New Ownership Model

[hausmann]

Alright, I'm going to put it out there. This is what I would like to see as an ownership model.

A single owner or consortium who have been vetted by the FFA as having a heart for football and community engagement and are deemed unlikely to go on power trips or lose their heads.

combined with

A community ownership base in sellable (doesn't have to be a stock exchange), profit sharing, vote carrying shares. Given the state of the Jets, its probably best if these shares be introduced in stages as people get more and more confidence in the direction of the club.

The reasons I think this will work are:

1. Only a community minded owner would be happy to share governance with the club's supporter base. Someone who wants all the power and control to themselves are not community minded.
2. The Hunter has a proven, deeply passionate supporter base who, I am sure, would see value in capitalising their club if they weren't throwing money down a drain.
3. A main owner helps to be decisive
4. Community owners help to enforce proper governance.
5. Community owners are an untapped resource to fully capitalise the club, unlike "members" who, like I said, pour money down the drain each year for meaningless voting rights.
6. Ownership locks in capitalisation, whereas "membership" is a risky, year on year thing. You will likely get more money from people if they have a tangible interest in the club.
7. Newcastle does not have enough rich individuals or rich industries to fund a club by themselves. We need broad based community ownership. Yet community ownership by itself is also fraught with danger, such as poor governance, undercapitalisation, lack of ambition. You need both together.

I'm putting this out now because, if the FFA does have the Dundee United owner lined up, it would be great to put the ownership model proposition to him/his family. From all reports, he is wealthy but not billionaire wealthy.

[WolfMan]

I'm on board

[Xander]

I'm a current member and would be committed 100% to coming on board as a community part owner. Could a crowdfunding type arrangement be setup? Once a certain dollar amount is reached everyone who has agreed to contribute is then charged.

[GazFish35]

in.

[Jeterpool]

Alright, I'm going to put it out there. This is what I would like to see as an ownership model.

A single owner or consortium who have been vetted by the FFA as having a heart for football and community engagement and are deemed unlikely to go on power trips or lose their heads.

combined with

A community ownership base in sellable (doesn't have to be a stock exchange), profit sharing, vote carrying shares. Given the state of the Jets, its probably best if these shares be introduced in stages as people get more and more confidence in the direction of the club.

The reasons I think this will work are:

1. Only a community minded owner would be happy to share governance with the club's supporter base. Someone who wants all the power and control to themselves are not community minded.
2. The Hunter has a proven, deeply passionate supporter base who, I am sure, would see value in capitalising their club if they weren't throwing money down a drain.
3. A main owner helps to be decisive
4. Community owners help to enforce proper governance.
5. Community owners are an untapped resource to fully capitalise the club, unlike "members" who, like I said, pour money down the drain each year for meaningless voting rights.
6. Ownership locks in capitalisation, whereas "membership" is a risky, year on year thing. You will likely get more money from people if they have a tangible interest in the club.
7. Newcastle does not have enough rich individuals or rich industries to fund a club by themselves. We need broad based community ownership. Yet community ownership by itself is also fraught with danger, such as poor governance, undercapitalisation, lack of ambition. You need both together.

I'm putting this out now because, if the FFA does have the Dundee United owner lined up, it would be great to put the ownership model proposition to him/his family. From all reports, he is wealthy but not billionaire wealthy.

I like it

[belchardo]

i like it.

[hausmann]

I'm a current member and would be committed 100% to coming on board as a community part owner. Could a crowdfunding type arrangement be setup? Once a certain dollar amount is reached everyone who has agreed to contribute is then charged.

I don't know what arrangement you would use. It would have to be done with the consent of the main owner. They might have their own ideas on the matter. The structure could be easy or complicated, eg. it could all be in one unlisted public company or I guess there could be a community owner public company and a main owner private company which together own the Jets as a separate private company.

But crowdfunding wouldn't be the way to go. Given the community nature of a football club, and given that we aren't talking about millions of shareholders, I don't think you would have to list on a stock exchange. It would be an unlisted public company. It would be easy enough to find your investors without listing. But the discussion would be on how people could sell their shares. Would the club be able to put the seller in contact with others who would want to buy those shares. Raising funds from the public is governed by ASIC regulations. If raising under $10million you issie an Offer Information Statement. If raising more than $10 million you need a prospectus.

[MFKS]

Alright, I'm going to put it out there. This is what I would like to see as an ownership model.

A single owner or consortium who have been vetted by the FFA as having a heart for football and community engagement and are deemed unlikely to go on power trips or lose their heads.

combined with

A community ownership base in sellable (doesn't have to be a stock exchange), profit sharing, vote carrying shares. Given the state of the Jets, its probably best if these shares be introduced in stages as people get more and more confidence in the direction of the club.

