Also what happens if one guy buys 51% of the 51% given to fans? Does he basically have control of the other half, or is it one vote per purchase regardless of the size?
I like the idea of the 51%, but fuck knows how they can sort it out..
So people who have bought clubs are going to give 51% away?
Non existenceIt is a nice idea but I really don't see how English football gets to it.
None or very very few of the current owners are going to give up the value they have in the 51%+ that they currently control. Partly because that value largely underpins the sums that they have put in to most clubs.
I don't see how government could impose anything without coming in to serious conflict in three areas. Firstly fifa rules that ban government interference, to impose in that way risks the national team being banned and England losing its position at the top table which is currently guaranteed.
Second the number of law suits that would be brought would be many, lengthy and costly, putting FA and EFL at risk of ruin (they are not rich organisations). Why would the owners take the increased risk to their investment and at the same time devalue their "security ". Collectively the owners have massive wealth with which to challenge this, and any rule change requires their agreement as they control the members of FA or EFL
Third the FA and EFL are both private members clubs with their own rules and regulations. A factor that has defeated HMRC many times in the past.
It is also going to be very difficult to transfer assets such as stadiums to the fans. Usually those assets are secured against loans, not just from owners but from banks and other sources. To change the ownership requires the satisfaction of the charge.
Comparing with Germany is fine at first glance but their situation I think developed long ago and from a different position where fans already had control. Do those clubs for example secure stadiums against loans? The debt in English football is huge and removing the charges that underpin it risks it all collapsing.
Ultimately I think what will be the "solution " in the end is proper representation on the club boards by fans. Fans will think they have some power, but the decisions will still be with the owners.
Just a thought but the proposal banning clubs moving away from its natural geographical fan base ....... where would that have left ccfc had they not been able to move to St Andrews if a solution could not be found at the ricoh?
Also how would you prove you were a supporter? How would you stop a stooge buying all those shares and just voting with what they want? Also without the ability to own at least 51% would put a lot of larger investors off. They like being able to do whatever they please.
I don't know if the PL,FA,EFL,would buy into it as there funded by big businesses,it would be the awnser from our point of viewI don't think you do buy in. I think its something like the fans get the goldenseal which equates to 51% ofthe club
Such lack of imagination here.
Set up an organisation that has veto power on key elements of the club (golden share/stadia/naming rights/club badge/etc), supporters gain membership through season tickets or similar for those that can’t attend.
No money has to change hands, no ownership changes, but the club can’t move cities/change name/change badge/leave the league without the majority of fans agreeing. Any owner not trying to be an arse will be fine.
Such lack of imagination here.
Set up an organisation that has veto power on key elements of the club (golden share/stadia/naming rights/club badge/etc), supporters gain membership through season tickets or similar for those that can’t attend.
No money has to change hands, no ownership changes, but the club can’t move cities/change name/change badge/leave the league without the majority of fans agreeing. Any owner not trying to be an arse will be fine.
imaginative ideas then of course you have to deal with the practicalities.
some of which are
- who is setting up the organisation?
- who funds it
- what powers will it have and how does it enforce them
- who regulates the organisation?
- how do you make it binding on all clubs? Rule changes in EFL requires 75% of members to approve. Members basically being the owners
- what standing would it have in law say vs The Companies Act
- the golden share is the key value alongside the stadium for all owners and they give power of veto to the fans? it is not just a way in but also a way out for them too
- how do fans investigate any golden share transfer ? when such deals are usually subject to an NDA
- If fans given a right to be involved even in just oversight of a deal wont they be subject to an NDA also so cant disclose anything even to their own group or committee.
- will the fans have the necessary knowledge or skills to investigate such a murky and less than transparent environment
- how do you compel directors & owners to disclose all facts?
- how do you compel directors & owners to act on a fans veto. How do you resolve a possible conflict between directors statutory responsibility to act in best interests of the Company vs fans acting in best interests of fans (not necessarily the same thing)
- How does a fan representative investigate a proposed purchaser without being subject to an NDA
- are you just providing another layer of non transparency and someone else to blame
- the considerations are the same for stadia but in addition
- what if the club doesn't own the stadium? is just a tenant
- what is the minimum tenancy required?
- most stadiums owned by clubs are secured by legal charges, giving the fans veto over the stadium affects the security of the lender. That could get costly to remedy. Fans wont have power over the lender
- how do fans veto actions on the stadium when the club doesnt actually own it
- Company Laws sets legal limits as to minimum disclosure can clubs be required to disclose potentially commercially sensitive info above those minimums. No good complying with Co Acts only to give it all away in a separate fans statement it could affect income of the club and therefore its future
- naming rights - as above the club might not own the stadium, the naming rights deal might well be covered by NDA's
- Clubs should and generally do consult fans on badge but who is classed as a fan ?
- are fans classed as fans on an annual basis, is there a membership fee what is classed as unable to be season ticket holder
- how many fans need to be involved to be able say that the fans body represents the whole fan base?
