My understanding (based on Razil's interview with Clive Efford last year) was that a legitimately constituted supporters group (usually a supporters trust) would be given a so-called "Golden Share" which would not require an injection of equity. This would guarantee a voice on the board for supporters. Of course, owners could ignore that voice but Clive's view was that such representation would improve trust and communication and possibly act to inhibit some of the more unseemly acts that club owners (eg Oyston) sometimes get up to.
Yes i'm with Pico on this my interpretation of this, and what I voiced during the process, was that asking fans in todays environment to cough up for shares wasn't going to work out, therefore something else was needed. Clive assures us he's looked at this legally, so guess its a case of finding more detail as and when.
Yes i'm with Pico on this my interpretation of this, and what I voiced during the process, was that asking fans in todays environment to cough up for shares wasn't going to work out, therefore something else was needed. Clive assures us he's looked at this legally, so guess its a case of finding more detail as and when.
From cliveefford.org.uk
The option of up to 10 per cent of share ownership
The buyer acquiring control of the club (defined at a 30 per cent level) would be required to offer the Supporters Trust up to ten per cent of the shares they were buying in that transaction at the average price paid by the buyer for relevant securities in the year proceeding the change of control. That offer would be open for acceptance for not less than 240 days but the completion of the change in control could happen in the meantime.
This automatic option would be capped once a Trust had acquired 10 per cent of the club’s shares, though that would not prevent the Trust from buying more shares if it wanted.
Right to appoint up to a quarter or a minimum of two of the directors
Labour would legislate to give a legally enforceable right to the Supporters Trust to appoint and remove up to one quarter and not less than two of the members of the Board of Directors.
This would be underpinned by the right to obtain (under an obligation of confidentiality) financial and commercial information about the business and affairs of a football club.
Supporters would not be able to block takeovers or change corporate strategy.
Right to appoint up to a quarter or a minimum of two of the directors
Labour would legislate to give a legally enforceable right to the Supporters Trust to appoint and remove up to one quarter and not less than two of the members of the Board of Directors.
This would be underpinned by the right to obtain (under an obligation of confidentiality) financial and commercial information about the business and affairs of a football club.
Supporters would not be able to block takeovers or change corporate strategy.
I didn't miss it, Pico - I was merely referring to the 'golden share' point and the above has nothing to do with that.
Yes they can appoint one quarter of the board (minimum 2) as supporters directors and remove those directors as appropriate - what they can't do is remove other directors. So just a revolving door of supporter's directors. Yes they will have access to financial information but won't be able to discuss it outside the boardroom. We all get the right to access said information when annual accounts are filed at Companies House - it's just that they will know it earlier.
The last line basically defines the limit of authority as one that has no power, as a minority shareholder, to direct the strategy of the club.
Pretty toothless and smacks of tokenism to me. Call me an old cynic but as far as Efford is concerned my view is that it was politicking prior to an election (popularism at its worst) and he's only tabling a private members bill (with zero chance of it ever getting past a second reading - and he knows that) to save face. He said he was going to do it so he has to be seen to be trying to do so.
I believe parliament has more pressing issues to take up its time.
Sorry lost me, supporters trusts being able to nominate to the clubs board, not just an annual report.
Supporters trusts given right to buy up to ten percent of club when it goes up for sale
And this is a bad thing? Seems to me a big improvement
Seems to me like a return to supporters director and underpinned by a supporters trust
I didn't say it's a bad thing - just that it won't really change the way football clubs are run - hence the tokenism point. Supporters have always has a voice - just don't turn up! And sometimes they can influence direction by influencing the real power brokers - as in The Valley Party. They won because they influenced (scared the sh*t out of) local politicians.
Does something need to be done? - probably yes. Is this the answer? - probably no.
Clubs run as social enterprises and 'not-for-profit'. A board of trustees rather than a board of directors. Season ticket holders/members get one voting share each. I'm not saying any of those would work - but they might and they are a tad more radical than Efford's lame duck half-arsed, not thought through proposals.
Its gone so far the other way those things aren't going to happen overnight, this for me represents an 'achievable' step in the right direction.