The reasons I think this will work are:

1. Only a community minded owner would be happy to share governance with the club's supporter base. Someone who wants all the power and control to themselves are not community minded.
2. The Hunter has a proven, deeply passionate supporter base who, I am sure, would see value in capitalising their club if they weren't throwing money down a drain.
3. A main owner helps to be decisive
4. Community owners help to enforce proper governance.
5. Community owners are an untapped resource to fully capitalise the club, unlike "members" who, like I said, pour money down the drain each year for meaningless voting rights.
6. Ownership locks in capitalisation, whereas "membership" is a risky, year on year thing. You will likely get more money from people if they have a tangible interest in the club.
7. Newcastle does not have enough rich individuals or rich industries to fund a club by themselves. We need broad based community ownership. Yet community ownership by itself is also fraught with danger, such as poor governance, undercapitalisation, lack of ambition. You need both together.

I'm putting this out now because, if the FFA does have the Dundee United owner lined up, it would be great to put the ownership model proposition to him/his family. From all reports, he is wealthy but not billionaire wealthy.

Totally disagree with the single owner model.

Recent events should have taught us that is a no go zone.

Even Con at least had his heart in the right place but ultimately failed us.

One bloke is asking for trouble sooner or later.

Consortium is the only answer.

Do fully agree with fan ownership. It is a ****ing disgrace the FFA neglect this area as the fans are the one true owner who will not walk away.

I feel they missed a trick with the sale of WSW as they should have offered at least 10% to their fans and set the example going forward

[plague]

33% single owner (with traits like Hauss said).
33% sponsors/business community (lots of smart/connected people working for a common goal).
33% fans/community.

Board decisions are never 100% agreeable across the club, someone is always unhappy.
If all decisions had to be at least 66% of the club being satisfied they would get way more right than wrong.

[plague]

Naturally the remaining 1% would go to a bikie gang.

[hausmann]

33% single owner (with traits like Hauss said).
33% sponsors/business community (lots of smart/connected people working for a common goal).
33% fans/community.

Board decisions are never 100% agreeable across the club, someone is always unhappy.
If all decisions had to be at least 66% of the club being satisfied they would get way more right than wrong.

I don't think you need to separate out sponsors/business community from general fans. If you can buy a share you buy a share. If you can buy 10,000 shares you can do that. It would get quite messy trying to determine who goes in what category, especially as a lot of business owners are also supporters. The more shares you have, the more votes you have.

[MFKS]

I don't think you need to separate out sponsors/business community from general fans. If you can buy a share you buy a share. If you can buy 10,000 shares you can do that. It would get quite messy trying to determine who goes in what category, especially as a lot of business owners are also supporters. The more shares you have, the more votes you have.

The community ownership aspect and voting

Quite frankly happy to stump up the cash but not overtly interested in voting on shit.

Would rather some bloke being appointed to vote on behalf of the supporters group and report back and answer to the supporters group.

That way you can have your say when needed but don't have every tom dick and harry putting their 2 bob into all manner of shite that doesn't need to be dealt with by the owners.
Ie you Only need so many hands on the steering wheel. Not everyones

[hausmann]

The community ownership aspect and voting

Quite frankly happy to stump up the cash but not overtly interested in voting on shit.

Would rather some bloke being appointed to vote on behalf of the supporters group and report back and answer to the supporters group.

That way you can have your say when needed but don't have every tom dick and harry putting their 2 bob into all manner of shite that doesn't need to be dealt with by the owners.
Ie you Only need so many hands on the steering wheel. Not everyones

You only vote for the board of directors and they handle the day to day stuff.

I assume most people would want a say in who goes on the board, but you can give your proxy vote to someone to vote on your behalf if you can't make the AGM.

[MFKS]

You only vote for the board of directors and they handle the day to day stuff.

I assume most people would want a say in who goes on the board, but you can give your proxy vote to someone to vote on your behalf if you can't make the AGM.

Happy with that.

500 ****s on the Board all having competing agendas might see our circus of a club run even worse than present

[hausmann]

The main question is how you manage future capitalisation. Internationally, it seems that when clubs fall on hard times, they go to community ownership through supporter trusts but when they need money to do something, they fall into private ownership, usually a single owner. How do you ensure that the structure is sustainable through all the peaks and troughs? If you have the structure mentioned above, a single owner isn't going to say to the community owners "you need a million for a marquee striker, it's okay, this one is on me". The financial risks and rewards have to be distributed evenly. Member trusts are for people who want to put in a small amount of capital but want the guy with money to fork out for the big ticket items.

To me, if we see the club as a community asset and are serious about building on this model of Emerging Jets for the benefit of the whole community, then all owners need to share the load, but also share any potential profits.

[plague]

I don't think you need to separate out sponsors/business community from general fans. If you can buy a share you buy a share. If you can buy 10,000 shares you can do that. It would get quite messy trying to determine who goes in what category, especially as a lot of business owners are also supporters. The more shares you have, the more votes you have.

No.
The 33% is for corporate sponsors/business partners of the club.

We always talk about engaging the business community better, well this way gives them a say in how thier investment dollars are spent.

