But which fans? Judging by some of the comments on here I'm not sure I would want certain people on the board of my club. You know the ones who go blah, blah, blah week in week out about how M.Duchatelet is getting it wrong all the time.
But which fans? Judging by some of the comments on here I'm not sure I would want certain people on the board of my club. You know the ones who go blah, blah, blah week in week out about how M.Duchatelet is getting it right all the time.
But which fans? Judging by some of the comments on here I'm not sure I would want certain people on the board of my club. You know the ones who go blah, blah, blah week in week out about how M.Duchatelet is getting it wrong all the time.
I asked for interview or comment from the then sports minister, and the most recent one but neither responded - just in case anyone is interested in balance
So nobody apart from @razil is interested to actually discuss the merits of Clive Efford's proposals?
Yeh - a group of us are booked into the strangers gallery next tuesday with some pyros to support his proposals.
To be honest, if he were my MP I'd be asking him why is he wasting his time on something so frivolous, when there are far more important things happening that he should be concentrating his mind on.
Besides, it won't make a blind bit of difference to existing owners.
So nobody apart from @razil is interested to actually discuss the merits of Clive Efford's proposals?
Yeh - a group of us are booked into the strangers gallery next tuesday with some pyros to support his proposals.
To be honest, if he were my MP I'd be asking him why is he wasting his time on something so frivolous, when there are far more important things happening that he should be concentrating his mind on.
Besides, it won't make a blind bit of difference to existing owners.
my understanding of the proposals (and I'm trying to get a bit more detail) is that the right to buy shares when a sale of 30% or more is undertaken, is separate/additional to having representation on the board, so in that case it would effect existing owners.
Clive is also the shadow sports minister so it is entirely within his remit to do such in my view, he's also done a lot more than any other politician on this so deserves a bit of credit perhaps.
A while ago on CL somebody- definitely not one of the contributors on this thread so far - commented that we need a serious reform of English football but it can only be achieved by political action.
Finally a politician of national standing has opened up this discussion in the House of Commons. I can see a lot of things to criticise in the precise formula he proposes, but the very act of doing so opens up a wider political debate on the big issue of what is wrong with English football. We will find out which politicians are our friends, and which are the friends of Abramovic, sundry Arabs and the like.
That's why Clive Efford deserve the support of fans, and indeed is getting it, if not yet on here.
As an Addicks supporter for more than half a century the proposals interest me, supporter representation on the board, share ownership - yes please. Would these proposals have made any difference to the Blackpool fc situation? - I dont know, but feel these proposals are worth supporting.
Understand Clive Efford has put a lot of time & effort into this, although given the political situation post-election, doubt it will become law.
Note; No club shares have to be given to fans. Up to 10% have to be made available to be purchased by the properly constituted Supporters Trust -as I understand it.
So nobody apart from @razil is interested to actually discuss the merits of Clive Efford's proposals?
So if this law came to pass, and I bought a football club (!!!) would I have to give some ownership to fans ?
Well why not? In fact you know a billionaire businessman who has done exactly that. His name is Roland Duchatelet, and he gladly accepts a 49% share in FC Carl Zeiss Jena. The other 51% is owned by the fans.
I've not read the bill but presumably there would have to be a minimum share holding for a seat on the board, and that shares would have to be purchased at 'market value'.
If this is not the case I'd be worried and if it is I assume that it excludes all but the very, very wealthy.
Also how would the losses be funded? Would the small shareholders have to sell their houses to match the injections needed each year?
I've not read the bill but presumably there would have to be a minimum share holding for a seat on the board, and that shares would have to be purchased at 'market value'.
If this is not the case I'd be worried and if it is I assume that it excludes all but the very, very wealthy.
Also how would the losses be funded? Would the small shareholders have to sell their houses to match the injections needed each year?
Very good points KHA.
Let's just consider RD's purchase of Charlton. Ignoring the debt he also took on, let's say the purchase price for 100% of the equity was £20m and we are currently losing £5m a year. He has to offer up to 10% equity to supporters groups - so £2m (assuming the £20m he paid was a fair market value, although valuing a private company isn't easy!). Those who stump up the £2m (if they can be found - unlikely they will be able to borrow to purchase a loss making business), now have to fund 10% of the annual losses as well (£500k). They, perhaps like Roland, are gambling that the £20m will increase significantly in value if we were to gain promotion so those supporters groups can cash in. Or they are in it for the long-run stumping up £500k every single year for the privilege of having a 10% stake that gives them precisely bugger all say in the running of the club.