Also important is the recognition of the role of fans in our game and its been a long time coming and should be welcomed.
Then the route for that is almost certainly through the governing bodies - the FA/FL - membership of which for any club is conditional on having an elected supporters director on the board. Yes we've had one before but it wasn't compulsory - make it so, through primary legislation if necessary.
That director would be elected by members of a supporters trust or season ticket holders or members of the football club - or some other constituency that is representative - or maybe all three in an election college. The role of that director would be limited to representing the views of supporters on the board but not involved, or have any say, in commercial decisions - that's for the shareholders to decide. And ditch this idea of a right to own up to 10% - that's a red herring. Forward thinking owners may choose to make a percentage of equity available (subject to funding of course) but don't even try to make it obligatory - I very much doubt it could be anyway, legally.
No disrespect to our trust intended here, but how does Efford know that the supporters trusts will not be a collection of the sort of fuckwits who would say things like: "Callum to Wigan? I'll drive/pay the petrol!"
There is an underlying assumption that all STs would be as reasonable as I believe ours is. Why is that?
No disrespect to our trust intended here, but how does Efford know that the supporters trusts will not be a collection of the sort of fuckwits who would say things like: "Callum to Wigan? I'll drive/pay the petrol!"
There is an underlying assumption that all STs would be as reasonable as I believe ours is. Why is that?
I don't think Efford is thinking of us. We simply exist, as far as he is concerned. But look at Swansea ( saved th club, and now subject of a feature film) FC United, just opened their own new stadium, or AFC Wimbledon. Then there is Portsmouth, the biggest by numbers. If you care to take look at Supporters Direct pages (sorry,not easy to link on this silly mini iPad) you'll see there is an infrastructure in place to help professionalise trusts and create best practice. Steve Clarke and I are attending their annual summit in two weeks time , and I am sure this is going to be a major topic, which we will report on.
There's no guarantee, but Efford is entitled to think that for every bad Trust there is an Oyston, a Risdale, a Cellini, etc
I guess the reasonable assumption is that groups subject to the rigours of strict rules like ours and others not just a few fans who rock up, and subject to greater attention and involvement by fans generally in elections and meetings that new rules like this would inevitably bring, would be more sensible.
You can also look at Charltons experience here of supporters difectors, and now underpinned by trusts which have reputations to protect.
I am not sure about Bobs point on decision making, my reading is that these are board positions and not board lite etc
Yes i'm with Pico on this my interpretation of this, and what I voiced during the process, was that asking fans in todays environment to cough up for shares wasn't going to work out, therefore something else was needed. Clive assures us he's looked at this legally, so guess its a case of finding more detail as and when.
From cliveefford.org.uk
The option of up to 10 per cent of share ownership
The buyer acquiring control of the club (defined at a 30 per cent level) would be required to offer the Supporters Trust up to ten per cent of the shares they were buying in that transaction at the average price paid by the buyer for relevant securities in the year proceeding the change of control. That offer would be open for acceptance for not less than 240 days but the completion of the change in control could happen in the meantime.
This automatic option would be capped once a Trust had acquired 10 per cent of the club’s shares, though that would not prevent the Trust from buying more shares if it wanted.
Doesn't look like a freebie to me!
I never thought any of this was feasible or sensible. Clearly, if the above quote is correct, it isn't. How do you value what was being paid for the shares by the buyer if it's just "paid for the relevant securities"? CAFC is a good example - as RD paid a reduced amount for the club because he took over the responsibility for all the debts (mortgage on the North Stand rebuild, etc, etc). Ken Bates paid £1 to buy Chelsea in 1982 but took on £1.5mn debts. How do you factor in the additional cost of financing that debt? How do you know what interest rates are going to be in the future? What about additional planned infrastructure costs? How do you, as a supporter director, comply with the requirements of companies legislation? The 240 days thing is ridiculous and would likely hold up any plans for the business while the Trust made a decision. Why 240 days? Just a number chosen at random I expect. Why not six calendar months or 12?
