Jump to content

Fan Ownership Working Group


Springburnjag
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

Surely if the fans own the club there is less likelihood of an asset stripper taking over the club? Ironically this could have happened under the old model.....or have I missed something? Secondly if the club fails under fan ownership it fails. It's no different to any club that fails under a different model. The bottom line is that nothing is certain in football. 

No actually less. It’s effectively 1 entity (fan group) controlling and owning the club, rather than a dozen entities.

If the fan group cannot fund, maintain or run it, then it will need to be sold on (As happened at both Portsmouth and Dundee). This effectively has circumvented the controls put in place post STJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dl1971 said:

Maybe if the team improves more fans will buy in to pledging more money to the club? I would. So investment of a sort. Also further down the line could the fan ownership not sell a portion for external investment purposes? I accept that I dont have enough knowledge on that front. 

How much investment can 800 fans (1/2 our adult attendees) actually raise? Also will they increase this year on year in line or above inflation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

It can’t work as already the plan has approx 88% of shares, plus Jags Trust 8% only leaves 4% for additional investment (less small shareholders). 
We can no longer get external investment exec from the TFE sign up

Actually nothing precludes that happening the working could propose exactly that if it wished to 

and I take it you haven’t engaged 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Actually nothing precludes that happening the working could propose exactly that if it wished to 

and I take it you haven’t engaged 

The transfer of the 55% shares, plus PTFC Trust shares & Weirs shares only allow for a small % of shares to be purchased for additional investment unless we water down the shares to release more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norgethistle said:

The transfer of the 55% shares, plus PTFC Trust shares & Weirs shares only allow for a small % of shares to be purchased for additional investment unless we water down the shares to release more

Or Colin weir accepts the idea and offers a portion of his shares to other buyers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Big Col said:

Motherwell who lost almost £500,000 in the first year of full fan ownership. 

Funny you don’t give Hearts as an example.

Sorry for jumping in here but the transfer of ownership from Les Hutchison to The Well Society took place in October 2016.

The first year in full fan ownership was the 17/18 season which resulted in financials of record turnover and a profit of £1.72m: https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2018/11/28/2017-18-financial-results-announced/

Neither of those financial results have anything to do with fan ownership but rather are to do with the break-even business model and taking £1m+ in transfer fees and reaching 2 cup finals. For comparison Motherwell were posting losses when they were finishing 2nd in the league under McCall and with Leeann Dempster as CEO.

The c.£500k loss for last season was the second full season and the word from the AGM last week is that worst case projection for this season is that the club will be a cash neutral position.

There was a summary of the AGM over on SteelmenOnline: https://www.steelmenonline.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/16088-2019-financesagm/&do=findComment&comment=547937

Quote

Jim McMahon spoke of as positive a situation in a while. A "normal" situation. At worst case the club are in a position to finish tenth, have no player sales, have no cup runs and be able to knock back bids and still be able to cope with a loss for a year or so. 

Happily things are much more rosy than that the worst case next year will be a cash neutral position. 

That's after paying off the outstanding debt in roughly 3 years (c. £1.6m) to John Boyle and Les Hutchison (though including a write-off on the part of Hutchison). Ultimately the fact that Motherwell were able to absorb a £500k loss as a fan owned club is actually an endorsement of sorts.

Fwiw: this post from @Norgethistle nails it:

On 12/19/2019 at 6:45 PM, Norgethistle said:

That is the latest figure they provided of people that had signed up I have not heard another figure since then,  of that figure (as has happened with Hearts & Motherwell)  only around 40%  follow through and contribute, that figure will slowly drop of till the the regulars are left. Then hopefully it may slowly climb over time.

Motherwell had over 5000 sign up, but actually only started with 1200 contributing and have over years got this to 2100 with a big push to try and meet and sustain 2500 by end of next year. The “double your money” initiative helped greatly to swell the numbers. Motherwell have 4500 season tickets.

The foundation of Hearts has leveled at around 8000 members after 9 years which is incredible, but Hearts are a big club in Scotland. They have 14000 season ticket holders.

Both these clubs have had a long term phased in plan to slowly in stages take over the club, also with both of these clubs being in admin at the time has driven momentum.

On both of these clubs there was a ground swell to do this to save the club, a long term plan, plus a large buy in from their communities where to an extent they are only team around. We are trying to do this in 12 weeks without building up momentum or even starting to take contributions 

I can't speak about Hearts/FOH but The Well Society as a vehicle had been around from the Boyle/Dempster days (as far back as the turn of the decade https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/17588327) largely because Boyle wanted to sell up but couldn't find a buyer however there was no real momentum. Les Hutchison took over the club in 2014 and there was supposed to be a 5 year plan in place however he bailed just over a year later in March 2016 you can read about it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35826768

The key part as @Norgethistle highlights is that "a long term phased in plan to slowly in stages take over the club" had been in place. Hutchison handed over a loan of something close to £1.6m that was variously invested initially in keeping the club afloat and in the Premiership but also saw investment in the commercial, academy, medical and strength and conditioning departments.

