Jump to content

Would you consider private ownership again.........?


Section Q

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Membership don’t get a penny! All covered in the Articles - however what Hearts would get in the above scenario is a donation of £2.5m from the FOH, which would be used as working capital.

 

But I take your point, ie purchaser gives FOH £2.5m which the FOH give to Hearts who in turn give it to the purchaser!

It’s an interesting point and one where the risks would have to be mitigated against if the scenario came to fruition.

Might be learnings from the Pompey Trust sale of their fan owned club!

Pompey sale completed
By PST Board

Added on 03 August 2017

 

The PST Board is pleased to announce that the takeover of Pompey has now completed. The PST Board, together with representatives from the Presidents, the Club and Tornante have worked diligently over the last 2 months to come to a final agreement that is in accordance with the Terms Sheet presented to members and to provide the Heritage and Advisory Board with the best foundation for a successful future.

We can confirm the following details of the sale:

  • Pompey is now a subsidiary of Portsmouth FC LLC, a US company which is owned by Tornante

  • The PST received £1000 per share in payment

  • The Presidents either received £1000 per share or took the option of a contingent payment as outlined in the Term Sheet, or a combination thereof

  • £10m has been placed under the control of the football club, this takes the form of equity

  • The Club has issued a single Heritage Share to a new company Pompey Heritage Share Co Ltd, which carries the veto rights over name, colours and stadium location as outlined in the Term Sheet. This company has subsequently become a subsidiary of the Club.

  • The directors of Pompey Heritage Share Co Ltd form the Heritage and Advisory Board, and this will consist of 3 representatives from the PST Board, 3 Presidents, 2 Club Executives and 2 Tornante Executives.

  • PST representatives will serve a one year term and can be reappointed each subsequent year.

  • The Presidents representatives will serve 3 year terms by rotation with a 2 year hiatus before being able to be reappointed.

  • The Heritage and Advisory Board will provide recommendations on the following areas

    • ticket pricing (including season ticket, membership and individual ticket prices);

    • the appropriateness of sponsors of the Club;

    • the on-field performance of the Club;

    • any plans for the development of Fratton Park or any future stadium of the Club;

    • appropriate match-day privileges for Presidents and the members of the PST;

    • any proposed material change or redesign of the crest of the Club; and

    • the manner in which broader engagement with all the stakeholders of the Club is conducted;

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Paulp74

    9

  • Smithee

    9

  • NANOJAMBO

    7

  • Francis Albert

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Smithee said:

Yeah, investment. And investment means paying it back, plus interest.

 

No ta, and good luck convincing 90%

Paying back with interest? A bit like with Ann? Not to the mention the rest of the £12m the fans have paid without getting what they "invested" in.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Paying back with interest? A bit like with Ann? Not to the mention the rest of the £12m the fans have paid without getting what they "invested" in.

 

They won’t get it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Paying back with interest? A bit like with Ann? Not to the mention the rest of the £12m the fans have paid without getting what they "invested" in.

 

What are you on about now? Ann saved the club and needed paid back, while we've been contributing without expecting a penny back.

None of this is external investment creating debt to take us to some wonderful next level

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jbee647 said:

If results are poor and they see the club’s results and league standings deteriorate long term you might find it surprising how quickly you can convince 90%

 

You're more likely to be surprised by how difficult it is to get to 90%.

 

7 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Can’t disagree with any points you make. Any investment must be long term.

 

Queens Park are interesting, perpetual amateurs, playing at low levels, never expected to progress higher. All associated with QP happy with their high standards and integrity. Well respected club by all in football. 
 

Them shock, they turn professional, something that was a surprise for most football folk.

 

Are those associated with QP happy about such a huge change?

 

Never say never ....

 

♥️♥️♥️♥️

 

Yes they went through large change, no I don't know how those associated feel, but I know that I won't be voting for private ownership for Hearts and I'd put solid money that there's more than 10% that feel that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

Conflicted over this. A good private owner would be fine by me, especially since FOH have shown themselves to be a bunch of incompetent, spineless arse lickers.

 

The trouble is, private owners can be like Budge thinks football clubs are like the WI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their was someone who first came up with the idea of FOH can’t remember his name but listened to him on the radio promoting it and was very impressed at the time. For whatever reason after it all went through he disappeared. Of all the comments about the FOH reps got me thinking about how passionately he spoke and why he stepped down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, johnking123 said:

Still more of a fan the 50+1 ownership  Germany has. 

 

Yeah, this would be my preference. I'd love someone pretty wealthy to get behind us and sponsor stadium name/kits etc. in exchange for some decent investment. Happy to forgo a chunk of the club to them and for the FOH to adopt a passive role whilst retaining a majority.  (or alternatively them taking a passive role in the running of the club like JA). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
7 hours ago, davemclaren said:

They won’t get it?