If this is such a good idea, why not apply it to other professional sporting clubs too? Both codes of rugby, cricket, athletics, etc etc.
It all smacks of a well-meaning politician not understanding how stuff actually works in the real world. The fact that he was one of the first to support Ed's challenge for the Labour leadership last time round suggests he rather likes a lame duck or two. He's probably just chosen another one.
Its gone so far the other way those things aren't going to happen overnight, this for me represents an 'achievable' step in the right direction.
Also important is the recognition of the role of fans in our game and its been a long time coming and should be welcomed.
Then the route for that is almost certainly through the governing bodies - the FA/FL - membership of which for any club is conditional on having an elected supporters director on the board. Yes we've had one before but it wasn't compulsory - make it so, through primary legislation if necessary.
That director would be elected by members of a supporters trust or season ticket holders or members of the football club - or some other constituency that is representative - or maybe all three in an election college. The role of that director would be limited to representing the views of supporters on the board but not involved, or have any say, in commercial decisions - that's for the shareholders to decide. And ditch this idea of a right to own up to 10% - that's a red herring. Forward thinking owners may choose to make a percentage of equity available (subject to funding of course) but don't even try to make it obligatory - I very much doubt it could be anyway, legally.
I am glad you've intervened to get this thread round to actually discussing the merits of his ideas. but you've just come with an idea which is just as half baked as you say his are. When you talk about a solution through "governing bodies", I mean. The elephant in the room, which you've studiously ignored, is that the FAPL is governed by itself. The FA can "insist" on some elected supporter function, but if Abramovic, Mansour, Gullivan, Levy et al think that's something they don't like - and we can take that as given- then it is not going to happen. If someone points that out in the Commons, that is a small step in acknowledging at national political level what is wrong with English football. And for that alone, Efford should be applauded.
I am not sure about Bobs point on decision making, my reading is that these are board positions and not board lite etc
Raz, a private company makes decisions at board level based on shareholding. Even if this 10% nonsense was enacted in our case RD would still have 90% and would hold full sway. That's what I meant by the supporters director (s) having no real power to enact change.
Its gone so far the other way those things aren't going to happen overnight, this for me represents an 'achievable' step in the right direction.
Also important is the recognition of the role of fans in our game and its been a long time coming and should be welcomed.
Then the route for that is almost certainly through the governing bodies - the FA/FL - membership of which for any club is conditional on having an elected supporters director on the board. Yes we've had one before but it wasn't compulsory - make it so, through primary legislation if necessary.
That director would be elected by members of a supporters trust or season ticket holders or members of the football club - or some other constituency that is representative - or maybe all three in an election college. The role of that director would be limited to representing the views of supporters on the board but not involved, or have any say, in commercial decisions - that's for the shareholders to decide. And ditch this idea of a right to own up to 10% - that's a red herring. Forward thinking owners may choose to make a percentage of equity available (subject to funding of course) but don't even try to make it obligatory - I very much doubt it could be anyway, legally.
I am glad you've intervened to get this thread round to actually discussing the merits of his ideas. but you've just come with an idea which is just as half baked as you say his are. When you talk about a solution through "governing bodies", I mean. The elephant in the room, which you've studiously ignored, is that the FAPL is governed by itself. The FA can "insist" on some elected supporter function, but if Abramovic, Mansour, Gullivan, Levy et al think that's something they don't like - and we can take that as given- then it is not going to happen. If someone points that out in the Commons, that is a small step in acknowledging at national political level what is wrong with English football. And for that alone, Efford should be applauded.
I intervened, Richard, to question the sense in the 10% guaranteed option of shareholding, which was the point of the thread subject heading - I am not, nor have I ever been against the principle of supporters being represented at board level.
Abramovic et al would most certainly say no to the 10% nonsense (so would I if I were in their position) but not sure why they would violently object to fan representation at board meetings as they would understand the position carries no real power without any equity stake.
If Efford's proposals just stuck to supporters directors and legislating to enact it as obligatory (even the FAPL are not above the law!) without the equity thing then I would support it.
