The concept of a fan owned club

[AutoWindscreens]

So many thoughts on this, but the main one is: IT CAN BE DONE.

To do it requires a lot of joint thought and action. But where better to start the ball rolling than this forum? I've read knowledgeable contributions from business owners, accountants, ex-footballers, and loads more: people with experience in all walks of life. The wisdom of crowds is not a myth.

 

[Spanish]

12 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

So many thoughts on this, but the main one is: IT CAN BE DONE.

To do it requires a lot of joint thought and action. But where better to start the ball rolling than this forum? I've read knowledgeable contributions from business owners, accountants, ex-footballers, and loads more: people with experience in all walks of life. The wisdom of crowds is not a myth.

 

how much money do we each have to put in?

[derby8]

43 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

So many thoughts on this, but the main one is: IT CAN BE DONE.

To do it requires a lot of joint thought and action. But where better to start the ball rolling than this forum? I've read knowledgeable contributions from business owners, accountants, ex-footballers, and loads more: people with experience in all walks of life. The wisdom of crowds is not a myth.

 

How about apply to the govt review on football to be a 'pathfinder' fan run club, first on a larger scale, following success of smaller clubs like Exeter City. Case for some pump-priming cash to get off the ground.

If I had £30m would be very tempted to buy, become Chairman, with a paid Chief Executive and fans on the board. Budget scenarios, current (prob way too high), max allowed under ffp rules, max possible under break even, etc.

I would not look to take money out, achieve capital appreciation by a successful team run on good business lines.

Edited May 15, 2021 by derby8

[mwram1973]

would never work, from the way most react on here per game we'd have 7 managers per season.

[AutoWindscreens]

29 minutes ago, Spanish said:

how much money do we each have to put in?

Ha! That depends, doesn't it?

First of all, the only realistic business plan option is one which aims at breaking even. It's not realistic to expect fans to keep putting their hands in their pockets every year to cover losses, and there would never be any consensus.

As for buying it. Suppose Mel writes off some debts and it's £30m: for 30,000 that's an average of £1,000 each. 

But I would say not everyone needs to put the same amount in. There could be a minimum investment to give you a membership vote.

You could have shares which are structured so that every shareholder gets an equal voting right, even if owning different percentages of the equity. Or you could have voting rights proportionate to ownership share.

As for raising the money, it is not impossible that the fans don't need to raise it all themselves.

What if we incorporate a community interest company, i.e. a social enterprise, and look for support in the form of grants or loans or guarantees? There could be supportive financial institutions out there that would be willing to lend money on better terms than the shark rates available from Dell.

[AutoWindscreens]

17 minutes ago, mwram1973 said:

would never work, from the way most react on here per game we'd have 7 managers per season.

Depends on the governance and decision making models you choose!

You can start out with wide consultation to work out your constitution and decision makers.

And you're aiming at a structure that has clear decision making responsibilities while giving fans a say.

Maybe you have a football executive or DOF who reports to a fan board. The fan board, chosen from the shareholders, can be elected at regular intervals, or chosen by random ballot, or half and half. Plus some experienced outsiders.

[RoyMac5]

24 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

Depends on the governance and decision making models you choose!

Is there a 'not for profit' model, or is that how the 51% 'fan owned' works.? 

[AutoWindscreens]

8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Is there a 'not for profit' model, or is that how the 51% 'fan owned' works.? 

Yes, there is. You can incorporate a not for profit type company. Like a community interest company (CIC). That would probably open a few doors for different kinds of finance and support. 

The governance question, like how much control do fans get, etc. (e.g. 50 + 1), is a different question. 

[AutoWindscreens]

15 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

Yes, there is. You can incorporate a not for profit type company. Like a community interest company (CIC). That would probably open a few doors for different kinds of finance and support. 

The governance question, like how much control do fans get, etc. (e.g. 50 + 1), is a different question. 

Or it could be a co-operative: Co-op

Or a community benefit society: Bencom

[kevinhectoring]

40 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

Or it could be a co-operative: Co-op

Or a community benefit society: Bencom

There’s only one way this would happen, that’s if MM likes the idea and pays advisers to devise a plan. We could ask him to. It would be very complicated. I think MM would need to stay involved as an anchor shareholder (or other deep pockets would need to be found). So he would have to get some sort of upside if things go well and he’d agree to cover losses up to a limit if they do not. It would take ages to put in place, over a year probably, and if by then covid was behind us a sale to a single party would make more sense. 
 

