51% Fan Ownership

[Webbo]

Which fan would be willing to take the job on the board? Whatever is decided will be hated by 50% of the fans. He'd be called a c@#t on here on a daily basis. 

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

AS a member of the board, you are there to decide on what's in the best interests for the club, the whole club including the fans of your club. If you were sat on the board and Top says, i've got this deal in the pipeline and it's worth 200 billion to the club, but we'd have to play 20 matches a season in Thailand, what you going to do? considering it's in the interests of the club.

    The solution to me as far as fans are concerned is the government make a ruling to say the name of the club is owned by the fans, the club is owned by whoever. It's the name that has the value because that's the brand.

Say no. It's no benefit to the club or the fans to play games half way around the World.

Next question.

[Voll Blau]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Which fan would be willing to take the job on the board? Whatever is decided will be hated by 50% of the fans. He'd be called a c@#t on here on a daily basis. 

Initially I suspect you're right, but once the model became an accepted and critical part of English football culture I think the position would be taken more seriously and respected more. We're very good at taking the piss in this country but it's a trait that quite often comes at the expense of actually improving our own experiences in life.

[CosbehFox]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Which fan would be willing to take the job on the board? Whatever is decided will be hated by 50% of the fans. He'd be called a c@#t on here on a daily basis. 

You'd have a diplomatic process - something which is already done and pulled off at clubs which are ran by fan trusts. In fact it's something which occurs in a way at Barcelona and it's something which is already implemented by the Bundesliga clubs. 

 

Off memory, I am fairly sure Swansea had it during their 'glory' spell and still do. 

 

Chelsea have a complex system where Stamford Bridge is the actual land is owned by a collection of supporters. It allows them at times to dictate and was a very real threat to Chelsea's Super League bid. 

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

Initially I suspect you're right, but once the model became an accepted and critical part of English football culture I think the position would be taken more seriously and respected more. We're very good at taking the piss in this country but it's a trait that quite often comes at the expense of actually improving our own experiences in life.

The problem, as @Webbo alludes to, is that quite a lot of people are just a bit unpleasant.

[yorkie1999]

41 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

You'd be there to respect the opinion of the fans - you'd tell Top not to take the club to Thailand. You'd have a single vote in say a board of six, yes you could say worthless. However you'd have a direct line into fan opinion

 

Such a move would be the first step to what solution you are suggesting. We are not going to wrestle the clubs/business away from the owners in the current status quo. However, it would be a lot more easy if fans were party to the decisions  

Tell me, which decisions? 

[CosbehFox]

8 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Tell me, which decisions? 

Well if we want to use a valid example with LCFC - the £80 retainer on season tickets recently. 

 

A fan on the board would have told them that's a poor decision and forewarn of the likely fan feedback. 

In reality, fans lobbied for it to become refundable and eventually it became that way.

 

Another good example would be the distribution of Cup Final tickets. What do fans consider fair?

 

We are on the same page here - I just don't see owners wrestling their control away but they may be able to concede fan input. It's worked elsewhere. 

 

There will be occasions will the club make decisions which the support do disagree but a fan representative would be able to understand the thought process and explain 

Edited 23 April 2021 by Cardiff_Fox

[yorkie1999]

2 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Well if we want to use a valid example with LCFC - the £80 retainer on season tickets recently. 

 

A fan on the board would have told them that's a poor decision and forewarn of the likely fan feedback. 

In reality, fans lobbied for it to become refundable and eventually it became that way.

 

Another good example would be the distribution of Cup Final tickets. What do fans consider fair?

 

We are on the same page here - I just don't see owners wrestling their control away but they may be able to concede fan input. It's worked elsewhere. 

What i'm saying is, a fan on the board would be a token gesture and would have no real control over the direction of the club. Who's to say that Tops not a fan?

[Haywood_6]

We are lucky to have such brilliant owners who do a great job, but the same can't be said for a lot of other clubs. The 51% rule for all UK football teams should be introduced. Take back control and have meaningful fan ownership of football clubs in the UK. You don't need any more evidence than the European Super League proposals. Russel Brand said this in his Vlog the other day which I thought summarised it perfectly "A return to democratic ownership of football teams by the communities that hold them in their heart, with their fanaticism, with their love". 

[turlo]

Listening to this podcast with the Mayor of Manchester and Liverpool, they are talking about legislation being brought in where club owners would have to get a majority (51%) of registered season ticket holders  to agree to any "major change" to the status of the club ie change in club name, club colours, city location or entering new competitions. 