Of course my idea is half-baked - it was developed off the top of my head late at night in about a minute - probably about the same length of time it took Efford!!
But often things that appear difficult to resolve have very simple solutions - what's red and smells of blue paint?
sure, I don't disagree with that, but I think being in the boardroom is a major thing even in that event.
Not really sure what the 10% is intended to achieve, it wouldn't give you any more power on top of the 'golden' share and would possibly expose you to liabilities, depending on how the law is framed I assume like you they would be shares just like any others . It might appeal to some fans trusts who do actively buy shares of their clubs like Arsenal for example.
How are boards structured and liabilities managed in Germany when fans own 51%? Seems to work pretty well there.
Should it get to the debating stage it will be interesting to see what happens.
Its gone so far the other way those things aren't going to happen overnight, this for me represents an 'achievable' step in the right direction.
Also important is the recognition of the role of fans in our game and its been a long time coming and should be welcomed.
Then the route for that is almost certainly through the governing bodies - the FA/FL - membership of which for any club is conditional on having an elected supporters director on the board. Yes we've had one before but it wasn't compulsory - make it so, through primary legislation if necessary.
That director would be elected by members of a supporters trust or season ticket holders or members of the football club - or some other constituency that is representative - or maybe all three in an election college. The role of that director would be limited to representing the views of supporters on the board but not involved, or have any say, in commercial decisions - that's for the shareholders to decide. And ditch this idea of a right to own up to 10% - that's a red herring. Forward thinking owners may choose to make a percentage of equity available (subject to funding of course) but don't even try to make it obligatory - I very much doubt it could be anyway, legally.
I am glad you've intervened to get this thread round to actually discussing the merits of his ideas. but you've just come with an idea which is just as half baked as you say his are. When you talk about a solution through "governing bodies", I mean. The elephant in the room, which you've studiously ignored, is that the FAPL is governed by itself. The FA can "insist" on some elected supporter function, but if Abramovic, Mansour, Gullivan, Levy et al think that's something they don't like - and we can take that as given- then it is not going to happen. If someone points that out in the Commons, that is a small step in acknowledging at national political level what is wrong with English football. And for that alone, Efford should be applauded.
I intervened, Richard, to question the sense in the 10% guaranteed option of shareholding, which was the point of the thread subject heading - I am not, nor have I ever been against the principle of supporters being represented at board level.
Abramovic et al would most certainly say no to the 10% nonsense (so would I if I were in their position) but not sure why they would violently object to fan representation at board meetings as they would understand the position carries no real power without any equity stake.
If Efford's proposals just stuck to supporters directors and legislating to enact it as obligatory (even the FAPL are not above the law!) without the equity thing then I would support it.
Of course my idea is half-baked - it was developed off the top of my head late at night in about a minute - probably about the same length of time it took Efford!!
But often things that appear difficult to resolve have very simple solutions - what's red and smells of blue paint?
Red paint!
Fair enough. I've not met Clive Efford in person, but as a family we have a very positive experience of him as a constituency MP, as do many others we know, most of whom are not natural Labour voters. So I'm giving him the credit for being genuine in his intentions. It's a pity the Trust don't yet have a working relationship with him, because I think we could have helped him test the practicalities of his ideas. Perhaps he instead approached the Lions Trust , and got a hostile email back from a bloke called Bob saying "what do you want ? " ( as happened to the Orient Trust chair who approached them re the Olympic stadium)
I agree about difficult/simple things. The solution is quite simple. Abolish the FAPL as a separate entity, replace it with a newly professionalized FA, with a government remit to provide fan representation in every club. If necessary, create OFFOOT to regulate the bastards. Simple. If there is a political will.
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.
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.
Has he done anything about the Olympic Stadium fiasco?
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.
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.
Has he done anything about the Olympic Stadium fiasco?
Not yet but he is puzzled why the clubs themselves did not openly ask him to do so. Thanks to Supporters Direct advice we now understand his position a lot better, and we will approach him again probably in September. Sorry to be cryptic, but this thread isn't members only , and her Ladyship's goons may be reading.
Happy the SD are pushing the point from all angles Prague.
