FAN OWNERSHIP POLL

[Fred Elliot]

Fan ownership will never happen here.

The most I could ever hope for would be co-opted representation

[horlock07]

I'd like to see the club wholly owned by fans who then appoint a board to actually run the club. This is due to most fans being fuckwits who would bankrupt the club in weeks given the opportunity.

Then the fans fall out with the board for not spending enough!

Just sadly can't see it happening here without some expertise and backing to the Trust.  Where it does seem to have worked its where they have got on board with investors and businesses,  we nearly reached that state with Power.

[london_red]

As mentioned on the other thread, has to be (b)...à la Bundesliga.  German clubs are run by the fans, for the fans.  Sadly, we are where we are, and I can't see how we could emulate that given where we are now.

Even that isn't a panacea though. The German way has got a lot of press recently, and they do a lot of things right but it's not all rosy, particularly in their lower divisions. Give this a quick perusal

http://www.soccernomics-agency.com/?p=457

Key paragraph -

4. Insolvency and financial problems.

Judging from some press reports you might imagine no German clubs ever faced financial problems and that insolvency is unknown. But according to a recent article in Der Spiegl 32 German sports clubs filed for bankruptcy last year – and most of them would have had a football team. Currently Alemannia Aachen is facing closure, VfB Lubeck is looking for a bail-out from the league and Kickers Offenbach is looking for a bail-out from the local government (which might be illegal under EU rules). Just as in England, where all the insolvencies other than Portsmouth have been in the lower divisions, the smaller clubs struggle financially. And even the big German clubs have struggled. Mighty Dortmund had to be bailed out, in part by a loan from Bayern (imagine that Chelsea had only been able to play in the final last year because Manchester United had given them a soft loan ten years ago- all hell would have broken loose). Schalke 04 overspent and borrowed against future ticket income ten years ago and were only saved by a very generous sponsorship deal with the Russian sugar daddy energy company Gazprom.

[Arriba]

I can't imagine too many businessmen queuing up to part with their money with a load of eggs in replica shirts with their name on dictating how's it's spent (spunked)

[PetsWinPrizes]

I can't imagine too many businessmen queuing up to part with their money with a load of eggs in replica shirts with their name on dictating how's it's spent (spunked)

That's probably not how it would work though is it? The idea of all fans voting on all decisions isn't practical, the failure of the 'MyFootballClub' project showed that. What would happen under fan ownership is that there would be a board running the club, as there is now.

The difference is this board, or at least part of it if it was co-ownership, would be elected annually by the fans through the Trust using a one member one vote system. This board, or at least the elected members, would therefore be totally accountable to the fans.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

That's probably not how it would work though is it? The idea of all fans voting on all decisions isn't practical, the failure of the 'MyFootballClub' project showed that. What would happen under fan ownership is that there would be a board running the club, as there is now.

The difference is this board, or at least part of it if it was co-ownership, would be elected annually by the fans through the Trust using a one member one vote system. This board, or at least the elected members, would therefore be totally accountable to the fans.

This!

[Simon Pieman]

I'm honestly not arsed anymore, I just want the club to be run properly and an open dialogue between the fans and club without the bullshit in between.

[PetsWinPrizes]

I'm honestly not arsed anymore, I just want the club to be run properly and an open dialogue between the fans and club without the bullshit in between.

With Trust ownership or part ownership there would have to be an open dialogue, or the directors wouldn't be re elected.

[Arriba]

I'm honestly not arsed anymore, I just want the club to be run properly and an open dialogue between the fans and club without the bullshit in between.

Never happend before and no signs of it changing.

[Simon Pieman]

With Trust ownership or part ownership there would have to be an open dialogue, or the directors wouldn't be re elected.

Could the fans run the club properly though? I fear the majority of fans would choose to keep Matt Ritchie and go bust instead.

Never happend before and no signs of it changing.

Untrue, when Fitton was chairman there was a great dialogue with fans and a high transparency.

[Arriba]

Untrue, when Fitton was chairman there was a great dialogue with fans and a high transparency.

to a degree yes, but plenty of bullshit inbetween, secrecy etc imo

[thepeoplesgame]

As Pets has pointed out, it's not like every potential player sale would go to a popular vote. Those elected to the club's board would have a duty to act responsibly, as the club's board has that duty now, the difference being that if they didn't they could be voted off by the supporters and replaced.

As many people have intimated, the ideal would have been for the Trust to have secured an interest in the club while we had the broadly sympathetic Fitton and Wray in charge. The Trust did in fact increase its shareholding significantly during that period, with a view to increasing it further with the assistance of the club, only to see it all but wiped out in the end by Andrew Black as he sought to dilute the holdings of his fellow owners. However, Trust membership was at a spectacular low during the good times, and it is hard for a chairman - however sympathetic - to give serious consideration to offering any level of official influence to a group that at the time could claim to speak for less than 0.5% of the greater Swindon supporter base (if we assume that to be the 30,000 or so who go to Wembley).

Whatever anyone thinks of the current or past or future owners of the club, anyone interested in fan representation at board level needs to join the Trust. It isn't going to happen any other way, and only when it has a membership numbered in the 1000s can it claim with any legitimacy to represent a significant cross-section of the Swindon fanbase.

[iffy]

Swansea model would be ideal (so b). A consortium of businessmen who are fans of the club leading it sensibly for the long term, with meaningful fan representation.

[ahounsell]

The main problem is the enormous apathy of the vast majority of fans. Even when the club was on the brink of insolvency only about 1,000 fans could be mustered to join the Trust. In good times you're probably looking at 250 tops.

You see the evidence of this all the time on here and elsewhere with comments on how the Trust should do this or that but invariably the posters refer to the Trust as "them" i.e. they want someone else to actually put the time in and have no intention of doing anything themselves, not even joining as a member.

Unless this changes, and I dont see any prospect of that happening, the most the Trust could achieve would be a small shareholding and maybe an elected rep on the club board. Even that is a long way off though.

The only scenario where fan ownership would be likely would be an AFC Wimbledon / Chester type situation where the club reforms at the bottom of the league pyramid.

[Reg Smeeton]

 I keep harping on about this, but up until the mid 80's we did in effect have fan ownership.

 Shares were sold, mostly in the works, so many fans became shareholders, and had a vote as in a Co-Op system of one share one vote.

 Directors then had to put themselves up for re-election, and could be voted off.  The complaint with the system by the mid 80's, was that it it discouraged anybody wishing to put money in and was expensive to administer, what with shareholders passing away. moving etc.

So it was changed to your shareholding carrying that number of votes.  At first, incoming Boards still paid a bit of lip service to the tradition....even the Board of SSW and Carson, showed some respect for long standing small shareholders....but ripping up of the democratic element was the worst thing the last Board did.  So the present lot whoever's left have no accountability whatsoever, other than to the sort of cyber world, we now seem to inhabit.