The point at which Hutchison handed over was after the business had been restructured and investment made, he spoke about it in the BBC article above:

Quote

"[The club] is extremely close [to break even]. In recent months, the player budget has been reduced dramatically, we've been able to sign some really excellent younger players on longer-term contracts, which reduces costs because you don't have to buy a much more experienced player, we've significantly reduced the medical bills by the introduction of the sports scientist.

"We could do with a little bit of a boost on the commercial side, but we have that pipeline of young talent coming through which would give the opportunity for additional transfer income.

It wasn't simply a case of taking ownership then 12 weeks later saying "go do fan-ownership lads" it took a fairly ruthless (and informed) approach to restructuring the business to make it work.

The fact that Motherwell have a competent CEO in Alan Burrows is probably one of the key factors in the model being viable. Just because it works at Fir Park doesn't mean it'll work at Firhill.

Fans are right to be sceptical and really it's up to those pushing the model to convince them that it's a viable business model. Simply saying fan-ownership is the only show in town doesn't really cut it.

Anyway, apologies for jumping on your thread and the length of the post.

Edited by capt_oats
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Sorry for jumping in here but the transfer of ownership from Les Hutchison to The Well Society took place in October 2016.

The first year in full fan ownership was the 17/18 season which resulted in financials of record turnover and a profit of £1.72m: https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2018/11/28/2017-18-financial-results-announced/

Neither of those financial results have anything to do with fan ownership but rather are to do with the break-even business model and taking £1m+ in transfer fees and reaching 2 cup finals. For comparison Motherwell were posting losses when they were finishing 2nd in the league under McCall and with Leeann Dempster as CEO.

The c.£500k loss for last season was the second full season and the word from the AGM last week is that worst case projection for this season is that the club will be a cash neutral position.

There was a summary of the AGM over on SteelmenOnline: https://www.steelmenonline.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/16088-2019-financesagm/&do=findComment&comment=547937

That's after paying off the outstanding debt inside in 3 years (c. £1.6m) to John Boyle and Les Hutchison (though including a write-off on the part of Hutchison). Ultimately the fact that Motherwell were able to absorb a £500k loss as a fan owned club is actually an endorsement of sorts.

Fwiw: this post from @Norgethistle nails it:

I can't speak about Hearts/FOH but The Well Society as a vehicle had been around from the Boyle/Dempster days (as far back as the turn of the decade https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/17588327) largely because Boyle wanted to sell up but couldn't find a buyer however there was no real momentum. Les Hutchison took over the club in 2014 and there was supposed to be a 5 year plan in place however he bailed just over a year later in March 2016 you can read about it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35826768

The key part as @Norgethistle highlights is that "a long term phased in plan to slowly in stages take over the club" had been in place. Hutchison handed over a loan of something close to £1.6m that was variously invested initially in keeping the club afloat and in the Premiership but also saw investment in the commercial, academy, medical and strength and conditioning departments.

The point at which Hutchison handed over was after the business had been restructured and investment made, he spoke about it in the BBC article above:

It wasn't simply a case of taking ownership then 12 weeks later saying "go do fan-ownership lads" it took a fairly ruthless (and informed) approach to restructuring the business to make it work.

The fact that Motherwell have a competent CEO in Alan Burrows is probably one of the key factors in the model being viable for Motherwell. Just because it works at Fir Park doesn't mean it'll work at Firhill.

Fans are right to be sceptical and really it's up to those pushing the model to convince them that it's a viable business model. Simply saying fan-ownership is the only show in town doesn't really cut it.

Anyway, apologies for jumping on your thread and the length of the post.

Thanks for a great post....but isn’t possible that in 12 weeks the model/plan proposed could very well be a Motherwell style approach phased over say 2 year period ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference being we don't need to payback a benefactor. 

Still that doesn't alter the fact that a phased move to fan ownership based on the club running within its means and to a water-tight constitution could be a better option.

The 3 months timetable seems to be the first major obstacle.  We've basically been told about other options at home and worldwide. 

I feel this has a sense of being rushed through and that doesn't bode well.

I hope I'm proved wrong but we may well have the shares held by 3BC for a lot longer than 3 months. 