Heard this week that BoJo has started to distance himself from the project. His initial support was based on the legacy and the support for it from Neale Coleman.
Now his Mayoral tenure is coming to an end his focus will be elsewhere.
Happy the SD are pushing the point from all angles Prague.
Heard this week that BoJo has started to distance himself from the project. His initial support was based on the legacy and the support for it from Neale Coleman.
Now his Mayoral tenure is coming to an end his focus will be elsewhere.
He can't absolve himself of responsibility that easily. Maybe he's distancing himself because he realizes the net is closing in on him :-)
Its gone so far the other way those things aren't going to happen overnight, this for me represents an 'achievable' step in the right direction.
Also important is the recognition of the role of fans in our game and its been a long time coming and should be welcomed.
Then the route for that is almost certainly through the governing bodies - the FA/FL - membership of which for any club is conditional on having an elected supporters director on the board. Yes we've had one before but it wasn't compulsory - make it so, through primary legislation if necessary.
That director would be elected by members of a supporters trust or season ticket holders or members of the football club - or some other constituency that is representative - or maybe all three in an election college. The role of that director would be limited to representing the views of supporters on the board but not involved, or have any say, in commercial decisions - that's for the shareholders to decide. And ditch this idea of a right to own up to 10% - that's a red herring. Forward thinking owners may choose to make a percentage of equity available (subject to funding of course) but don't even try to make it obligatory - I very much doubt it could be anyway, legally.
I am glad you've intervened to get this thread round to actually discussing the merits of his ideas. but you've just come with an idea which is just as half baked as you say his are. When you talk about a solution through "governing bodies", I mean. The elephant in the room, which you've studiously ignored, is that the FAPL is governed by itself. The FA can "insist" on some elected supporter function, but if Abramovic, Mansour, Gullivan, Levy et al think that's something they don't like - and we can take that as given- then it is not going to happen. If someone points that out in the Commons, that is a small step in acknowledging at national political level what is wrong with English football. And for that alone, Efford should be applauded.
Seriously?
Read that again and tell me which part doesn't make you sound like a pompous pious overblown opinion of himself twat.
Its gone so far the other way those things aren't going to happen overnight, this for me represents an 'achievable' step in the right direction.
Also important is the recognition of the role of fans in our game and its been a long time coming and should be welcomed.
Then the route for that is almost certainly through the governing bodies - the FA/FL - membership of which for any club is conditional on having an elected supporters director on the board. Yes we've had one before but it wasn't compulsory - make it so, through primary legislation if necessary.
That director would be elected by members of a supporters trust or season ticket holders or members of the football club - or some other constituency that is representative - or maybe all three in an election college. The role of that director would be limited to representing the views of supporters on the board but not involved, or have any say, in commercial decisions - that's for the shareholders to decide. And ditch this idea of a right to own up to 10% - that's a red herring. Forward thinking owners may choose to make a percentage of equity available (subject to funding of course) but don't even try to make it obligatory - I very much doubt it could be anyway, legally.
I am glad you've intervened to get this thread round to actually discussing the merits of his ideas. but you've just come with an idea which is just as half baked as you say his are. When you talk about a solution through "governing bodies", I mean. The elephant in the room, which you've studiously ignored, is that the FAPL is governed by itself. The FA can "insist" on some elected supporter function, but if Abramovic, Mansour, Gullivan, Levy et al think that's something they don't like - and we can take that as given- then it is not going to happen. If someone points that out in the Commons, that is a small step in acknowledging at national political level what is wrong with English football. And for that alone, Efford should be applauded.
Seriously?
Read that again and tell me which part doesn't make you sound like a pompous pious overblown opinion of himself twat.
Welcome back. I've missed you. So, what's your opinion on Efford's proposals?
Its gone so far the other way those things aren't going to happen overnight, this for me represents an 'achievable' step in the right direction.
Also important is the recognition of the role of fans in our game and its been a long time coming and should be welcomed.