I think there are some flaws in Efford's objectives - unless I've completely missed the point.
I tend to agree bobmunro. I can't see many fans or owners desperately wanting this, as it seems impractical. Even Trusts would/may struggle, which I presume, is where the "fans" really come into it.
I've not read the bill but presumably there would have to be a minimum share holding for a seat on the board, and that shares would have to be purchased at 'market value'.
If this is not the case I'd be worried and if it is I assume that it excludes all but the very, very wealthy.
Also how would the losses be funded? Would the small shareholders have to sell their houses to match the injections needed each year?
Very good points KHA.
Let's just consider RD's purchase of Charlton. Ignoring the debt he also took on, let's say the purchase price for 100% of the equity was £20m and we are currently losing £5m a year. He has to offer up to 10% equity to supporters groups - so £2m (assuming the £20m he paid was a fair market value, although valuing a private company isn't easy!). Those who stump up the £2m (if they can be found - unlikely they will be able to borrow to purchase a loss making business), now have to fund 10% of the annual losses as well (£500k). They, perhaps like Roland, are gambling that the £20m will increase significantly in value if we were to gain promotion so those supporters groups can cash in. Or they are in it for the long-run stumping up £500k every single year for the privilege of having a 10% stake that gives them precisely bugger all say in the running of the club.
I think there are some flaws in Efford's objectives - unless I've completely missed the point.
Yes, you have nailed the flaw in his particular plan, and doubtless some MPs with a brain and an understanding for football will point it out to him. It will work though, in the lower divisions. The Swansea guys only had to find £50k, to get their 20%. Swansea is profitable, and the Trust have agreed to dividends. They use the dividend money to ensure they can participate in any increase in capital proposed, so that they retain their 20%.
I agree this isn't going to work for a club of Charltons market value. But at least it's being discussed in the only place where change can be enacted.
Comments
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/11812149.Eltham_MP_accused_of_booze_fuelled_verbal_assault_on_fellow_party_member/
Once a spanner, fighting with his own.
Some scathing comments about him as well.
http://issuu.com/castrust/docs/tnt8?e=6744795/10541474
I asked for interview or comment from the then sports minister, and the most recent one but neither responded - just in case anyone is interested in balance
To be honest, if he were my MP I'd be asking him why is he wasting his time on something so frivolous, when there are far more important things happening that he should be concentrating his mind on.
Besides, it won't make a blind bit of difference to existing owners.
Clive is also the shadow sports minister so it is entirely within his remit to do such in my view, he's also done a lot more than any other politician on this so deserves a bit of credit perhaps.
this is a reasonable stab at explaining it more
Finally a politician of national standing has opened up this discussion in the House of Commons. I can see a lot of things to criticise in the precise formula he proposes, but the very act of doing so opens up a wider political debate on the big issue of what is wrong with English football. We will find out which politicians are our friends, and which are the friends of Abramovic, sundry Arabs and the like.
That's why Clive Efford deserve the support of fans, and indeed is getting it, if not yet on here.
Understand Clive Efford has put a lot of time & effort into this, although given the political situation post-election, doubt it will become law.
Note; No club shares have to be given to fans. Up to 10% have to be made available to be purchased by the properly constituted Supporters Trust -as I understand it.
If this is not the case I'd be worried and if it is I assume that it excludes all but the very, very wealthy.
Also how would the losses be funded? Would the small shareholders have to sell their houses to match the injections needed each year?
Let's just consider RD's purchase of Charlton. Ignoring the debt he also took on, let's say the purchase price for 100% of the equity was £20m and we are currently losing £5m a year. He has to offer up to 10% equity to supporters groups - so £2m (assuming the £20m he paid was a fair market value, although valuing a private company isn't easy!). Those who stump up the £2m (if they can be found - unlikely they will be able to borrow to purchase a loss making business), now have to fund 10% of the annual losses as well (£500k). They, perhaps like Roland, are gambling that the £20m will increase significantly in value if we were to gain promotion so those supporters groups can cash in. Or they are in it for the long-run stumping up £500k every single year for the privilege of having a 10% stake that gives them precisely bugger all say in the running of the club.
I think there are some flaws in Efford's objectives - unless I've completely missed the point.
Even Trusts would/may struggle, which I presume, is where the "fans" really come into it.
I agree this isn't going to work for a club of Charltons market value. But at least it's being discussed in the only place where change can be enacted.