- is this going to require a complete overhaul of the FA, EFL Premier League rules ............... which are controlled by the owners
- if imposed by government does that threaten the FA's standing and that of the national team
- if imposed by government does that threaten the football creditors rule because new rules set a precedent
- does the EFL retain its powers of discretion so will that circumvent things
- how many times have clubs left their own stadium to move to another city ( i dont mean temporary)
- what is meant by a clubs geographic area
- how are conflicts between owners and fans settled in such a new set up
- who pays for it
- what legal protections are there for fans representatives
- has anyone got the bottle to take this on and take on all sides?
Thats just a few of the things that come to mind.
Sorry to be so negative just trying to point out some of the many obstacles because i think fan involvement is a good idea. BUT with the myriad of different set ups, owners, lenders i think it is going to very very difficult to achieve. I can see such a system for things like Club colours, club name, club badge, but the more commercial stuff like naming rights, sponsorship, new owners, golden share i can see an element of consultation but power of veto i dont think so. We are not i think heading for 50+1 I just dont see how that can be achieved. However hopefully we are heading for a closer relationship between owners & fans brought about by consultation, greater transparency ................ basically communication
I do think that football governing bodies need to take a long hard look at themselves,
This will take years to sort out, and i cant help thinking that is exactly what those who govern want to happen
Stadia are a bit separate as a physical asset. But things like the golden share just need EFL/FA rule changes.
I fail to believe it’s an insurmountable task to get fan approval for fundamental changes to a club.
The mechanisms are in place with Trusts and the like in terms of ownership models etc. Funding can be centralised. Etc etc
Like everything if there’s political will there’s a way. You say owners won’t vote for it, I’d argue there’s more who don’t want to go the super league route than do.
Stadia are a bit separate as a physical asset. But things like the golden share just need EFL/FA rule changes.
I fail to believe it’s an insurmountable task to get fan approval for fundamental changes to a club.
The mechanisms are in place with Trusts and the like in terms of ownership models etc. Funding can be centralised. Etc etc
Like everything if there’s political will there’s a way. You say owners won’t vote for it, I’d argue there’s more who don’t want to go the super league route than do.
If its good enough for the current European champions......
There are ways that supporters can have more say without "ownership", like board level representation. Millwall are a good example of this.
Be interesting for cases where the shares have been taken,rather than purchased wouldn't it?Could have a share issue. But the rules state that anyone currently with shares be given the option to buy shares in the issue first to maintain their overall shareholding, so they'd have to be got around and that's not going to end up in the courts for years is it!
Be interesting for cases where the shares have been taken,rather than purchased wouldn't it?
But Bayern were essentially 100% fan owned, then rules changed to allow 49% private ownership. It's very different going from private ownership to 51% fan owned.
Chelsea have offered a supporter a chair at board meatings where they talk about the Club in general.
They will not attend financial or any meetings to do with playing staff etc.
I beleive the fans own the pitch not the whole ground.Chelsea’s naming rights and ground freehold are also held by supporters. Good enough for Abramovich it’s good enough for anyone else.
You need to separate “the club” as a business and “the club” as a community entity. Sisu don’t own Coventry City’s culture, just the players and staff and leases. We saw that during the Northampton season. Same for MK Dons and Wimbledon.
Fundamentally we already accept its fact, just needs formalising.
I beleive the fans own the pitch not the whole ground.
So basically German investors were gaining something by putting their money in whereas English investors are expected by some to give up something for little or no compensation having already substantially invested.
Not going to happen.
But Millwall are an example of a club where anybody (including fans!) can own shares in them, too.There are ways that supporters can have more say without "ownership", like board level representation. Millwall are a good example of this.
They have repeatedly sent feelers out for moving elsewhere, however. Hasn't happened yet, but...Chelsea’s naming rights and ground freehold are also held by supporters. Good enough for Abramovich it’s good enough for anyone else.
St. Andrews wouldn’t have happened which would have earned ccfc about £200k a home game more, pre-pandemic I still ask the question what did it achieve ?Just a thought but the proposal banning clubs moving away from its natural geographical fan base ....... where would that have left ccfc had they not been able to move to St Andrews if a solution could not be found at the ricoh?
Northampton failed Birmingham was not as avoidableSt. Andrews wouldn’t have happened which would have earned ccfc a about £200k a home game more, pre-pandemic I still ask the question what did it achieve ?
Then there’s Northampton all that achieved was losing the Ricoh to another business.
That's certainly one perspective...Northampton failed Birmingham was not as avoidable
They have repeatedly sent feelers out for moving elsewhere, however. Hasn't happened yet, but...
Of course it was, as I asked what did it achieve ?Northampton failed Birmingham was not as avoidable
So enlighten us and apply it to how it would work in the English situation
Unintended consequence for me was robins and boddy and attempts to spend what we receive and no moreOf course it was, as I asked what did it achieve ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?