Then the route for that is almost certainly through the governing bodies - the FA/FL - membership of which for any club is conditional on having an elected supporters director on the board. Yes we've had one before but it wasn't compulsory - make it so, through primary legislation if necessary.
That director would be elected by members of a supporters trust or season ticket holders or members of the football club - or some other constituency that is representative - or maybe all three in an election college. The role of that director would be limited to representing the views of supporters on the board but not involved, or have any say, in commercial decisions - that's for the shareholders to decide. And ditch this idea of a right to own up to 10% - that's a red herring. Forward thinking owners may choose to make a percentage of equity available (subject to funding of course) but don't even try to make it obligatory - I very much doubt it could be anyway, legally.
I am glad you've intervened to get this thread round to actually discussing the merits of his ideas. but you've just come with an idea which is just as half baked as you say his are. When you talk about a solution through "governing bodies", I mean. The elephant in the room, which you've studiously ignored, is that the FAPL is governed by itself. The FA can "insist" on some elected supporter function, but if Abramovic, Mansour, Gullivan, Levy et al think that's something they don't like - and we can take that as given- then it is not going to happen. If someone points that out in the Commons, that is a small step in acknowledging at national political level what is wrong with English football. And for that alone, Efford should be applauded.
I intervened, Richard, to question the sense in the 10% guaranteed option of shareholding, which was the point of the thread subject heading - I am not, nor have I ever been against the principle of supporters being represented at board level.
Abramovic et al would most certainly say no to the 10% nonsense (so would I if I were in their position) but not sure why they would violently object to fan representation at board meetings as they would understand the position carries no real power without any equity stake.
If Efford's proposals just stuck to supporters directors and legislating to enact it as obligatory (even the FAPL are not above the law!) without the equity thing then I would support it.
Of course my idea is half-baked - it was developed off the top of my head late at night in about a minute - probably about the same length of time it took Efford!!
But often things that appear difficult to resolve have very simple solutions - what's red and smells of blue paint?
Red paint!
Fair enough. I've not met Clive Efford in person, but as a family we have a very positive experience of him as a constituency MP, as do many others we know, most of whom are not natural Labour voters.
You really need to come in The Long Pond more! He is a real regular, as a local having a beer and never as a politician. However he is very approachable and will talk to anyone about anything. Eltham Park is not a Labour area and never has been, but that's where he lives and Clive is a local MP above being a party tied one. For people to slag him off just because he says he's a Millwall fan is pathetic and undermines our democratic system.
Its gone so far the other way those things aren't going to happen overnight, this for me represents an 'achievable' step in the right direction.
Also important is the recognition of the role of fans in our game and its been a long time coming and should be welcomed.
Then the route for that is almost certainly through the governing bodies - the FA/FL - membership of which for any club is conditional on having an elected supporters director on the board. Yes we've had one before but it wasn't compulsory - make it so, through primary legislation if necessary.
That director would be elected by members of a supporters trust or season ticket holders or members of the football club - or some other constituency that is representative - or maybe all three in an election college. The role of that director would be limited to representing the views of supporters on the board but not involved, or have any say, in commercial decisions - that's for the shareholders to decide. And ditch this idea of a right to own up to 10% - that's a red herring. Forward thinking owners may choose to make a percentage of equity available (subject to funding of course) but don't even try to make it obligatory - I very much doubt it could be anyway, legally.
I am glad you've intervened to get this thread round to actually discussing the merits of his ideas. but you've just come with an idea which is just as half baked as you say his are. When you talk about a solution through "governing bodies", I mean. The elephant in the room, which you've studiously ignored, is that the FAPL is governed by itself. The FA can "insist" on some elected supporter function, but if Abramovic, Mansour, Gullivan, Levy et al think that's something they don't like - and we can take that as given- then it is not going to happen. If someone points that out in the Commons, that is a small step in acknowledging at national political level what is wrong with English football. And for that alone, Efford should be applauded.
I intervened, Richard, to question the sense in the 10% guaranteed option of shareholding, which was the point of the thread subject heading - I am not, nor have I ever been against the principle of supporters being represented at board level.
