Football club ownership model

[pagl]

Originally Posted by Mr Wonderful

The top ten fan owned clubs in English football - Part 2 - Back Page Football

Interesting read and shows that others are well ahead of us with share schemes and ownership certificates etc. Community share schemes, purchasing assets, strategic plans for their grounds.

What do we have? I mean really what do we own, where are we going, how are we going to grow? Does anyone really know?

I feel we tread water and thats it.

Maybe QR or BV (or anyone else) can provide a better view but we should build on the momentum of last season, 5,000 crowds, a settled squad, hopefully quality additions.

Were at ST renewal time, WST memberships, hopefully a resurgence in the Goldline lottery which will all provide the budget for next season.

However we really do need to grab the bull by the horns and take the lead when opportunities present themselves and not get led and shafted by other parties.
Mold road regeneration, whats in it for us as it appears nothing other than a chance for WCBC and/or WAG to own the land.
The museum?
Groves?

I dont have the answers but as usual some searching questions.

What would you pay to own something?
3,500 members at say £500 a share, reds groups, WSA, DSA and other groups also with a share right. Maybe 25% private (conservative yes).
Would it work? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?

Bloody steroids mess up your sleeping. Relax and breathe.

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by pagl

Interesting read and shows that others are well ahead of us with share schemes and ownership certificates etc. Community share schemes, purchasing assets, strategic plans for their grounds.

What do we have? I mean really what do we own, where are we going, how are we going to grow? Does anyone really know?

I feel we tread water and thats it.

Maybe QR or BV (or anyone else) can provide a better view but we should build on the momentum of last season, 5,000 crowds, a settled squad, hopefully quality additions.

Were at ST renewal time, WST memberships, hopefully a resurgence in the Goldline lottery which will all provide the budget for next season.

However we really do need to grab the bull by the horns and take the lead when opportunities present themselves and not get led and shafted by other parties.
Mold road regeneration, whats in it for us as it appears nothing other than a chance for WCBC and/or WAG to own the land.
The museum?
Groves?

I dont have the answers but as usual some searching questions.

What would you pay to own something?
3,500 members at say £500 a share, reds groups, WSA, DSA and other groups also with a share right. Maybe 25% private (conservative yes).
Would it work? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?

Bloody steroids mess up your sleeping. Relax and breathe.

I've mentioned the Wimbledon model a few times over the years, for two reasons. The duality of their share ownership and ability to leverage it to build capital sums when needed (see the £1.2m) and the full time direction offered by the key board members.

I've always felt a dual approach with a separate share class allows freedom to capital raise for larger projects (such as training facilities) but it needs a more pragmatic approach than the political purity of the current system.

Worth noting that on the Bryn thread the discussions re the day the fans raised the bond money. On that day with an hour to go we were short, a fan from London who was on holiday at the time but had been discussing investing as part of a duality scheme via the Friends of Wrexham group and the former Chair of the Trust (who was very pragmatic and pro duality) stepped in to underwrite the difference to ensure we made it. A group of minority shareholders who can be dipped into to capital raise would allow much greater financial fire power.

However its politically less pure and for this reason I see it being a non runner for the foreseeable future despite the fact £500k was identified within a week last time around from just 4 people when we were examining whether the minority group could ensure the ground came as part of the sale. If it wasn't countenanced to keep the ground then I can't see any other scenario where it would be acceptable to the hierarchy.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

I've mentioned the Wimbledon model a few times over the years, for two reasons. The duality of their share ownership and ability to leverage it to build capital sums when needed (see the £1.2m) and the full time direction offered by the key board members.

I've always felt a dual approach with a separate share class allows freedom to capital raise for larger projects (such as training facilities) but it needs a more pragmatic approach than the political purity of the current system.

Worth noting that on the Bryn thread the discussions re the day the fans raised the bond money. On that day with an hour to go we were short, a fan from London who was on holiday at the time but had been discussing investing as part of a duality scheme via the Friends of Wrexham group and the former Chair of the Trust (who was very pragmatic and pro duality) stepped in to underwrite the difference to ensure we made it. A group of minority shareholders who can be dipped into to capital raise would allow much greater financial fire power.
However its politically less pure and for this reason I see it being a non runner for the foreseeable future despite the fact £500k was identified within a week last time around from just 4 people when we were examining whether the minority group could ensure the ground came as part of the sale. If it wasn't countenanced to keep the ground then I can't see any other scenario where it would be acceptable to the hierarchy.