 

 

[Le Renard]

Without getting too political, does anyone trust the tories and their susceptibility to let big business or billionaires get their way.  Worzel for now has just jumped on the popular bandwagon, there will be a doffing of the cap to the fans, but don't hold out for some earth shatttering reforms.

 

p.s. I don't think our owners should have 51% taken away from then, they haven't done anything wrong!

[Blue Ed]

51% not for me and it doesn't work all the time in the German league. Groups can start falling out over day to day decisions that need to be made.

 

Better to have a stricter fair play rules to stop debt at clubs that can't afford it. Or. A fans given a golden vote on major decisions made.

[Strokes]

8 hours ago, Webbo said:

Which fan would be willing to take the job on the board? Whatever is decided will be hated by 50% of the fans. He'd be called a c@#t on here on a daily basis. 

I’d have my nose far too deep in the trough to care.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I’d have my nose far too deep in the trough to care.

Tbf, most people think I'm a c@#t anyway. If the board wanted to bribe me, Super league? Yeah why not?

[SemperEadem]

[Leicester_Loyal]

Nothing will happen, it was Boris posturing and telling the public what he thought they wanted to hear. It'll all be forgotten about now and no changes will be made.

[sacreblueits442]

On 23/04/2021 at 00:02, Chrysalis said:

Well yeah this is why I said I think we should limit fans involvement to football politic stuff, leave day to day running to the owners.  Give fans enough power to block things like the ESL, but not more then that.

....what is to stop a fan overreach!!!

If we put anything in place where the supporter has the ability to veto the owners ideas in regards to how to develop the club, surely they would then have a conflict into how the club is run.

[Chrysalis]

7 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....what is to stop a fan overreach!!!

If we put anything in place where the supporter has the ability to veto the owners ideas in regards to how to develop the club, surely they would then have a conflict into how the club is run.

That probably comes under day to day running.  I meant more in line on things like rule changes in the game, proposed breakaways etc.

Edited 25 April 2021 by Chrysalis

[sacreblueits442]

9 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

That probably comes under day to day running.  I meant more in line on things like rule changes in the game, proposed breakaways etc.

...so, if we bring in a law that clubs are not allowed to breakaway and set up new leagues!!!

Irrespective of any punishment or cost they may incur in doing so, what would they care as they would have left the league. I am sure they would gladly take the hit if, it meant they could now indulge in the biggest closed shop ever opened.

Edited 25 April 2021 by sacreblueits442

[yorkie1999]

11 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...so, if we bring in a law that clubs are not allowed to breakaway and set up new leagues!!!

Irrespective of any punishment or cost they may incur in doing so, what would they care as they would have left the league. I am sure they would gladly take the hit if, it meant they could now indulge in the biggest closed shop ever opened.

You don't need a law, you just deny them the naming rites, their name is their brand.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Should probably change the thread title to "51% fan voting rights" as to not be misleading. 

[Webbo]

We're in the cup final, West Ham and us could qualify for the champions league, Liverpool, Chelsea and Tottenham might not. Arsenal definitely won't. Why do people want to change the system, just as its starting to work? 

[Foxxed]

51% ownership is misrepresented.

 

It's about mass voting on select matters. It's not about running the club. Nor it is about a fan on the board.

 

The club and owners are best at deciding year to year decisions.

 

The fans are better at deciding generational decisions that affect the entire game.

 

Quote

‘Golden share’ in clubs for supporters

A potential English version of the German clubs’ structure, now suddenly admired across Europe, where majority control is held by a supporters’ association even at the wealthiest, dominant clubs, Bayern and Dortmund. The “50%+1 rule” ensuring supporter control in Germany does not always mean fans own a majority of shares, but they have a controlling stake when key decisions are made.

During English football’s dash for cash, many local club owners made multimillions selling their shares to overseas investors, free of historic Football Association rules that had restrained the personal gains that could be made from owning clubs. The football corporations now dominating the Premier League, wholly owned by investors, are an outcome of this deregulation.

As fans cannot afford to buy meaningful stakes in these club-corporations, an idea is a “golden share” structure, in which a properly constituted supporters association would have voting control over defined significant decisions. These would include any fundamental changes at their own club but can also include wider issues, including resisting any talk of breakaways.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/apr/22/after-the-super-league-fiasco-five-reforms-that-could-save-the-game

[sacreblueits442]

32 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

You don't need a law, you just deny them the naming rites, their name is their brand.

.....you can call a rose by a different name but it will still be the same!!!

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

34 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We're in the cup final, West Ham and us could qualify for the champions league, Liverpool, Chelsea and Tottenham might not. Arsenal definitely won't. Why do people want to change the system, just as its starting to work? 

Go and talk to West Ham fans about the ownership of their club.