Abramovic et al would most certainly say no to the 10% nonsense (so would I if I were in their position) but not sure why they would violently object to fan representation at board meetings as they would understand the position carries no real power without any equity stake.
If Efford's proposals just stuck to supporters directors and legislating to enact it as obligatory (even the FAPL are not above the law!) without the equity thing then I would support it.
Of course my idea is half-baked - it was developed off the top of my head late at night in about a minute - probably about the same length of time it took Efford!!
But often things that appear difficult to resolve have very simple solutions - what's red and smells of blue paint?
Red paint!
Fair enough. I've not met Clive Efford in person, but as a family we have a very positive experience of him as a constituency MP, as do many others we know, most of whom are not natural Labour voters.
You really need to come in The Long Pond more! He is a real regular, as a local having a beer and never as a politician. However he is very approachable and will talk to anyone about anything. Eltham Park is not a Labour area and never has been, but that's where he lives and Clive is a local MP above being a party tied one. For people to slag him off just because he says he's a Millwall fan is pathetic and undermines our democratic system.
Agree with all that. Hope to be in the Pond in a couple of weeks time.
sure, I don't disagree with that, but I think being in the boardroom is a major thing even in that event.
Not really sure what the 10% is intended to achieve, it wouldn't give you any more power on top of the 'golden' share and would possibly expose you to liabilities, depending on how the law is framed I assume like you they would be shares just like any others . It might appeal to some fans trusts who do actively buy shares of their clubs like Arsenal for example.
How are boards structured and liabilities managed in Germany when fans own 51%? Seems to work pretty well there.
Should it get to the debating stage it will be interesting to see what happens.
I believe, from my creaky Company Law studies 30 plus years ago, that a shareholding of 10% or more offers some sort of protection in the event of a takeover or sale by the controlling shareholder. Shareholders owning 10% or more have the right to resist the sale or at the very least get properly consulted.
The fact that the total holding was less than 10% was in essence why Richard Murray* was able to dispose of 'fans' shares' as he did a few years back when the restructure took place prior to the Spivs taking over.
* No criticism intended just a local example to illustrate the point made above.
Comments
The option of up to 10 per cent of share ownership
The buyer acquiring control of the club (defined at a 30 per cent level) would be required to offer the Supporters Trust up to ten per cent of the shares they were buying in that transaction at the average price paid by the buyer for relevant securities in the year proceeding the change of control. That offer would be open for acceptance for not less than 240 days but the completion of the change in control could happen in the meantime.
This automatic option would be capped once a Trust had acquired 10 per cent of the club’s shares, though that would not prevent the Trust from buying more shares if it wanted.
Doesn't look like a freebie to me!
Right to appoint up to a quarter or a minimum of two of the directors
Labour would legislate to give a legally enforceable right to the Supporters Trust to appoint and remove up to one quarter and not less than two of the members of the Board of Directors.
This would be underpinned by the right to obtain (under an obligation of confidentiality) financial and commercial information about the business and affairs of a football club.
Supporters would not be able to block takeovers or change corporate strategy.
Yes they can appoint one quarter of the board (minimum 2) as supporters directors and remove those directors as appropriate - what they can't do is remove other directors. So just a revolving door of supporter's directors. Yes they will have access to financial information but won't be able to discuss it outside the boardroom. We all get the right to access said information when annual accounts are filed at Companies House - it's just that they will know it earlier.
The last line basically defines the limit of authority as one that has no power, as a minority shareholder, to direct the strategy of the club.
Pretty toothless and smacks of tokenism to me. Call me an old cynic but as far as Efford is concerned my view is that it was politicking prior to an election (popularism at its worst) and he's only tabling a private members bill (with zero chance of it ever getting past a second reading - and he knows that) to save face. He said he was going to do it so he has to be seen to be trying to do so.
I believe parliament has more pressing issues to take up its time.
Supporters trusts given right to buy up to ten percent of club when it goes up for sale
And this is a bad thing? Seems to me a big improvement
Seems to me like a return to supporters director and underpinned by a supporters trust
Ps agree its not the German model, but hardly tokenism and a step in the right direction.