Cheers for the input @capt_oats Probably the best post we've had on the matter. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

The plan is to hand the shares and control to the fans group in 12 weeks, not 2 years

That is the goal....But what the plan is to get there is what has to be developed and it’s possible a phased approach will be adopted indeed it was the Motherwell model that was referred to 

anyway if you don’t get involved we may never know 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dl1971 said:

Surely if the fans own the club there is less likelihood of an asset stripper taking over the club? Ironically this could have happened under the old model.....or have I missed something? Secondly if the club fails under fan ownership it fails. It's no different to any club that fails under a different model. The bottom line is that nothing is certain in football. 

The exact opposite - there is a higher chance that with no external Investor that we run into Cashflow issues - the options are therefore to sell it onto a Private Owner ( as happened at Dundee or the other possibility is Administration and it will defo go into an Assett  Stripper its an Urban Myth that Fan Ownership somehow gives us better protection  

"if the club fails under fan ownership it fails" so you would rather have the Club disappear to satisfy your obsession with Fan Ownership than have a Model that gives us stability - Yes Clubs Fail under different Models but for the last 10 Years most Scottish Clubs have  been financially stable with the exception of Rangers - which was the result of decisions take over a decade ago  - to sell Fan Ownership as a Model that has less risk is frankly Nonsense  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, javeajag said:

If you know the current state of our finances tell us ....if you don’t then  you are speculating because 7 months have passed since the agm and we don’t know what has happened 

what I don’t get is the link between fan ownership and this as it occurred under non fan ownership!

It was in September - there has been No Significant incomes beyond projections and nor any reductions in Overhead 

The difference is under Fan Ownership we cannot get Investors nor are we going to attract the type of people who turned the Club around eg Beattie - Billy Allan - Grieg Brown  - a small Club needs people on the Board with the level of Contacts that can pull in favours - we basically are betting on Colin Weir 

As you have pointed out - previously No one person owned the Club - Colin Weir has 60% of the Shares - in these circumstances the Owner Funds the Club - in our rather bizarre set of circumstances TFE backed by the Thistle Trust decided we were having Fan Ownership 

No discussion on what was best for the Club - it was decided - people talk about Fans having a say - part of that say should be if we want Fan Ownership in the first place and be clear regards the inherent risks 

Not once have you pointed out that this carries a massive risk to PTFC  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

That is the goal....But what the plan is to get there is what has to be developed and it’s possible a phased approach will be adopted indeed it was the Motherwell model that was referred to 

anyway if you don’t get involved we may never know 

Maybe people dont get involved because they believe its wrong and shouldnt happen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

Actually nothing precludes that happening the working could propose exactly that if it wished to 

and I take it you haven’t engaged 

Why "engage" we are being told by TFE we are getting Fan Ownership - No other option was considered - Paul Goodwin and his Gang decided what was best for the Future of Partick Thistle   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

That is the goal....But what the plan is to get there is what has to be developed and it’s possible a phased approach will be adopted indeed it was the Motherwell model that was referred to 

anyway if you don’t get involved we may never know 

Why does someone have to “get involved” in order to have an opinion? This - along with asking people what their plans are - seems to be your default response to any scrutiny of what’s happening.

People will have many legitimate reasons for not getting actively involved, they should still be permitted a say on here (or elsewhere) about the future of their club. You also don’t have to have a fully formed plan for the future of the club in order to have an opinion about what’s going on at the moment - you can be concerned and critical of certain aspects whilst also not actually knowing what other options might be. It’s really tiresome reading your responses to this that don’t seem to engage with much of the substance of what’s being said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, KemoAvdiu said:

Why does someone have to “get involved” in order to have an opinion? This - along with asking people what their plans are - seems to be your default response to any scrutiny of what’s happening.

People will have many legitimate reasons for not getting actively involved, they should still be permitted a say on here (or elsewhere) about the future of their club. You also don’t have to have a fully formed plan for the future of the club in order to have an opinion about what’s going on at the moment - you can be concerned and critical of certain aspects whilst also not actually knowing what other options might be. It’s really tiresome reading your responses to this that don’t seem to engage with much of the substance of what’s being said. 

Sure you can have an opinion I have mine but asking me questions isn’t going to get an answer from the people involved ... all I’m suggesting is that people email their questions and questions to the working group or contact Tom Hosie for example 

being critical on here is fine but ain’t going to get us further forward 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

This is spot on

I get you and jj don’t like fan ownership and never have and supported the consortium ...your ideas now seem to be 

1 sell 49% if the club to investors ( not clear who they are or if they exist ) giving fans control of 51% 

2 have a transitional period with a transitional board ( make sure business people are involved )

Personally I’m willing to consider both these ideas and others ....you have assumed they are out of bounds so are standing aside ... I’m not sure if have assumed that or been told it but I hope your nit just taking g the huff 

 

Link to comment
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.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...