Ownership - what should it be? (2 Viewers)

[oldskyblue58]

This isnt a discussion of who so lets be clear I am not looking at the merits (?) of SISU or GH consortium or any other.

What do we the fans want to see as to how the club is owned? The next change of ownership is an opportunity to really engage the fans but will it be more of the same?. Can we get anyone into the club with a more enlightened view of the club and what can be achieved? Anyone taking over or even SISU if they stay needs to properly and fully engage with the fans but to also see the bigger picture. That bigger picture is the development of the Ricoh of which the football club is but an increasingly small part.

The real prize is the Ricoh so in reality investors will focus on that - CCFC is secondary, a tool to get the prize. The shares in CCFC we are told are worthless to the owners or potential buyers. Is there therefore an opportunity for potential investors to work a deal to get involvement in ACL, and at the same time give a substantial part of the ownership of CCFC back to the fans. I do not mean play at it like was done in the past, but perhaps the majority of the shares or even all owned by the fans (other clubs are doing it). We all know that in the past "owners" have put money into the club by way of loans - would having the shares in the hands of the fans stop them doing that ?.... when it hits the fan the owners are not fighting to save their shares it is the loans that are important to them.

Ok I accept the next bit might not happen under SISU so is just an example of an idea - but what would happen if the club in exchange for shares in the club put a levy of £50 on season tickets for example. Each season ticket holder gets say 50 shares and the club receives £450K. The figures are not relevant at this stage, and there are snags to overcome etc but would that kind of thing interest the average fan? (Wouldnt want to bias the share issue to money people though so everyone gets the same number of shares regardless of how much you pay for your ticket)

I see so far no evidence of such enlightenment in the current owners or any potential new owners. It is just more of the same old same old. We are told how important CCFC is to the local community well it is about time we had a proper involvement in CCFC then. It isnt any good or acceptable saying we want your money and support but you can have no say in what is going on. Repeatedly over the years the directors & owners have led the club towards financial ruin, I think they need to be more accountable. For me a token fans representative doesnt do it, certainly wealthy out of touch directors setting themselves up as one of the masses doesnt do it.

There needs to be proper responsibility, there needs to be proper scrutiny of the management of the club, there needs to be transparency.

Would substantial, majority or full ownership of the club by the fans achieve that and a better club ?

Just floating ideas really but fans ownership is important to our future i feel.

 

---

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

I think you are on the right track OSB. Legislation about ownership has to be changed at a national level to stop the likes of any hedge fund getting involved with a sporting institution. The question raised by this though is if fans are involved would we be happy with just 1st or 2nd division football, unfortunately in todays league structure money equals success. One would presumably raise money through share issues which would lead to wealthy individuals buying into and ultimately controlling the club, would we be able to stop any one owning more than 25% of the shares? Ultimately at the moment any one wanting to purchase the sky blues would have to include a plan to formaly buy the Ricoh as I think they are both intrinsicaly linked. The stadium is a red herring if its just being used for every day operations unless other sporting teams can be attracted to use the football facilities, ie some one of the likes of a rugby union or league team. Who soever the future owners are to be they will ultimately have to involve the supporters, the future of our club will be decided by how the community gets involved and backs the team. This is as we all know why SISU have failed, alienating the community and fan base has meant dwindling support and they have done nothing to change the opinion of the masses through their actions. PUSB

 

[ICHAN]

Who ever comes in I think we will end up with the same kind of ownership if it is a consortium of people, faceless apart from the odd frontman.
Which is fine, as long as the men in the public eye do engage the fans and try and set up some kind of scheme plan that is of benefit for the fans and people of the community, lets be pioneering again and bring football back to the community.
The ricoh will be the key to it all, if whoever we get owns this we have got to watch out that the team doesn't become a side venue to the bigger scheme of it all.
Thats what I hope for a buyout if it happens by person/people who want success on and off the pitch for the club the fans and community lets bring football back and give it back to the fans by involving them more and make it all a bit more accessable and less clock and dagger.

