Club Ownership

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

Not quite true, depending on the level of shareholding their are legal protections to minority parties and Directors must operate to the benefit of shareholders not shareholder.

You know a lot more about this topic than I do. I was just referencing a situation with a firm I worked for where the owner appointed Directors of sections of the company.
How would you propose to apportion ownership and caveats to ensure that a majority shareholder could not run roughshod over the trust.
I think I would want some kind of insurance that left no debt in the event that a new owner walked away.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Foxy

I was a hybrid fan once but I think the WST has burnt all its bridges. It has proved, on the whole, so useless that no private individual would want to work with it. Maybe if it was transformed with a new breed of competent board member, but no sign of enough types of this quaility coming forward.

Agree with this. Too much has happened, too much bad feeling, too many burned bridges. Seeing as the WST have no accountability, no humility, no honesty, no integrity, no transparency (only when it suits them) and ignore mandates that they're so precious about its impossible to see a way forward with them involved. Why would you trust them given everything that we've learned about them in the past year?

I believe the WST will suffer a slow drawn out death, its just a case of whether they take the club with it to their grave. You'd hope not but the direction we're heading and the refusal to relinquish their power trip from those in control suggest otherwise.

Sell up before we sink even lower down the leagues.

[exileddragon]

I think something like the '50% + 1' rule from German football could be written into the club's constitution/rules (although in this case it would be an individual club rather than the league enforcing the rule) - although any future owner or group of owners might be able to convince other stakeholders to change the rules to allow further investment.

Alternatively 'dual class' shares could be issued that would allow investors a larger share of the club's profits or economic rights but without having a majority of voting rights. This doesn't circumvent the need for the club to be financially sustainable though.

Of course the 'ideal' is that someone just hands the club a huge amount of money for no reason and walks away, but that's not going to happen. And as frustrating as it is to see the team underperform, it's less than 10 years since having a team to watch at all wasn't guaranteed.

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

You know a lot more about this topic than I do. I was just referencing a situation with a firm I worked for where the owner appointed Directors of sections of the company.
How would you propose to apportion ownership and caveats to ensure that a majority shareholder could not run roughshod over the trust.
I think I would want some kind of insurance that left no debt in the event that a new owner walked away.

Firstly it depends on the share structure, majority shareholding gives voting rights but does not render other shareholders protectionless. Over 20% gives the ability to injunct for example should actions be deemed not to be in the interests of the whole. Worth noting that Directors legal responsibiltiies are for all shareholders not just the 51% so there is legal protection in fidiciary duty to protect minority holders as well (there are plenty of legal examples where fiduciary duty has been breached by a majority holder).

There are also complexities in the make up of the majority shareholding, if its one individual then its cleaner but if its an incorporated body then they may also have sub sets of shareholders that may not have 51% of the holding company voting rights.

My own scenario is one where 3 of us hold the overall majority but none of us over 50% so 2 of us always have to agree to get a majority which means protection by duality and better decision making.

Therefore a good outcome could be deemed to be a consortium of 3, however another good outcome could be trusted partner (which worked well for Brentford) and control transfered over time. There is not necessarilly a black and white solution that is perfect, its all about the parties, the trust between them and the challenge presented.

In this case I think a capital injection in excess of £1m in needed to re-capitalise the company, provide effective short to medium term working capital as well as returning the infrastructure and working environment to something that could deliver long term, sustainable success. Could this be done by one individual, potentially, could it be better served by a group, also potentially. A lot depends on who is willing and available and what they bring to the party.

If I was to liquidate assets for example I'd be far happier to share the burden than to take it on 100% because I'd be sensible enough to know my capital limitiations. So if one person became available who had a net worth of £15-£20m then you could argue they could be the best option, however its likely to be more achievable to get 3 people worth £5m each.

Minimum I would say is someone needs to be able to write off in the short to medium term 10% of their capitalised worth to turn this thing around.

The big challenge is finding people who are liquid enoth, there are plenty of people with the sort of net worth that could on paper be seen to afford it but not as many who have the funds in capitalised form that is needed.

[John Neals Dynasty]

Their is just one thing people are forgetting here. The country is slowly sliding into probably the biggest recession since the war, countless companies going bust which will lead to mass unemployment, those still working being asked to take pay cuts a possible second wave in the Autumn.

Football will never be the same again fans talking on here as if it will be business as usual in September...

So the talking of taking over a club in decline with fan resistance during hard economic times will never happen and a lot of fans on furlough have not really felt the hardship yet, but once it ends which it will do companies will have a decision to make, do they cut back on the workforce? Close the business??? This will all have a knock on effect, no money means forget football as food on the table comes first.

So if this all happens never mind outside investment gates will plumit due to fans having no money, plus a lot have found other things to do on a Saturday.

No more spare cash for the non stop begging buckets..

Yes reality can be cruel.
Posted via mobile theme

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by John Neals Dynasty

Their is just one thing people are forgetting here. The country is slowly sliding into probably the biggest recession since the war, countless companies going bust which will lead to mass unemployment, those still working being asked to take pay cuts a possible second wave in the Autumn.

Football will never be the same again fans talking on here as if it will be business as usual in September...

So the talking of taking over a club in decline with fan resistance during hard economic times will never happen and a lot of fans on furlough have not really felt the hardship yet, but once it ends which it will do companies will have a decision to make, do they cut back on the workforce? Close the business??? This will all have a knock on effect, no money means forget football as food on the table comes first.

So if this all happens never mind outside investment gates will plumit due to fans having no money, plus a lot have found other things to do on a Saturday.

No more spare cash for the non stop begging buckets..

Yes reality can be cruel.
Posted via mobile theme

Why won't football ever be the same again?

It will have to be.

[Back of the Kop]

Originally Posted by John Neals Dynasty

Their is just one thing people are forgetting here. The country is slowly sliding into probably the biggest recession since the war, countless companies going bust which will lead to mass unemployment, those still working being asked to take pay cuts a possible second wave in the Autumn.

Football will never be the same again fans talking on here as if it will be business as usual in September...

So the talking of taking over a club in decline with fan resistance during hard economic times will never happen and a lot of fans on furlough have not really felt the hardship yet, but once it ends which it will do companies will have a decision to make, do they cut back on the workforce? Close the business??? This will all have a knock on effect, no money means forget football as food on the table comes first.

So if this all happens never mind outside investment gates will plumit due to fans having no money, plus a lot have found other things to do on a Saturday.

No more spare cash for the non stop begging buckets..

Yes reality can be cruel.
Posted via mobile theme

But that's not reality is it, it's your forecast.

It could be as bad as you say but no one really knows do they

[John Neals Dynasty]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

Why won't football ever be the same again?

It will have to be.

Unless a cure is a found to the virus it cannot be, lots of clubs in the lower leagues could hold under.
Posted via mobile theme

[John Neals Dynasty]

Originally Posted by Back of the Kop

But that's not reality is it, it's your forecast.

It could be as bad as you say but no one really knows do they

It's not my forecast regarding mass unemployment it's inevitable.
Posted via mobile theme