Darthter 542 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 What's the big deal with Fan Ownership??? If given the opportunity, what would fans bring to the Boardroom, and the day to day business running of the club??? What is the big benefit to the club if it is owned by the fans??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 What's the big deal with Fan Ownership??? If given the opportunity, what would fans bring to the Boardroom, and the day to day business running of the club??? What is the big benefit to the club if it is owned by the fans??? IMO nothing that the current fans trusts don't do atm. Just because the views would be put across in a boardroom instead of a, well covered, press release doesn't mean there would be anymore action on those views than there is now. I think that having so many fan organisations as we do now just proves that all fans cannot be kept happy.. they all have differing opinions on Rangers matters (which I believe is a good thing) but if only 1 could be represented at board level then that would cause disruption, again only my opinion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 IMO nothing that the current fans trusts don't do atm. Just because the views would be put across in a boardroom instead of a, well covered, press release doesn't mean there would be anymore action on those views than there is now. I think that having so many fan organisations as we do now just proves that all fans cannot be kept happy.. they all have differing opinions on Rangers matters (which I believe is a good thing) but if only 1 could be represented at board level then that would cause disruption, again only my opinion. As you say a spread of opinions is good - I'd go further and say lively debate and argument is good - the thing that matters most is the structure of fan participation. I'd argue the only worthwhile structure is the old style Soviets, with every board member accompanied by a couple of delegates who made sure the board member wasn't ignoring his or her mandate. The board members would have to change at regular intervals as would the delegates. There would be regular meetings of us 'lesser shareholders' where the minutes were given of the board meetings. There's lots of ways to ensure our needs are met and our concerns addressed but for me the most important thing is that there's continual change of personnel to ensure we don't get certain people hugging power and doing a Joe Stalin! Some may say "look what happened to the Russian soviets but the simple answer to that is how could their Soviets have developed and grown in confidence when the Whites and counter revolutionaries where occupying most of their time and killing the workers! All about structure - same as team tactics, variation is important to ensure everyone is heard and not just those with imposing personalities. WE'D ALL HAVE A PART TO PLAY. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 I'd go further and say lively debate and argument is good Providing that an outcome is achieved!!!! Lets not forget the old saying: Too many cooks, spoil the Broth!!!! How many other industries have customer representation on their boards??? Do Sainsbury's, M&S, Amazon etc. Yet they still listen to their customers (Fans??) and do what it required. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Providing that an outcome is achieved!!!! Lets not forget the old saying: Too many cooks, spoil the Broth!!!! How many other industries have customer representation on their boards??? Do Sainsbury's, M&S, Amazon etc. Yet they still listen to their customers (Fans??) and do what it required. The outcome is always achieved by democratic decision making - if fans only own 25% of the club they should expect 25% of the vote. As for fans that buy season tickets or go to a handful of games, they should have Reps too because no one who puts money into Rangers should be ignored. As for these stores / businesses I'm totally against the analogy. If Rangers FC were a simple business the store would have went bust long ago - tell me of a branch of Tesco that allows outsiders too come in and call the 'customers' dirty orange barstools, or would sit back while newspapers and scumbags like Keevins etc continually slate their customers? Customers of stores get something material for parting with cash - what we get in return for parting with cash is something completely different Darthter... ;-) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted April 18, 2012 Author Share Posted April 18, 2012 Customers of stores get something material for parting with cash - what we get in return for parting with cash is something completely different Darthter... ;-) You go into an establishment, you pay your money, you get a product. Whether that product is a tangible item ie a tin of beans, or whether its an experience ie seeing a film....the idea is exactly the same. Fans pay their money & they get to see their team play - simple. As for businesses getting abuse - happens on a daily basis. Members of staff are forever getting verbally abused by customers - and 9/10 the staff have to nod & smile politely!!! As for newspapers, I don't tend to read trade media (not being in the trade), but I'm sure businesses up & down the country get slated inthe trade publications for various reason - unfortunately for a football team, daily newspapers would come under the "trade" banner. I'm still not seeing ANY argument as to why fan ownership/involvement is a bonus for the well being of the club!!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I'm still not seeing ANY argument as to why fan ownership/involvement is a bonus for the well being of the club!!!! I'd have thought this was obvious - you don't get one man running the show behind closed doors and just doing what he likes with the club. The proof of the pudding is where we are now after SDM and CW. To put it in another context: would you rather have our parliamentary system or Zimbabwe's? Ours is flawed but it's still a lot better than a virtual dictatorship and the leader here can be voted out... There you go, there's an argument, you've now seen one. But I'm sure you've actually seen it before. