The concept of a fan owned club

[Will Hughes Hair]

Mel could create 60,000 shares offered at 1,000GBP. He retains 29,400 shares (49%) with all other shares offered to fans initially (season ticket holders, members, registered customers) before any surplus is offered on general sale.

Mel retains unsold shares (or they’re placed in trust with the potential to be sold at a later date).

All monies raised go toward running costs. All debts owed to MM serviced on an interest only basis until we reach the EPL (at which point we repay 10% per year while we stay there).

Similarly, no dividends for share holders until we hit the EPL (and then capped at 10p in the pound) and the club is run within its means with a continued focus on developing academy players.

[LeedsCityRam]

9 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

Derby has 250,000 people though, so if the idea is "community owned" rather than fan owned then the maths looks better. Not everyone who is a fan goes to the games.

And Derbyshire has 1m people plus neighbouring catchment areas in Notts, Leics & Staffordshire (Burton at 70k). Plus expats.

Just now, Woodley Ram said:

it could happen but fraught with difficulties. You would need to trust the executive with all of the decisions or they would not be able to react quickly enough.  How do you make sure people pay their fee's and what happens if they don't pay.  I think that you would need to sell this on a share basis, so some people might have a share valued £1k and others 100 shares valued at £100,000. That way you might get large businesses take up large share options supplemented by the normal fans.

You would need to run the club on a zero based budget as you could not expect to go back to the shareholders for an additional 8m because you have over spent.

What would happen if someone wants to leave, do they just walk away or do they get something based on the value of the club (lower in League 1 but a lot higher in the Prem)

Lovely idea but I dont think it has legs

Yes, you'd need to appoint a functioning senior management team in the usual way. Idea could be that senior appointments are elected & chief executive would have a fixed term of say, 2 or 3 years & then seek re-election. Then fans can vote based on their record.

Funding is a complicated one but depends on whether it would be shares or supporter bonds. Both are viable. Membership of club ownership group would have to be available to all subject to a small annual membership fee (say 50 quid) & that would entitle them to vote on appointments & attend AGMs. By having such a diverse ownership model, the impact of people leaving should be mitigated.

And yes, idea would be to have a balanced budget but with our turnover, that should still make us very competitive at Championship level. Saw a tweet earlier from our finance stalker Kieran Maguire saying average wage in Championship is 16k a week. That means a 25 man squad would cost circa 21m a year...very affordable with our pre-Covid income.

[Spanish]

39 minutes ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

Mel could create 60,000 shares offered at 1,000GBP. He retains 29,400 shares (49%) with all other shares offered to fans initially (season ticket holders, members, registered customers) before any surplus is offered on general sale.

Mel retains unsold shares (or they’re placed in trust with the potential to be sold at a later date).

All monies raised go toward running costs. All debts owed to MM serviced on an interest only basis until we reach the EPL (at which point we repay 10% per year while we stay there).

Similarly, no dividends for share holders until we hit the EPL (and then capped at 10p in the pound) and the club is run within its means with a continued focus on developing academy players.

30k paying 1000 each.  Interested how the posters on here would react, truly I am.  I would buy if I was permitted but...

[Will Hughes Hair]

Just now, Spanish said:

30k paying 1000 each.  Interested how the posters on here would react, truly I am.  I would buy if I was permitted but...

There’d obviously have to be a streamlining of the tangled web of companies that Mel currently operates, a clear delineation of the debts, and a cast iron constitution.

I’ll even throw in a 10% reduction on season tickets for share holders.

And by the time we’re ready for the share issue, the economy will have rebounded. So more might be tempted.

Go on you know you want to...
 

 

[Spanish]

15 minutes ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

There’d obviously have to be a streamlining of the tangled web of companies that Mel currently operates, a clear delineation of the debts, and a cast iron constitution.

I’ll even throw in a 10% reduction on season tickets for share holders.

And by the time we’re ready for the share issue, the economy will have rebounded. So more might be tempted.

Go on you know you want to...
 

 

If I’m paying £1k I don’t want it to subsidise season ticket prices

[Will Hughes Hair]

Just now, Spanish said:

If I’m paying £1k I don’t want it to subsidise season ticket prices

It’s only a reduction on your own season ticket. Even if that’s 50GBP a season it’s be twenty years before it paid off.

But I’m willing to negotiate on the point ?

[Spanish]

Just now, Will Hughes Hair said:

It’s only a reduction on your own season ticket. Even if that’s 50GBP a season it’s be twenty years before it paid off.

But I’m willing to negotiate on the point ?

The hint is in my name.  I subscribe to ramstv 

[Will Hughes Hair]

Just now, Spanish said:

The hint is in my name.  I subscribe to ramstv 

I just thought you liked paella, guitars or flamenco or summat ?

Ok then. 10% reduction in season ticket or 50% reduction in overseas Rams TV subscription. Future offer to include UK Rams TV when allowed under a new TV deal ( just for @Van der MoodHoover )

[AutoWindscreens]

20 hours 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.

It's not at all unusual for a business to have thousands of owners - like most big public companies. The shareholders collectively have the power to appoint or remove the board of directors, but don't make the day to day decisions, that's for the board.

