter, or would you rather have someone who is paid lip service to and ignored? For me, the Trust was setup to stop the club going bust. If the club is on the brink and the fan on the board isn't screaming blue murder, then it will have failed. 3% or 10% of shares is inconsequential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 So would you rather have someone involved and in-the-know, even if they don't disseminate the innermost workings of the club to every supporter, or would you rather have someone who is paid lip service to and ignored? I for one would rather have someone on the Board with half a brain! You quote the 2 extremes which is never a good way to look at any situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngen Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 We're one end of the spectrum. Blackpool and Leeds are the other end. Have to feel for their fans, even if we all hate Leeds. ... And Blackpool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 But how many owners would put 100% investment in for 90% of the company? It was only a very brief conversation and shares etc are something i know very little about but i do think labour's proposals need thickening up quite alot. In Germany they're ploughing money in for just 49% but no longer in the manner it was originally intended http://www.espnfc.com/german-bundesliga/10/blog/post/2118451/influx-of-nouveau-riche-clubs-a-worry-for-bundesliga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 This sort of thing always looks nice in principle. It would be a load of shut in practice. Are we going to have a football version of OFSTED going round rating clubs on community participation, communication etc? Checking that Trust type Directors are properly listened to? These are things that forward thinking owners ought to doing anyway but we shouldn't be trying to force a one size fits all solution across the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Am bored so flipping though the numerous crappy channels I have and have stumbled across a bbc parliament programme on now. Live debate in the House of Lords over the running of football clubs and giving fans a big voice in the running of and more support for the trust already in place Debating how owners have no passion for the clubs but as a businesses and do they have the right to sell the clubs assets. Mentioned afc Wimbledon Discussing reform. Mentioning the supporters direct movement too - by Lord Watson What's the impact on us? I can't actually believe they are debating this in the House of Lords, I assume next week it's X-factor voting systems that will be on the agenda. This countries :censored:ing priorities, good lord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I can't actually believe they are debating this in the House of Lords, I assume next week it's X-factor voting systems that will be on the agenda. This countries :censored:ing priorities, good lord. How many turned up? it's usually about 6 at these debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 How many turned up? it's usually about 6 at these debates. Fair estimate there BP, all had some involvement with there relevant teams too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Should it? Never knew that. Capital letters should only be used for people/organisations worthy of one! Actually, I think was half asleep and wrong it's Government with a capital "G" and not parliament..I am therefore not worth even to be on the subs bench..boo hoo , sniff. I withdraw totally. Edited October 31, 2014 by underdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.