No mandate yet to seek 'investment' - could be discussion what stake would have what price

[Bagger Vance]

[QUOTE=Red_Jackoisback;2344886]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

Can BV anyone honestly believe someone is going to inject serious money into the club without 51%. It’s too much money.

You are right - it would require control for that level, minority stake wouldn’t raise more than a few hundred thousand tops unless someone extremely wealthy with a warmth towards fan ownership was feeling extremely generous.

[eosceiriog]

I would rather back BV's all round business and football judgement than 99% of the posters, not to mention the politburo.

[Red_Jackoisback]

Originally Posted by eosceiriog

I would rather back BV's all round business and football judgement than 99% of the posters, not to mention the politburo.

I completely agree.

The issue remains who is going to invest?

[LeBon]

[QUOTE=Bagger Vance;2344887]

Originally Posted by Red_Jackoisback

You are right - it would require control for that level, minority stake wouldn’t raise more than a few hundred thousand tops unless someone extremely wealthy with a warmth towards fan ownership was feeling extremely generous.

And even if you felt warmth towards fan ownership, what person would do this, in the current situation?

I have been a big fan of the principle of fan ownership. To the extent that if I won the lottery, I'd happily just chuck some money at the club and not want anything particularly in return (which seems to be the current board's definition of investment). In theory fan ownership should always guarantee the best interests of the club and that is no small thing, given our history.

However, the last year has seen it seriously undermined in my eyes. The fundamental flaw is that - although the theory is there - the practical reality is that the current board cannot be removed. I know they can technically be removed, but there is too much fan apathy and information asymmetry for it ever to happen in practice. It's as much a functioning democracy as Iran is.

Sadly, I am concluding that all fan ownership buys you is protection from conscious shysters. But not accidental ones. Given that football club ownership has historically involved local egos/accidental shysters, all we're really getting through fan ownership is guaranteed existence and no investment.

Of course if better decisions had been made in the last 12 months and we were at the other end of the table, we wouldn't be feeling like this and this debate wouldn't be happening, but in some ways that confirms the point: all success is due to the decisions of owners, but you can't remove them whether they do well or badly - and there is no difference between fan ownership and a private investor on that score.

[dixienormous]

[QUOTE=LeBon;2344894]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

And even if you felt warmth towards fan ownership, what person would do this, in the current situation?

I have been a big fan of the principle of fan ownership. To the extent that if I won the lottery, I'd happily just chuck some money at the club and not want anything particularly in return (which seems to be the current board's definition of investment). In theory fan ownership should always guarantee the best interests of the club and that is no small thing, given our history.

However, the last year has seen it seriously undermined in my eyes. The fundamental flaw is that - although the theory is there - the practical reality is that the current board cannot be removed. I know they can technically be removed, but there is too much fan apathy and information asymmetry for it ever to happen in practice. It's as much a functioning democracy as Iran is.

Sadly, I am concluding that all fan ownership buys you is protection from conscious shysters. But not accidental ones. Given that football club ownership has historically involved local egos/accidental shysters, all we're really getting through fan ownership is guaranteed existence and no investment.

Of course if better decisions had been made in the last 12 months and we were at the other end of the table, we wouldn't be feeling like this and this debate wouldn't be happening, but in some ways that confirms the point: all success is due to the decisions of owners, but you can't remove them whether they do well or badly - and there is no difference between fan ownership and a private investor on that score.

Great post.

[krux]

Originally Posted by Red_Jackoisback

I completely agree.

The issue remains who is going to invest?

If we put the advert out, then we will find out
Posted via mobile theme

[Rob Edwards]

Originally Posted by krux

If we put the advert out, then we will find out
Posted via mobile theme

Petered will block it - need to push the fanbase to going the WST to get the dinosaurs off the Board.

[fluffysheepsupporter]

Originally Posted by Red_Jackoisback

I completely agree.

The issue remains who is going to invest?

Exactly. And that is how it has been throughout this long saga. Still lots of words but no name . To sum up, learned people on here think we are a poor prospect for any investment , that investors would want to own the club and that the board should go out to seek investment despite not having a mandate from the Trust membership. The underlying theme to me is one of certain folk wanting a return to private ownership which is something I could never vote for.
Even Phils millions remain in his off shore bank accounts.

[fluffysheepsupporter]

[QUOTE=LeBon;2344894]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

And even if you felt warmth towards fan ownership, what person would do this, in the current situation?

I have been a big fan of the principle of fan ownership. To the extent that if I won the lottery, I'd happily just chuck some money at the club and not want anything particularly in return (which seems to be the current board's definition of investment). In theory fan ownership should always guarantee the best interests of the club and that is no small thing, given our history.

However, the last year has seen it seriously undermined in my eyes. The fundamental flaw is that - although the theory is there - the practical reality is that the current board cannot be removed. I know they can technically be removed, but there is too much fan apathy and information asymmetry for it ever to happen in practice. It's as much a functioning democracy as Iran is.

Sadly, I am concluding that all fan ownership buys you is protection from conscious shysters. But not accidental ones. Given that football club ownership has historically involved local egos/accidental shysters, all we're really getting through fan ownership is guaranteed existence and no investment.

Of course if better decisions had been made in the last 12 months and we were at the other end of the table, we wouldn't be feeling like this and this debate wouldn't be happening, but in some ways that confirms the point: all success is due to the decisions of owners, but you can't remove them whether they do well or badly - and there is no difference between fan ownership and a private investor on that score.

Agreed and on the point of winning the Lottery I would also put money in if I won it . It would be something which had to made entirely anonymous and it would be a donation to the Trust for them to spend as they wish. I might insist that if Phil and one or two on here joined the Trust Board I would want the money back.