If large local businesses could be encouraged to get in on the deal, that would help. 
 

Problem is, even if it happened we’d end up broadly with a deal that has been rejected by the billionaires who are currently looking at the club. So whilst we might like the illusion of control, it’s an emotional punt not an investment  

[Ken Tram]

Perhaps having "Fan investors" is far more achievable than "Fan owners".

The reality of what could be devolved to fan decision making is very little. But! The club could try that if it wanted. Just put some things up to a vote. They could have a black/white kit versus blue/white kit vote to test the waters! Or a vote on something less important - the volume to play music before kick-off?

The problem is, of course, what people would expect for their "investment". One match per season in a "big" director's box, and a chance to bend the ear of a board member that day. Or less influence than that?

I *think* if members "invest" or "own" the BENEFIT is having a club that is not at future risk of the whims of a future owner. I *don't think* that there is an ownership model that means that fans *run* a successful club, although I don't know what happens in Germany.

PS. I was a member of MYFC (My Football Club) which bought Ebbsfleet United.)

Edited May 15, 2021 by Ken Tram

[Day]

The ESL has pushed this back out into discussion, but I just don’t see fan owned clubs being the way forward, not at this level and above anyway.

Let’s be honest here, the owners of those 6 knew exactly what they were doing and they would have known that fans would not have been happy.

What they didn’t know was the severity of the backlash as they are so detached from their clubs and thought they would get away with it.

Listen to the fans, actively engage with them, listen to concerns, frustrations and work with them to move the club forward.

Now I know this is a touchy subject given the position we find ourselves in now, but that’s all football clubs need to run.

Yes we are customers, but we’re more than that.

But on the board? No. It’s just not our place unless we have significant financial investment into the club and whilst that could be potentially raised by a large number of fans, do you want a large number of voices in the boardroom? I think that’s a bad idea myself.

[Cisse]

Anybody on this forum a billionaire? Or know one? Wink wink. 

[YouRams]

It would be alright for a few years until we’re stable then fans would soon get fed up of us being mid table championship fodda losing all our best young players to the likes of Sheffield United. Gone are the days where this kind of thing will work in the championship and above you need too much money to compete. 
We’re a very attractive club to buy regardless of all this going on, if the likes of Wigan are finding wealthy buyers we’ll be absolutely fine. Better facilities, bigger fan base, tons of potential, no panic needed the right buyer WILL come! 

[Rev]

36 minutes ago, David said:

The ESL has pushed this back out into discussion, but I just don’t see fan owned clubs being the way forward, not at this level and above anyway.

Let’s be honest here, the owners of those 6 knew exactly what they were doing and they would have known that fans would not have been happy.

What they didn’t know was the severity of the backlash as they are so detached from their clubs and thought they would get away with it.

Listen to the fans, actively engage with them, listen to concerns, frustrations and work with them to move the club forward.

Now I know this is a touchy subject given the position we find ourselves in now, but that’s all football clubs need to run.

Yes we are customers, but we’re more than that.

But on the board? No. It’s just not our place unless we have significant financial investment into the club and whilst that could be potentially raised by a large number of fans, do you want a large number of voices in the boardroom? I think that’s a bad idea myself.

I don't think the idea is to have a large number of fans in the boardroom.

It's to give fans a voice in the direction the club takes, via elections or some other method.

People would run for President, and back up their ideas with costs and projections. Should they not meet these, maybe the new constitution would make them responsible for meeting the shortfall. Perhaps they could deposit a set amount into an escrow account, as a condition of running, to be drawn on if their ambitions don't come to fruition?

This would give us a smaller risk free choice between candidates in any vote, between someone who wants to spend what we earn, and a candidate who's willing to commit extra funding to accelerate progress, for instance.

If plans do come off, they can reward themselves financially from the extra income through bonuses etc, in a similar way that Daniel Levy is renumerated at Spurs, for instance.

If things go tits up halfway into a regimes reign, in certain circumstances the membership can vote to remove them early, subject to constitutional checks and balances.