Nothing necessarily different in a fan owned club. The difference would be in the rules that we agree to be bound by, e.g. 50+1.

We could agree that the board should be regularly elected by the members, or should always have a certain number of fan members.

We could make sure the power stays in the community by having one member one vote for shareholder decisions instead of giving more voting power to those with more shares.

We could agree that season ticket holders get a vote as well as shareholders. 

We could agree that employees of the club are automatically voting members.

There's not much difference from a normal public company except that the ultimate power over the direction of the club remains with the community or with the club and its supporters.

[AutoWindscreens]

4 hours ago, HorsforthRam said:

So, how does even exploring this initiative (beyond discussions on a fans forum) happen?

Good question!

I do think this is a good place to start because it's a good forum for different ideas and points of view. 

I'd like to know more about how citizens' assemblies work, because I read  that they have been found very useful in coming up with agreed ideas for intractable problems.

 

[AutoWindscreens]

4 hours ago, HorsforthRam said:

So, how does even exploring this initiative (beyond discussions on a fans forum) happen?

To find out how many people would be willing to put up some money, I guess you ask for pledges, like a crowdfunder type site. I wouldn't necessarily use one of the existing platforms because they take a significant cut.

But before putting it out to raise pledges the plan needs to be more fully formed.

First step is that there are models of fan ownership out there, in England and Europe.

[Tamworthram]

10 minutes ago, AutoWindscreens said:

It's not at all unusual for a business to have thousands of owners - like most big public companies. The shareholders collectively have the power to appoint or remove the board of directors, but don't make the day to day decisions, that's for the board.

Nothing necessarily different in a fan owned club. The difference would be in the rules that we agree to be bound by, e.g. 50+1.

We could agree that the board should be regularly elected by the members, or should always have a certain number of fan members.

We could make sure the power stays in the community by having one member one vote for shareholder decisions instead of giving more voting power to those with more shares.

We could agree that season ticket holders get a vote as well as shareholders. 

We could agree that employees of the club are automatically voting members.

There's not much difference from a normal public company except that the ultimate power over the direction of the club remains with the community or with the club and its supporters.

Why would you give somebody that gets paid by the club (employees) or someone that pays in advance to go to games (season ticket holders)  the same voting rights as someone that has invested in the club?

[AutoWindscreens]

8 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Why would you give somebody that gets paid by the club (employees) or someone that pays in advance to go to games (season ticket holders)  the same voting rights as someone that has invested in the club?

Because it's one way of making the club a community club that is guided by more than just the power of those with money. That's what the 50+1 rule in Germany is about too. I put them up as other examples of something with the same aim. 

You don't have to have any of those rules I listed above. If you don't have any protections or restrictions and it's one share one vote then you are basically a company with shares, which is another option and a simple way of owning the club. 

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, AutoWindscreens said:

Because it's one way of making the club a community club that is guided by more than just the power of those with money. That's what the 50+1 rule in Germany is about too. I put them up as other examples of something with the same aim. 

You don't have to have any of those rules I listed above. If you don't have any protections or restrictions and it's one share one vote then you are basically a company with shares, which is another option and a simple way of owning the club. 

Giving a vote to someone from a local town (heaven forbid Nottingham or in the Forest “catchment area”) simply because they commute to Pride Park for their job doesn’t help make it a community club. It’s not inconceivable that they have no real interest in football or Derby County specifically and it’s just a job for them.

 

[AutoWindscreens]

3 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Giving a vote to someone from a local town (heaven forbid Nottingham or in the Forest “catchment area”) simply because they commute to Pride Park for their job doesn’t help make it a community club. It’s not inconceivable that they have no real interest in football or Derby County specifically and it’s just a job for them.

 

Fine, then they won't vote. It's a model that works well in cooperatives, for example. But it's a bit of a distraction because it's just one example I put forward of how you can change the governance of a business.

The more likely football supporter models are one member one vote and giving a vote to season ticket holders as well.

[atherstoneram]

When i saw Autowindscreens i actually thought MM had found a new buyer for a second

[JoetheRam]

3 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Why would you give somebody that gets paid by the club (employees) or someone that pays in advance to go to games (season ticket holders)  the same voting rights as someone that has invested in the club?

Because power to the people. The whole point would be that every members voice matters the same.

Each person who invested should be given one vote. 

Maybe it's too socialist a model to ever work in England.

[AutoWindscreens]

36 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

When i saw Autowindscreens i actually thought MM had found a new buyer for a second

I'll let you know more in 48 hours

[Tamworthram]

4 minutes ago, JoetheRam said:

Because power to the people. The whole point would be that every members voice matters the same.

Each person who invested should be given one vote. 

Maybe it's too socialist a model to ever work in England.

Exactly. Everyone who invested not necessarily everyone that happens to be employed by the business.

[JoetheRam]

3 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Exactly. Everyone who invested not necessarily everyone that happens to be employed by the business.

Oh I see... took "member" and "investor" as the same thing. 

But yeah don't see the harm in the rule that Autowindscreens put as an example.