 

[Godiva]

I would think future loans would be difficult to obtain if the fanbase sits on a controlling part of the shares.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Think the fans have got to start to realise that CCFC no longer holds the power at the Ricoh. It accounts for 17% of Ricoh income and ACL are expanding alternative income streams so that %age is going to get smaller for the forseeable future. CCFC is already sidelined to some degree, if they want part of ACL they need to do it sooner rather than later. As fans we need to look at being part of something bigger not CCFC being it.

That in itself however could make greater fans involvement in CCFC easier. If investors get involved properly in both CCFC and ACL then the need to have control of CCFC becomes less, the need to ensure its success as great however. If CCFC remains a tenant then its costs are fixed, it could buy the rights to certain income streams it doesnt have now and if becomes successful then that actually improves the value of ACL so improving the investment. That means a CCFC that doesnt make great profits or losses but lives within means isnt so important to the investor and ownership of CCFC outright is not a necessity. There can be no greater tie to the community than actually owning part of the venture.

Same old same old just doesnt do it for me. What has been suggested has repeatedly failed here and at other clubs there is no reasonable expectation of success going forward in that manner as far as I can see. We shouldnt be complacent about it, we shouldnt accept not having a proper say in our club in my opinion

 

[oldskyblue58]

I would think future loans would be difficult to obtain if the fanbase sits on a controlling part of the shares.

Surely it depends more on viability of the business, security on offer, ability to repay etc. There are plenty of enterprises with multiple investors that raise finance. Tough times to get finance anywhere but if we live within means then the business case is better, and the need for major loans will be less likely in the first place. Might add another twist perhaps but it couldnt be any worse than the present position.

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

If CCFC could become a mutually owned club, owned by the supporters (and others who individually want to support a club in Coventry) it would still be able to raise money through loans etc. We have on our doorstep two major mutuals: The Coventry Building Society and the NFU Mutual. Mutuals can be very successful as businesses. I wholly support OSB's musings.

 

[Jack Griffin]

There is a basic problem in fan ownership, most fans are not money oriented, they just want on pitch success & are not concerned how it is achieved, they will complain loudly if the owners fail to spend (their own) money to achieve it.

The success of the club iis tied to the fortunes of the economy of the City, I think it is no coincidence that the club were on the up in the 60's when the City was thriving & in full employment. By the 90's the industry was pretty much gone & the club could only sustain its position in the top flight by getting into serious debt.

I do see the club as a local institution, loved by the people of the city. The owner needs to be a steward, looking after what isn't his and keeping it in the best condition he can, he shouldn't regard it as his plaything.

For the horrors of the last decade not to reoccur the club needs to be run with financial prudence. The unfortunate side effect of that is that the club's potential to be successful is limited. A city the size of Coventry should naturally be a premiership yo-yo club with a reasonable chance of a cup semi cup final or better once a decade, that would be fun enough for me.

 

[wingy]

Think there was some encouragement for this type of developement in the recent select commitee report on football governance OSB,if ever there is a realistic opporotunity for the club to actually own the stadium, this is the only model capable of convincing the council ,where there is no scope for asset stripping ,ie the stadia beeing locked in to a CCFC vehicle ,but i guess no one is going to stump up £100m. plus to hand it over to the likes of us .

 

[Paxman II]

It's very interesting though doubt it would happen.

So if by some miracle we get promoted to the big time and TV money alone will make us debt free and then some immediately, in the land of the rich and sponsorship rolling in do you not think the table reverses somewhat as to who will be 'courting' who then?
We may be 17% of income stream at the Ricoh as it stands now but that figure will rise substantially after promotion.

 

[ashbyjan]

The percentage wouldn't change as our rent is a fixed fee and whilst bigger crowds would obviously spend more on refreshments etc this is also a fixed amount for ACL as it is subcontracted out on a fixed fee again to compass. So compass would do better and the club would do better but ACL, unless obviously contracts were renegotiated, wouldn't actually benefit that much directly.