7 years and £12m and they haven't got it yet and still don't know when they will.

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, johnking123 said:

Still more of a fan the 50+1 ownership  Germany has. 

It wasn't my preferred choice to begin with, but agree now that that would be the best format.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith's right boot

Only if it was a rich Hearts fan. 

 

No to Easter European financial backers and dodgy American del boys. 

Depends on the buyer. 

 

 

 

Edited by Smith's right boot
Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
3 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

You're more likely to be surprised by how difficult it is to get to 90%.

 

 

Yes they went through large change, no I don't know how those associated feel, but I know that I won't be voting for private ownership for Hearts and I'd put solid money that there's more than 10% that feel that way.

It is true we are now in a position where 10% of a minority of Hearts fans can frustrate any change in Hearts ownership. 

Whether over time that will be better for Hearts than the 130 years or so of private ownership, time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stevie1874 said:

Their was someone who first came up with the idea of FOH can’t remember his name but listened to him on the radio promoting it and was very impressed at the time. For whatever reason after it all went through he disappeared. Of all the comments about the FOH reps got me thinking about how passionately he spoke and why he stepped down. 

Was it Ian Murray? He was quite involved with FOH at the outset but presume due to his political career, he had to take a back seat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Paulp74 said:

Was it Ian Murray? He was quite involved with FOH at the outset but presume due to his political career, he had to take a back seat.

No it was a guy called Mackie who set up FoH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
3 hours ago, Smithee said:

What are you on about now? Ann saved the club and needed paid back, while we've been contributing without expecting a penny back.

None of this is external investment creating debt to take us to some wonderful next level

Ann "needed" paying back? 

And although we didn't expect a penny back, a competently run football club would be nice to have. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, this would be my preference. I'd love someone pretty wealthy to get behind us and sponsor stadium name/kits etc. in exchange for some decent investment. Happy to forgo a chunk of the club to them and for the FOH to adopt a passive role whilst retaining a majority.  (or alternatively them taking a passive role in the running of the club like JA). 

Why could someone not do that without having ownership? A James Anderson character could sponsor the stadium and be involved behind the scenes, without owning the club. But we as fans/FOH would still have some control over it and would only be looking out for what'sbest for the club. So if he tried to push things too far and move us to murrayfield for instance, we could block it.

 

You only want to be an owner if you want to have more control over the running of the club, or you have some other ulterior motive, such as getting your hands on the stadium or making a fast buck. (Or you are mega wealthy like the man c owner and want to play championship manager for real!)

Edited by Paulp74
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cade said:

Absolutely not.

It always, always results in an ego trip, a huge disconnect with the fans and utter chaos both on and off the pitch.

 

 

This.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
34 minutes ago, EIEIO said:

No it was a guy called Mackie who set up FoH.

Ian Murray's book about FOH suggests Mackie was a somewhat disruptive and even negative influence in the later development of FOH.

 

The idea that fan ownership won't involve egos and rivalries getting in the way is a bit naive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
Just now, Francis Albert said:

Ian Murray's book about FOH suggests Mackie was a somewhat disruptive and even negative influence in the later development of FOH.

 

The idea that fan ownership won't involve egos and rivalries getting in the way is a bit naive.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Smithee said:

What are you on about now? Ann saved the club and needed paid back, while we've been contributing without expecting a penny back.

None of this is external investment creating debt to take us to some wonderful next level

 

Without the substantial external investment that's taken us to the wonderful next level of the 1st division we'd be doing so with something ridiculous like £15mill debt. It's not like we're this fantastically run club Ann Budge makes out we are. We only break even when the begging bowl gets passed round at Ann's billionaire dinner party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FTH said:

 

Without the substantial external investment that's taken us to the wonderful next level of the 1st division we'd be doing so with something ridiculous like £15mill debt. It's not like we're this fantastically run club Ann Budge makes out we are. We only break even when the begging bowl gets passed round at Ann's billionaire dinner party.

For some weird reason , there are still people out there who refuse to recognise this. 

The club's been living beyond its means for years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FTH said:

 

Without the substantial external investment that's taken us to the wonderful next level of the 1st division we'd be doing so with something ridiculous like £15mill debt. It's not like we're this fantastically run club Ann Budge makes out we are. We only break even when the begging bowl gets passed round at Ann's billionaire dinner party.

 

Cool, I still haven't seen anything that convinces me we need to get into debt 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Ian Murray's book about FOH suggests Mackie was a somewhat disruptive and even negative influence in the later development of FOH.

 

The idea that fan ownership won't involve egos and rivalries getting in the way is a bit naive. 

Ian Murray's book did indeed imply that , talking of egos , however without Mackie there is no FoH.

