Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Springburnjag

Fan Ownership Working Group

Recommended Posts

I see there are still tickets available for tonight’s event available at the door. Not sure if this is an indication of “buy in” as Caldwell sold these events out twice.

I had planned to be over for tonight, but due to unforeseen circumstance I have to be in Stavanger tomorrow morning so I miss this and the Primal Scream gig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

I see there are still tickets available for tonight’s event available at the door. Not sure if this is an indication of “buy in” as Caldwell sold these events out twice.

I had planned to be over for tonight, but due to unforeseen circumstance I have to be in Stavanger tomorrow morning so I miss this and the Primal Scream gig

Maybe it doesn’t mean anything as it’s 17 Dec ... I also would have been there 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Maybe it doesn’t mean anything as it’s 17 Dec ... I also would have been there 

Also only one weeks notice doesn’t help that and with a game on tonight as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Also only one weeks notice doesn’t help that and with a game on tonight as well

Sure but then they get criticised for nothing happening ... as usual can’t win 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Sure but then they get criticised for nothing happening ... as usual can’t win 

Sorry that’s BS. 
Giving 1 weeks notice to an event that’s happening on the same night as a Glasgow cup tie is poor organization, with a 6:30 start also makes it tricky for folk who work 9-5 outside the city.

How about they announce it last week for say 1st week in January so folk have ample time to attend and ensure there is no game scheduled, plus push it out till 7 to allow for folk to get there from work easily enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Sorry that’s BS. 
Giving 1 weeks notice to an event that’s happening on the same night as a Glasgow cup tie is poor organization, with a 6:30 start also makes it tricky for folk who work 9-5 outside the city.

How about they announce it last week for say 1st week in January so folk have ample time to attend and ensure there is no game scheduled, plus push it out till 7 to allow for folk to get there from work easily enough

You were in favour of the consortium and have been critical of this every step of the way and I don’t expect that to change 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, javeajag said:

You were in favour of the consortium and have been critical of this every step of the way and I don’t expect that to change 

I had a preference of the consortium over TFE, but a preference over the old board over the consortium.

Since set up of TFE it’s been smoke and mirrors, half truths and u-turns and not only from those running it but folk who were involved who have now departed quickly to those who have stated they are not involved publicly yet appear on the working group 4 weeks later.

Less than 10% of the fan base has signed up for this (less than signed up for Jagszone at inception), so they have to convince the 90% that this is right and engage and reach out to them clearly, openly and without guidance or direction from 3bc or it will fail faster than most are predicting 

Share this post


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

I had a preference of the consortium over TFE, but a preference over the old board over the consortium.

Since set up of TFE it’s been smoke and mirrors, half truths and u-turns and not only from those running it but folk who were involved who have now departed quickly to those who have stated they are not involved publicly yet appear on the working group 4 weeks later.

Less than 10% of the fan base has signed up for this (less than signed up for Jagszone at inception), so they have to convince the 90% that this is right and engage and reach out to them clearly, openly and without guidance or direction from 3bc or it will fail faster than most are predicting 

I think your proving my point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what did we learn from tonight?

The proposed (or preferred) model has not been put together yet.

When asked what happens if 3BC knock back the proposal, the answer was “that shouldn’t happen”. When asked again, the same answer was given.

When asked about financials and budgets etc, Mr Goodwin admitted he did not know the figures even though he was at the AGM.

A large number of attendees indicated that they would be pledgers

Likely that only those who pledge will be actual owners of the club 

The Motherwell model was mentioned many times by Mr Goodwin as being really good. Motherwell of course being the club today that announced an annual loss of over £400K and when challenged on this, Mr Goodwin had no answer other than we’ve to ask the Motherwell vice chairman who will be attending the next meeting

Volunteers are being sought to join the various working groups (as per website announcement today)

Less than 90 days to get a fully costed and legally proper proposal together to present to 3BC. If an extension is needed, then 3BC will continue to run the club

On the whole, no detailed info and I don’t think I’m any further forward. My personal opinion remains extremely sceptical.

Any questions about tonight, please ask and I’ll try my best to answer.

Edited by Big Col
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Big Col said:

So what did we learn from tonight?

The proposed (or preferred) model has not been put together yet.

When asked what happens if 3BC knock back the proposal, the answer was “that shouldn’t happen”. When asked again, the same answer was given.

When asked about financials and budgets etc, Mr Goodwin admitted he did know the figures even though he was at the AGM.

A large number of attendees indicated that they would be pledgers

Likely that only those who pledge will be actual owners of the club 

The Motherwell model was mentioned many times by Mr Goodwin as being really good. Motherwell of course being the club today that announced an annual loss of over £400K and when challenged on this, Mr Goodwin had no answer other than we’ve to ask the Motherwell vice chairman who will be attending the next meeting

Volunteers are being sought to join the various working groups (as per website announcement today)

Less than 90 days to get a fully costed and legally proper proposal together to present to 3BC. If an extension is needed, then 3BC will continue to run the club

On the whole, no detailed info and I don’t think I’m any further forward. My personal opinion remains extremely sceptical.

Any questions about tonight, please ask and I’ll try my best to answer.

Ok....first reaction....