All other business people who aren't directly involved with the club buy in via the fans portion.

[hausmann]

No.
The 33% is for corporate sponsors/business partners of the club.

We always talk about engaging the business community better, well this way gives them a say in how thier investment dollars are spent.

All other business people who aren't directly involved with the club buy in via the fans portion.

That model doesn't sit well with me. For one, a lot of people in the business community just like the Knights. Secondly, most of the major industries are like coal mining, engineering, building societies, health, education, government. I can't see many of these major employers being interested or in a position to part own a football club. Then you've got some of the smaller business owners who have big egos. If you've got corporate sponsors owning the club, there could be conflicts of interest eg. what if Bluetongue brewery bought in and then Heineken comes along and Bluetongue are dead against the sponsorship because it will directly erode their business in the Hunter.

[plague]

That model doesn't sit well with me. For one, a lot of people in the business community just like the Knights. Secondly, most of the major industries are like coal mining, engineering, building societies, health, education, government. I can't see many of these major employers being interested or in a position to part own a football club. Then you've got some of the smaller business owners who have big egos. If you've got corporate sponsors owning the club, there could be conflicts of interest eg. what if Bluetongue brewery bought in and then Heineken comes along and Bluetongue are dead against the sponsorship because it will directly erode their business in the Hunter.

That's why there's 66% of the rest of the board there that can veto conflicts of interest.

You said big ego's? Yeah guess what, most successful people have them be they in business, art or sport.

So you want more power in the hands of people who don't know how to run a business or single entities who are going to do EVERYTHING in their own best interests.

Oh hang on, aren't we exactly in that spot at the moment?
Good luck with your company pal, you're gonna need it.

[Blackmac79]

The main question is how you manage future capitalisation. Internationally, it seems that when clubs fall on hard times, they go to community ownership through supporter trusts but when they need money to do something, they fall into private ownership, usually a single owner. How do you ensure that the structure is sustainable through all the peaks and troughs? If you have the structure mentioned above, a single owner isn't going to say to the community owners "you need a million for a marquee striker, it's okay, this one is on me". The financial risks and rewards have to be distributed evenly. Member trusts are for people who want to put in a small amount of capital but want the guy with money to fork out for the big ticket items.

To me, if we see the club as a community asset and are serious about building on this model of Emerging Jets for the benefit of the whole community, then all owners need to share the load, but also share any potential profits.

You have a decent point here, however this could be circumvented through the private/business ownership group agreeing to cover any shortfall in return for any future profit. It's not ideal, but the community sector just doesn't have the ability to get that kind of money together for creditors in time. This was one of the major hurdles when I was proposing the idea a few years ago. The initial capital required to set up the above is too great for it to be solely community driven.

This is why the now refusingtoeverdobusinesswiththeFFAeveragainpersonw hoshallnotbenamed was so great. He was willing at one stage to stump up the required capital short term, and would then make that back through selling the smaller, more manageable stakes to bussiness and community. Sadly, him, and I both got trod on.

[hausmann]

That's why there's 66% of the rest of the board there that can veto conflicts of interest.

You said big ego's? Yeah guess what, most successful people have them be they in business, art or sport.

So you want more power in the hands of people who don't know how to run a business or single entities who are going to do EVERYTHING in their own best interests.

Oh hang on, aren't we exactly in that spot at the moment?
Good luck with your company pal, you're gonna need it.

Yeah, well it seems to me that you want to build conflict and power games into the ownership model. IMO its a recipe for disaster too. Joint owners should go into a business with common goals.

I was simply going down the list of where the big money is to where the little money is, and the guys with the big egos in this town fall into the little money category. There are no Frank Lowy's in Newcastle and it would seem wise to not give small time players a lot of power. Anyway, it certainly wouldn't be up to me, you'd have to ask the main investor whether or not he was happy to share power with a group of business people that he doesn't even know. Yes, it would be great to elect prominent business leaders to the board, mainly if they have contacts that can open up big sponsorship opportunities but that doesn't have to translate into ownership.

This is tied into my idea on another thread that the Jets need to attract consumer product/service sponsorship by appealing to the mainstream market in all major capital cities and even Asia, because we clearly don't have the industries in Newcastle to pay a decent front of shirt fee. The ownership structure has to fit into the coalfields story so it can trade on all that history. That's why community ownership is essential, I think. There is no Con's Club, Tinkler's Club, Thompson's Club, but our club. You can't look at these issues in isolation if you want history to stop repeating itself.

Seriously, you have no faith in the average football fan do you? That's an attitude I HATE. I hate when I see people within football clubs treat supporters like they are unimportant, or see them as just $$$, not even human. I have seen it and hate it. The people that sit directly around me in the stands are CEOs and CFOs and other highly qualified people. But more generally, I hear a lot of intelligent discussion, and even just plain common sense. I have more faith in people than that. Anyone can buy a share in Woolworths. No need to be elitist.