In such a system, you'd become a member automatically by buying a season ticket, other members would be added by paying a small annual subscription, similar to the memberships we already offer with similar benefits, and a further membership offer to remote fans, whether abroad or at home.

Thats my take on how it could possibly work, obviously it's nowhere near a fully formed plan, and has obvious pitfalls, but as a basis for discussion it's a starting point. 

I'm an idealist, but just imagine how much better Mel's legacy could be if it ended up with a fan owned, democratically run football club, truly embedded in its community.

I sound like a hippy!

[Highgate]

55 minutes ago, David said:

The ESL has pushed this back out into discussion, but I just don’t see fan owned clubs being the way forward, not at this level and above anyway.

Didn't the proposed ESL contain 2 fan owned clubs? 

Just because a club is fan owned doesn't mean it can't generate enormous revenue, as Derby would if we were in the Premier League. The only financial drawback of being a non-profit fan owned club is you won't have the sugar-daddy owner scenario willing to pump millions into the club, like Chelsea or Man City.  Conversely, a benefit would be that you wouldn't be saddled with an owner looking to get rich off the back of the club, like the Glazers at Man Utd.  The fact that a club is fan owned shouldn't, in any way, limit a club financially, or on the pitch.  It certainly hasn't stopped Real Madrid winning 13 European Cups/Champions League.  If that's our ceiling then I don't think we have a problem.

As for often mentioned drawback that 'the fans can't agree on anything so how could they run a club'.  This is just ridiculous.  The leadership of the club would be elected by the members for a fixed term and those elected would then get on with making the decisions without direct interference from the fans/owners.  If the fans think they did a good job...they may keep them on for another term.

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Didn't the proposed ESL contain 2 fan owned clubs? 

Just because a club is fan owned doesn't mean it can't generate enormous revenue, as Derby would if we were in the Premier League. The only financial drawback of being a non-profit fan owned club is you won't have the sugar-daddy owner scenario willing to pump millions into the club, like Chelsea or Man City.  Conversely, a benefit would be that you wouldn't be saddled with an owner looking to get rich off the back of the club, like the Glazers at Man Utd.  The fact that a club is fan owned shouldn't, in any way, limit a club financially, or on the pitch.  It certainly hasn't stopped Real Madrid winning 13 European Cups/Champions League.  If that's our ceiling then I don't think we have a problem.

As for often mentioned drawback that 'the fans can't agree on anything so how could they run a club'.  This is just ridiculous.  The leadership of the club would be elected by the members for a fixed term and those elected would then get on with making the decisions without direct interference from the fans/owners.  If the fans think they did a good job...they may keep them on for another term.

❤️??

Just because we haven't doesn't mean we can't. #COYR

[Rev]

8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

❤️??

Just because we haven't doesn't mean we can't. #COYR

It's time to think creatively, for sure.

[Day]

4 hours ago, Highgate said:

Didn't the proposed ESL contain 2 fan owned clubs? 

Just because a club is fan owned doesn't mean it can't generate enormous revenue, as Derby would if we were in the Premier League. The only financial drawback of being a non-profit fan owned club is you won't have the sugar-daddy owner scenario willing to pump millions into the club, like Chelsea or Man City.  Conversely, a benefit would be that you wouldn't be saddled with an owner looking to get rich off the back of the club, like the Glazers at Man Utd.  The fact that a club is fan owned shouldn't, in any way, limit a club financially, or on the pitch.  It certainly hasn't stopped Real Madrid winning 13 European Cups/Champions League.  If that's our ceiling then I don't think we have a problem.

As for often mentioned drawback that 'the fans can't agree on anything so how could they run a club'.  This is just ridiculous.  The leadership of the club would be elected by the members for a fixed term and those elected would then get on with making the decisions without direct interference from the fans/owners.  If the fans think they did a good job...they may keep them on for another term.

Do you have any examples of such clubs in English football that are successfully achieving the demands of the fan base?

[DesertRam]

16 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

The only problem I foresee as on this site so many “fans / supporters/ members “ have differing opinions on the running of the club. Can see getting a consensus very difficult. 
Might have to do a bit more research in how the German clubs do it and how the less successful ones deal with the grumblings of fans 

Everyone would have to elect a manager, to make the decisions without the benefit of hindsight  - alot like

Mel had to do!!