I never knew that. Fair play.

[Cornish Taff]

Originally Posted by Mr Wonderful

The top ten fan owned clubs in English football - Part 2 - Back Page Football

This article is well out of date..

It would be interesting to know the current situation.

[Maccie]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

I've mentioned the Wimbledon model a few times over the years, for two reasons. The duality of their share ownership and ability to leverage it to build capital sums when needed (see the £1.2m) and the full time direction offered by the key board members.

I've always felt a dual approach with a separate share class allows freedom to capital raise for larger projects (such as training facilities) but it needs a more pragmatic approach than the political purity of the current system.

Worth noting that on the Bryn thread the discussions re the day the fans raised the bond money. On that day with an hour to go we were short, a fan from London who was on holiday at the time but had been discussing investing as part of a duality scheme via the Friends of Wrexham group and the former Chair of the Trust (who was very pragmatic and pro duality) stepped in to underwrite the difference to ensure we made it. A group of minority shareholders who can be dipped into to capital raise would allow much greater financial fire power.

However its politically less pure and for this reason I see it being a non runner for the foreseeable future despite the fact £500k was identified within a week last time around from just 4 people when we were examining whether the minority group could ensure the ground came as part of the sale. If it wasn't countenanced to keep the ground then I can't see any other scenario where it would be acceptable to the hierarchy.

I never knew any nor this, I’m not sure I totally understand, but are you saying we could in theory have bought Colliers!!! Please God let this NOT be the case. I fear I’m about to see my arse big time!!!!

[dixienormous]

Originally Posted by Maccie

I never knew any nor this, I’m not sure I totally understand, but are you saying we could in theory have bought Colliers!!! Please God let this NOT be the case. I fear I’m about to see my arse big time!!!!

I've seen my arse for a long time with the closed shop mentality who clearly support their political ideals more than the football club.

[pagl]

I still dont understand what anyone owns.
I dont feel like an owner, I dont have a share but I get to vote on the trust board and any acceptable rules.

Basically the trust board own the club, the club is a business/going concern and really thats it. Its run financially very well and basically underwritten by the trust.

After that there is nothing, ground rent the responsibility of another company/business.

The part time nature means we simply tread water and just deal with anything as it arises.

There is no strategy or planning as I think we would need to double/triple our resources to make this happen.

As BV says there are things that could/should be done but there is no appetite to open up these avenues. Having people like BV, QR and others to advise could propel us forward but it needs that desire to make some strategic decisions and also a structure in place.

Some will need to continue with a more admin role in the trust so it would not sit well.

[Maccie]

I hope this all doesn’t get lost/swept under the carpets. This is actually potentially one of the most important issues around the future of club!

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by pagl

I still dont understand what anyone owns.
I dont feel like an owner, I dont have a share but I get to vote on the trust board and any acceptable rules.

Basically the trust board own the club, the club is a business/going concern and really thats it. Its run financially very well and basically underwritten by the trust.

After that there is nothing, ground rent the responsibility of another company/business.

The part time nature means we simply tread water and just deal with anything as it arises.

There is no strategy or planning as I think we would need to double/triple our resources to make this happen.

As BV says there are things that could/should be done but there is no appetite to open up these avenues. Having people like BV, QR and others to advise could propel us forward but it needs that desire to make some strategic decisions and also a structure in place.

Some will need to continue with a more admin role in the trust so it would not sit well.

Not true. Understand where you're coming from re. ownership but you need to accept that it's basically a co operative.
The trust own the only shares in the club. The trust is it's members. The board it's representatives. The board don't own the club.
You have effectively, the same as every other member, one voting share as a co owner / member of the trust.
Financially your "share" is worthless, can't be traded, can be relinquished.

BV is right, a number of people were interested in investing, one in particular, if I remember rightly, in the COE.
The abuse that the Friends got was unbelievable, especially as we had informed the Trust chair at the time of our intentions to look for additional funding streams and received tentative approval.
It has to be remember that this was at a time when the trust were looking at purchasing the ground as well.
At the time I was critical of the boards approach as they would need to have raised around £4 million and this wasn't likely from the members at £12 a year. Ultimately, purchasing the club for £1 was the best / only option.