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted April 18, 2012 Author Share Posted April 18, 2012 I'd have thought this was obvious - you don't get one man running the show behind closed doors and just doing what he likes with the club. The proof of the pudding is where we are now after SDM and CW. To put it in another context: would you rather have our parliamentary system or Zimbabwe's? Ours is flawed but it's still a lot better than a virtual dictatorship and the leader here can be voted out... There you go, there's an argument, you've now seen one. But I'm sure you've actually seen it before. I would describe that as an argument against a single owner. It doesn't completely cover consortium ownership. Also, you could have an elected board without fan ownership or fan involvement in day-to-day business. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 An interesting piece dealing with aspects of this subject from Richard Wilson in The Herald More than a club What is a football club? It is, of course, the team that performs each week, but also, crucially, the connection between those players who represent the club at any given time and the supporters who turn up to watch them. There is a business around that relationship, to manage the income and spending it generates, but in the growing commercialisation of the game in the last 25 years, something essential has been lost. It is a common understanding of what a football club is. They are not conventional businesses; most clubs struggle to break even, let alone make any profits. As money flooded into Europe's top leagues in the last two decades, mainly in the form of ever-rising television deals, it became accepted, particularly in the media, to declare that clubs should be run more like big firms, that the commercial values of city boardrooms should be applied to football. Yet this was a mistake, with the consequences evident from the number of clubs now struggling to manage their debts. When a business goes bust, it affects staff and any other firms that are trading partners. Customers often barely register the change as they turn to different suppliers. When a football club's existence is threatened, it directly impacts on the supporters, who have made financial investments in their ongoing purchasing of tickets and merchandise, but also an emotional outlay that is of greater worth to them as individuals. It is their club, to them it exists not to trade on the stock market or generate dividends, but to provide a source of communal identity; it is a social entity, rooted in its local area and so a significant expression of that community's sense of worth. Football clubs are social and cultural institutions. They exist, in effect, because of the support and patronage of their community of supporters, which is why they should be run for and by their fans. They should be mutually owned, not-for-profit organisations. Rangers are the most extreme example of how this perspective has been lost to economic imperatives. The club has been pushed into administration by the extravagant over-spending of Sir David Murray then the opportunism of Craig Whyte. Murray also presided over a boardroom culture that was prepared to rely on a tax avoidance scheme that now sees the club potentially facing a £24m tax bill with possible additional penalties and interest. This short-term thinking was applied to seek a sporting advantage, but it has almost betrayed the club's existence. Yet it is not Murray, or Whyte, or any of the directors whose roles involved taking corporate responsibility for the safeguarding of the club, who are suffering financially now. It is the supporters who are suffering, because of the crisis that has engulfed their club but also the awareness that since Rangers can be traded like any other company, there is nothing to prevent reckless or underhand owners taking control. Too many clubs are currently sustained by the ongoing financial support of a single individual. In some cases – such as Chelsea and Manchester City – this is stable arrangement, but for the majority of teams it is unsustainable in the long-term. Football clubs are worth more to their community than to their owners as shares or revenue-generating concerns. This should be reflected in how they are owned. Across Europe and beyond, many high-profile, competitive and economically successful sporting organisations are owned, and in many cases run, by their supporters. There is enough variety in the different models – from the membership schemes common in Spain, Portugal and Germany to the Supporters Trust movement that has grown in popularity in the UK, with fan representatives included on the board – for individual clubs to adopt ownership structures that suit their needs. Of the three bidders interested in buying Rangers, only the Blue Knights offer a form of fan involvement in the governance of the club, but that is not as comprehensive as it might be. Stirling Albion are fully owned by their supporters, and Motherwell are making progress towards the same outcome, and there is no reason why Rangers could not follow suit. Fan ownership – probably involving a one member, one vote scheme that votes on the composition of the board – would re-engage supporters with their clubs. Rangers do not suffer from a lack of fan commitment, but there is a wider global fan-base that the club struggles to monetise. Offering membership to the Rangers fans in the Scottish and Irish diaspora would be a way to generate income from people who cannot attend matches on a regular basis; it would also prompt a greater tolerance among the fans during the inevitable period of slow, painstaking rebuilding that will be required however the club emerges from administration. Supporters, of all clubs, used to understand the transaction of their loyalty: paying at the gate funded the team. That has been distorted in the rush to embrace television and other revenue streams. Yet without the fans, there is no club. The game needs to be rebalanced, because once lost, supporters do not return. For clubs to survive for another century, they need to be returned, in whole, to their fans. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/more-than-a-club.17341179 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
capstans 0 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 In Real and Barca's case a combined debt of over £1 billion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.