1. that the proposed model hasn’t been worked out yet isn’t a surprise that’s what the working groups are for ....they have already been criticised for having a model already in place 

2. 3BC don’t want to reject a proposal so it’s up to us to develop one that works .....Colin weir doesn’t want to own the club 

3. the point in the financials isn’t clear 

4.  That pledgers would be owners is fine as long as any cost if pledging is reasonable to the average fan

5, the Motherwell issue I don’t quite get unless someone has a detailed understanding of the Motherwell situation....any form of club ownership can get you into financial difficulties if not correctly managed .....we e had our share under business ownership 

6. lack of detailed info not a surprise at this point .....if they presented detailed plans they would get pelters  for lack of involvement , fair accompli etc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the chap’s point about Motherwell was that their model was being vaunted as being really good, but in the last financial year (under fan ownership) the club made a loss of over £400K and how can fan ownership therefore be described as being all about running a sustainable club.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Big Col said:

I believe the chap’s point about Motherwell was that their model was being vaunted as being really good, but in the last financial year (under fan ownership) the club made a loss of over £400K and how can fan ownership therefore be described as being all about running a sustainable club.

Just to comment that you can lose £400k and still be sustainable their income is £6,4m so they are not going out of business ....I think they made more than that previous year in profits .....any ownership model doesn’t preclude management screwing things up and what 99% of football clubs who have been in financial difficulties are not fan owned ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Big Col said:

I believe the chap’s point about Motherwell was that their model was being vaunted as being really good, but in the last financial year (under fan ownership) the club made a loss of over £400K and how can fan ownership therefore be described as being all about running a sustainable club.

Was any target figure given regards raising X per year with Y members?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Big Col said:

I believe the chap’s point about Motherwell was that their model was being vaunted as being really good, but in the last financial year (under fan ownership) the club made a loss of over £400K and how can fan ownership therefore be described as being all about running a sustainable club.

Motherwell made £1.7m profit the previous year so context isn’t important 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Just to comment that you can lose £400k and still be sustainable their income is £6,4m so they are not going out of business ....I think they made more than that previous year in profits .....any ownership model doesn’t preclude management screwing things up and what 99% of football clubs who have been in financial difficulties are not fan owned ? 

They can as long as they have assets/ cash above that value. A one of year loss isn’t devastating if the trend continues it could be, I think the point being muted was this was in 1st real year of fan ownership. They also brought in £700k in transfers (compared with £1.4m year before) but gate receipts have halved

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So what did we learn from tonight?

The proposed (or preferred) model has not been put together yet.

When asked what happens if 3BC knock back the proposal, the answer was “that shouldn’t happen”. When asked again, the same answer was given.

When asked about financials and budgets etc, Mr Goodwin admitted he did not know the figures even though he was at the AGM.

A large number of attendees indicated that they would be pledgers

Likely that only those who pledge will be actual owners of the club 

The Motherwell model was mentioned many times by Mr Goodwin as being really good. Motherwell of course being the club today that announced an annual loss of over £400K and when challenged on this, Mr Goodwin had no answer other than we’ve to ask the Motherwell vice chairman who will be attending the next meeting

Volunteers are being sought to join the various working groups (as per website announcement today)

Less than 90 days to get a fully costed and legally proper proposal together to present to 3BC. If an extension is needed, then 3BC will continue to run the club

On the whole, no detailed info and I don’t think I’m any further forward. My personal opinion remains extremely sceptical.

Any questions about tonight, please ask and I’ll try my best to answer.

The 90 day period is incredibly tight for any business to be taken over, let alone one being taken over by the customers/ fans. Did they mention if it would be a short extension or longer (year for example)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Was any target figure given regards raising X per year with Y members?

No, but they have an aspiration of 1000 people making pledges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Was any target figure given regards raising X per year with Y members?

Paul Goodwin felt that approximately 1,000 people pledging was not unrealistic but no figure was given in terms of cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

The 90 day period is incredibly tight for any business to be taken over, let alone one being taken over by the customers/ fans. Did they mention if it would be a short extension or longer (year for example)?

Nothing specific as they don’t expect their proposal to be knocked back and are confident that it can be put together in that timescale. But if an extension was needed, it wouldn’t be a long one.

Edited by Big Col

Share this post


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

Paul Goodwin felt that approximately 1,000 people pledging was not unrealistic but no figure was given in terms of cash.

Did he mention if more had expressed an interest than the initial 268? I do have issues with Paul’s figures as he’s on record stating 71000 (Seventy one thousand, I’ve not mistyped) had signed up with Stirling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

The 90 day period is incredibly tight for any business to be taken over, let alone one being taken over by the customers/ fans. Did they mention if it would be a short extension or longer (year for example)?

The reason given for the timescale being tight was the TBC did not want to look like it was holding on to the shares for an unduly long time. In regard to what would happen if TBC said no to what gets proposed the answer was that is something TBC would need to decide on.

Share this post


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

Did he mention if more had expressed an interest than the initial 268? I do have issues with Paul’s figures as he’s on record stating 71000 (Seventy one thousand, I’ve not mistyped) had signed up with Stirling

He did say that people were continuing to pledge but the issue always is getting a pledge to turn in to an actual payment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

The reason given for the timescale being tight was the TBC did not want to look like it was holding on to the shares for an unduly long time. In regard to what would happen if TBC said no to what gets proposed the answer was that is something TBC would need to decide on.

Thanks FT. I’m hearing around 130 there tonight, do you know if most of these had already signed up previously with TFE or were a lot newbies

Share this post


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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×