For all his alleged faults we could do with someone like Mackie at the top of the FoH today rather than the yes men and women currently sitting with their feet under that table.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

Yes. When someone is investing their own money they demand standards. We are like a charity funded  bowling club. 

 

Barcelona might disagree with that opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, johnking123 said:

Still more of a fan the 50+1 ownership  Germany has. 


Interesting that the German fan model keeps cropping up. Lets not forget that the biggest majority of Bundesliga clubs have major sponsorship...Bayer, VW, Red Bull, Telekom...etc. These major investors pour cash into the clubs. Most of these sponsors also have a significant presence in the cities where their teams play.

Fan ownership would stand a chance if some of the major companies located or headquartered, say for example in Edinburgh showed a bit more interest, or at least reinvested in their local communities. 
 

Edited by Hashimoto
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Smithee said:

What are you on about now? Ann saved the club and needed paid back, while we've been contributing without expecting a penny back.

None of this is external investment creating debt to take us to some wonderful next level

Didnt she get interest plus kept nearly 20% holding in the club (is my understanding). Not to mention what her brother's building company managed to get through his family connections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Glamorgan Jambo
3 hours ago, EIEIO said:

Ian Murray's book did indeed imply that , talking of egos , however without Mackie there is no FoH.

For all his alleged faults we could do with someone like Mackie at the top of the FoH today rather than the yes men and women currently sitting with their feet under that table.

 

Pretty sure it was Alex Mackie who wrote the spiel for the FOH EGM last year arguing against changing the supermajority for sale from 90% to 75%. He knows how to construct a written argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So along comes Sheik al bottomless pockets who wants to buy us, or let’s say someone came along from Baillie Gifford...but we’ve still got fans who would turn him away, and think we’d be better off being fan owned(not run) with SPFL scraps and some FOH subs. Give me strength!! 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cb1874 said:

So along comes Sheik al bottomless pockets who wants to buy us, or let’s say someone came along from Baillie Gifford...but we’ve still got fans who would turn him away, and think we’d be better off being fan owned(not run) with SPFL scraps and some FOH subs. Give me strength!! 
 

We generate £14m turnover a year so it's hardly scraps. Far more than livi, st j and Motherwell, who have fared far better than us over the past 5 years. 

 

Would you want some apparently rich sheik coming along, strip the club of all its assets, sell tynecastle and move us out to the middle of nowhere? Or, more likely, a Ron the con that the hobos have?? Fan ownership is a more attractive and safer option to me. And we're putting £2m a year in and not looking for anything back, other than our club being run properly, which it currently isn't. I can't see any other rich owner doing that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much chance of getting an arsehole as there is of getting someone with our interests at heart. Vlad,Pieman The Oystons,The guy that ran Darlington into the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paulp74 said:

We generate £14m turnover a year so it's hardly scraps. Far more than livi, st j and Motherwell, who have fared far better than us over the past 5 years. 

 

Would you want some apparently rich sheik coming along, strip the club of all its assets, sell tynecastle and move us out to the middle of nowhere? Or, more likely, a Ron the con that the hobos have?? Fan ownership is a more attractive and safer option to me. And we're putting £2m a year in and not looking for anything back, other than our club being run properly, which it currently isn't. I can't see any other rich owner doing that. 

It may be safer, yes...but more attractive? Not for me.

Who said every private owner/investor has to be an asset stripper or next Ron the Con? 
BTW, in modern football terms...14m IS scraps. Is earning more than Livi or Motherwell the limit of your ambition? 

Edited by cb1874
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cb1874 said:

It may be safer, yes...but more attractive? Not for me.

Who said every private owner/investor has to be an asset stripper or next Ron the Con? 
BTW, in modern football terms...14m IS scraps. Is earning more than Livi or Motherwell the limit of your ambition? 

They don't need to be an arsehole, they could be a well meaning fool.

 

But anyway, there's no real conversation to have until there's an offer, but it would have to be an utterly spectacular offer to convince me.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cb1874 said:

It may be safer, yes...but more attractive? Not for me.

Who said every private owner/investor has to be an asset stripper or next Ron the Con? 
BTW, in modern football terms...14m IS scraps. Is earning more than Livi or Motherwell the limit of your ambition? 

By the same token, who says every private owner is a rich sheikh?? I would say there are more dodgy Ron the con type owners then roman abramovich's! 

 

£14m is loads by Scottish football standards and means challenging for 3rd every season, with regular cup semis and finals should be a given. And who knows, managed properly, some European runs and giving the OF a run for their money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Psychedelicropcircle
11 hours ago, EIEIO said:

Private ownership has not served us well where it matters most ,on the pitch, for the past 5 seasons.

Nor have we been anything other than private ownership so could the op remove “again”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...