Does something need to be done? - probably yes. Is this the answer? - probably no.
Clubs run as social enterprises and 'not-for-profit'. A board of trustees rather than a board of directors. Season ticket holders/members get one voting share each. I'm not saying any of those would work - but they might and they are a tad more radical than Efford's lame duck half-arsed, not thought through proposals.
Also important is the recognition of the role of fans in our game and its been a long time coming and should be welcomed.
That director would be elected by members of a supporters trust or season ticket holders or members of the football club - or some other constituency that is representative - or maybe all three in an election college. The role of that director would be limited to representing the views of supporters on the board but not involved, or have any say, in commercial decisions - that's for the shareholders to decide. And ditch this idea of a right to own up to 10% - that's a red herring. Forward thinking owners may choose to make a percentage of equity available (subject to funding of course) but don't even try to make it obligatory - I very much doubt it could be anyway, legally.
There is an underlying assumption that all STs would be as reasonable as I believe ours is. Why is that?
There's no guarantee, but Efford is entitled to think that for every bad Trust there is an Oyston, a Risdale, a Cellini, etc
You can also look at Charltons experience here of supporters difectors, and now underpinned by trusts which have reputations to protect.
I am not sure about Bobs point on decision making, my reading is that these are board positions and not board lite etc
How do you factor in the additional cost of financing that debt? How do you know what interest rates are going to be in the future? What about additional planned infrastructure costs? How do you, as a supporter director, comply with the requirements of companies legislation? The 240 days thing is ridiculous and would likely hold up any plans for the business while the Trust made a decision. Why 240 days? Just a number chosen at random I expect. Why not six calendar months or 12?
If this is such a good idea, why not apply it to other professional sporting clubs too? Both codes of rugby, cricket, athletics, etc etc.
It all smacks of a well-meaning politician not understanding how stuff actually works in the real world. The fact that he was one of the first to support Ed's challenge for the Labour leadership last time round suggests he rather likes a lame duck or two. He's probably just chosen another one.
Abramovic et al would most certainly say no to the 10% nonsense (so would I if I were in their position) but not sure why they would violently object to fan representation at board meetings as they would understand the position carries no real power without any equity stake.
If Efford's proposals just stuck to supporters directors and legislating to enact it as obligatory (even the FAPL are not above the law!) without the equity thing then I would support it.
Of course my idea is half-baked - it was developed off the top of my head late at night in about a minute - probably about the same length of time it took Efford!!
But often things that appear difficult to resolve have very simple solutions - what's red and smells of blue paint?
Red paint!
Not really sure what the 10% is intended to achieve, it wouldn't give you any more power on top of the 'golden' share and would possibly expose you to liabilities, depending on how the law is framed I assume like you they would be shares just like any others . It might appeal to some fans trusts who do actively buy shares of their clubs like Arsenal for example.
How are boards structured and liabilities managed in Germany when fans own 51%? Seems to work pretty well there.
Should it get to the debating stage it will be interesting to see what happens.
I agree about difficult/simple things. The solution is quite simple. Abolish the FAPL as a separate entity, replace it with a newly professionalized FA, with a government remit to provide fan representation in every club. If necessary, create OFFOOT to regulate the bastards. Simple. If there is a political will.
Heard this week that BoJo has started to distance himself from the project. His initial support was based on the legacy and the support for it from Neale Coleman.
Now his Mayoral tenure is coming to an end his focus will be elsewhere.
How about supermarkets, banks, petrochemical companies.
My taxes are being wasted on this vanity private members bill.
:-)
Read that again and tell me which part doesn't make you sound like a pompous pious overblown opinion of himself twat.
Eltham Park is not a Labour area and never has been, but that's where he lives and Clive is a local MP above being a party tied one. For people to slag him off just because he says he's a Millwall fan is pathetic and undermines our democratic system.
The fact that the total holding was less than 10% was in essence why Richard Murray* was able to dispose of 'fans' shares' as he did a few years back when the restructure took place prior to the Spivs taking over.
* No criticism intended just a local example to illustrate the point made above.