New Ownership Model

[hausmann]

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.

I don't know the ins and outs of your original model, but from what you wrote hear I think even this diminishes the power of the profit motive. Why shouldn't minority owners get a share in the profit of a football club if it can make one? My wife and I run our own business and there is substantial motivation in the risk and reward of capital ownership. Same would apply to a football club. Imagine the energy you could unleash if people had a simple incentive to invite more friends to a game. If there is no profit motive from capital ownership, what incentive do they have to bring in business?

That's the one thing I see wrong with Newcastle, because we have a history of big employers, there is little of the entrepreneurial energy that goes along with business ownership.

What you need is good forecasting and adequate capitalisation so that the club can absorb some losses.

[plague]

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.

Horseshit.
I'm the person saying that these people you sit with should be involved in ownership.
I also want people who are prepared to finance the club through sponsorship to be able to have a say.
You are the one denying people a chance to be involved.
I am the one saying give everyone an equal say. How the **** is that elitist?
Read the posts before posting crap like this.

[hausmann]

Horseshit.
I'm the person saying that these people you sit with should be involved in ownership.
I also want people who are prepared to finance the club through sponsorship to be able to have a say.
You are the one denying people a chance to be involved.
I am the one saying give everyone an equal say. How the **** is that elitist?
Read the posts before posting crap like this.

We talked about this earlier. I said if business people want to be owners, they can buy shareholdings like anyone else and they can vote for board members based on their shareholding. What I dispute is segregating people into different categories and giving them a set amount of power 33% in your case. You said yourself that boards don't agree so you want to put in a mechanism where two groups can play off their power against the other group. I think that's the wrong way to go as it is a mechanism of division, not unity.

What if your sponsor/owners want to sell their share of ownership and can't find a buyer because the market for these shares is so limited? Plus, the people I sit with are fans, they wouldn't want to be in the 33% sponsor category.

The comment about elitism came from your statement that I want to "put more power in the hands of people who don't know how to run a business". That's very condescending.

[plague]

Ok answer me this, with your ownership model, if the CEO wants to change strip colours.
Your 'single owner' says yes, your 'community ownership group' says no.
How is it decided?

[My2BobsWorth]

Ask Bridgey

[hausmann]

Ok answer me this, with your ownership model, if the CEO wants to change strip colours.
Your 'single owner' says yes, your 'community ownership group' says no.
How is it decided?

Owners don't get to decide these things. In a company you get a certain number of votes based on your shareholding to put the people you want on the board of directors. The directors monitor the business, they wouldn't even discuss things like this. They would focus more on financial accountability and major business decisions.

Things like changing the colours of the playing strip would be done by the CEO and his/her team in consultation with a Supporters Committee, like the one the current Jets have set up, and would certainly need more public supporter consultation than Tinkler engaged in. But ultimately, after all this consultation and feedback, it would be a decision of the CEO, not the board or owners.

[plague]

Wow, so you hated Tinkler changing the colours but then say your CEO has the exact same power. Interesting.
So if I buy into the club I don't get a say in the colours we wear?
So what's your shareholder split for the seats on the board?
How many for the owner, how many for the shareholders?
Give me some numbers.

[hausmann]

Wow, so you hated Tinkler changing the colours but then say your CEO has the exact same power. Interesting.
So if I buy into the club I don't get a say in the colours we wear?
So what's your shareholder split for the seats on the board?
How many for the owner, how many for the shareholders?
Give me some numbers.

A proper CEO should have a lot of power in a well run organisation to make decisions. They are there day to day, not living in Scotland or the UAE. That was why I had a major problem with Robbie Middleby's performance as "CEO". What is the problem? A certain CEO picked gold as our colour when the FFA wanted us to be red and blue.

I can't give you imaginary numbers. There isn't even a major owner yet. That person, whoever they are would have a major say in it because they would just walk away if not happy. That would be a negotiation. There are various models. German clubs give 50 + 1, others are give supporters a minority ownership, others give the fans the biggest slice. You also have to work out how much money supporters would be able to put in. What's the potential shareholder market for supporters? Is it 500? Is it 5,000 people? How much money do you need to fully capitalise the business and how much money do these people have to put in? It's not some ideological framework, it would be based on the reality of our concrete situation.

[plague]

I can't give you imaginary numbers. There isn't even a major owner yet. That person, whoever they are would have a major say in it because they would just walk away if not happy. That would be a negotiation. There are various models. German clubs give 50 + 1, others are give supporters a minority ownership, others give the fans the biggest slice. You also have to work out how much money supporters would be able to put in. What's the potential shareholder market for supporters? Is it 500? Is it 5,000 people? How much money do you need to fully capitalise the business and how much money do these people have to put in? It's not some ideological framework, it would be based on the reality of our concrete situation.

Ok maybe it's a good lesson that until you have your own idea sorted, not to shit on other peoples.

[hausmann]

Whatever, start a thread for your idea. You can certainly criticise my idea. That's the reason I put it up. I'm not opposed to that at all because it might reveal a weakness. I think your idea does have a weakness, the one I have mentioned.

I've tried not to be personal about this, despite some inflammatory comments from you. I only took exception to your comment about general supporters "not knowing how to run a business" because I have a great respect for Jets fans, whether they be young or old, rich or poor, male or female, abled or disabled. They are the heart and soul of the club. They have been taken for granted time and again.

[hawk]

Ok maybe it's a good lesson that until you have your own idea sorted, not to shit on other peoples.

ok i bothered to read all that.

Plague, i didnt get the impression that hauss was doggin on your ideas but questioned a point or 2. Maybe your to used to having to deal with mfks, lol.

hauss' model is very much a mixed model and has many variations which includes ownership and input from community, owner, board members and the usual suspects.

yours has an equality added in it. I know there are many other differences but thats takes heap of typing.

[hawk]

For mine I think we are dreaming if we are trying to find an owner that gives suporters any quantity of say in the running of the club. With the members model i think as descisions frequently go against certain people anger arises and will eventually eat itself not that it would be any worse than whats happening now.

i do think that we can find an owner who does love the game, supporters and the history of this area to buy it and run it in an efficient, positive and productive manner over a long period which is where we fall down.

Anything that is stable, community positive & affordable and is able to battle for a title every 5yrs or so will do.