| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 13:25 - Mar 21 with 4734 views | James1980 |
What are the chances of Jim Marsh's 35000 shares being sold by those who inherited them? If Dan and Emre bought those they would have very close to the amount of shares Andrew Kilpatrick holds. If they could get hold of the late John Faulkes shares as well they would hold the largest single shareholding. |  |
|  |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 13:57 - Mar 21 with 4668 views | Sandyman |
As usual, some well-written, informed and perceptive journalism by Mark H, with a Dale fan's head on. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
The last paragraph is a cliffhanger! |  | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 13:57 - Mar 21 with 4665 views | Dalenet |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 13:25 - Mar 21 by James1980 |
What are the chances of Jim Marsh's 35000 shares being sold by those who inherited them? If Dan and Emre bought those they would have very close to the amount of shares Andrew Kilpatrick holds. If they could get hold of the late John Faulkes shares as well they would hold the largest single shareholding. |
True. But these shares have been around a long time and nobody has had a bid accepted. Of course the owner (or estate) may want to hold them for sentimental reasons. One option that has been discussed at length in the past is whether the Trust buy more shares. The more shares they own the greater the sway...although that doesn't guarantee a seat at the Board. But would people chip in to let the Trust do that? How many of the 700 Trust members asked the Trust to buy more shares in the last survey? I'd wager not many. We like to think we own the club but the majority of the fan base are apathetic. | | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 14:12 - Mar 21 with 4627 views | JoJoRafc |
RE James Marsh. These could have been sold previously but weren’t.
They will be staying in the family split between 2 family members. 17500 each
Definitely as a sentimental thing for me as someone mentioned however, I have always supported and attended games and want the best for the club. The shares will be staying in the family. [Post edited 21 Mar 2021 15:12]
| | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 14:23 - Mar 21 with 4588 views | 49thseason |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 13:57 - Mar 21 by Dalenet |
True. But these shares have been around a long time and nobody has had a bid accepted. Of course the owner (or estate) may want to hold them for sentimental reasons. One option that has been discussed at length in the past is whether the Trust buy more shares. The more shares they own the greater the sway...although that doesn't guarantee a seat at the Board. But would people chip in to let the Trust do that? How many of the 700 Trust members asked the Trust to buy more shares in the last survey? I'd wager not many. We like to think we own the club but the majority of the fan base are apathetic. |
Objective 4.2 of the Trust Constitution says that the one of the 5 objectives of the Trust is to achieve the most supporter and community influence on the running of the club as possible. Ultimately the only way to do this is to become a major shareholder. The 100s of people with tiny shareholdings could proxy their shares to the Trust in support of key proposals at the AGM.
There is the potential for the Trust to be able to outvote the current board or throw its support behind specific directors using proxy shares.
So for example the trust could, with the help of proxy shares, support the Americans to buy the treasury shares for £2or £3 each rather than the £6 the previous iteration of the board wanted to charge them. Equally the Trust could insist that all the treasury shares should be put on open offer to current shareholders in the first instance with any not taken up to be offered to the public or perhaps Season Ticket holders.
Someone who is a shareholder needs to go through a copy of the company's articles of incorporation to see what is possible within its perameters. |  | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 14:26 - Mar 21 with 4588 views | D_Alien |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 13:57 - Mar 21 by Sandyman |
As usual, some well-written, informed and perceptive journalism by Mark H, with a Dale fan's head on. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
The last paragraph is a cliffhanger! |
I agree, though i'm not sure using the terminology "we own the club" when referring to the fanbase is the best way of describing it and might be a cause for some confusion
I'm a huge advocate for the notion that the club belongs to the fans, but belonging and ownership might be considered two different things, in much the same way as the British think they "own" the Elgin Marbles whilst the Greeks know the Marbles belong to them
Another way of describing it might be: a couple in a romantic partnership will feel they belong to each other, but neither should feel that they "own" the other
Ownership can therefore be considered temporary; the club belonging to the fans is permanent |  |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 15:27 - Mar 21 with 4459 views | Ignatius_Sancho |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 14:12 - Mar 21 by JoJoRafc |
RE James Marsh. These could have been sold previously but weren’t.
They will be staying in the family split between 2 family members. 17500 each
Definitely as a sentimental thing for me as someone mentioned however, I have always supported and attended games and want the best for the club. The shares will be staying in the family. [Post edited 21 Mar 2021 15:12]
|
Excellent news. At least they will always belong to people with the good of the club at heart. Can't ask for more than that. |  | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 16:59 - Mar 21 with 4255 views | judd |
We are blessed as a club to have as supporters writers of the calibre and integrity of Mark and Fitzo.
This is a suspenseful and teasing precis. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 18:06 - Mar 21 with 4132 views | tony_roch975 |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 14:23 - Mar 21 by 49thseason |
Objective 4.2 of the Trust Constitution says that the one of the 5 objectives of the Trust is to achieve the most supporter and community influence on the running of the club as possible. Ultimately the only way to do this is to become a major shareholder. The 100s of people with tiny shareholdings could proxy their shares to the Trust in support of key proposals at the AGM.
There is the potential for the Trust to be able to outvote the current board or throw its support behind specific directors using proxy shares.
So for example the trust could, with the help of proxy shares, support the Americans to buy the treasury shares for £2or £3 each rather than the £6 the previous iteration of the board wanted to charge them. Equally the Trust could insist that all the treasury shares should be put on open offer to current shareholders in the first instance with any not taken up to be offered to the public or perhaps Season Ticket holders.
Someone who is a shareholder needs to go through a copy of the company's articles of incorporation to see what is possible within its perameters. |
My reading of the Articles suggest the Directors have absolute power over what shares are issued and to whom but this was a central issue for the postponed Company EGM which has still not been re-arranged. | |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 19:53 - Mar 21 with 3965 views | judd |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 18:06 - Mar 21 by tony_roch975 |
My reading of the Articles suggest the Directors have absolute power over what shares are issued and to whom but this was a central issue for the postponed Company EGM which has still not been re-arranged. |
I would have thought they would have to gain shareholder approval?
Would you be willing to share a copy of the articles please?
The copy on file at Companies House is a 2 page amendment from c. 2010 and is incomplete. | |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 20:34 - Mar 21 with 3922 views | tony_roch975 |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 19:53 - Mar 21 by judd |
I would have thought they would have to gain shareholder approval?
Would you be willing to share a copy of the articles please?
The copy on file at Companies House is a 2 page amendment from c. 2010 and is incomplete. |
The version I have (as a Shareholder) was provided on request by the previous Company Secretary and appears to be a photocopy of the original document. Amendments filed at Companies house like the 2008, 2006 & 1996 increases in Share Capital and the 1989 resolution re Ground Sale etc are not included. I have requested an updated version from the new Company Secretary - that should keep him busy. | |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 20:36 - Mar 21 with 3916 views | judd |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 20:34 - Mar 21 by tony_roch975 |
The version I have (as a Shareholder) was provided on request by the previous Company Secretary and appears to be a photocopy of the original document. Amendments filed at Companies house like the 2008, 2006 & 1996 increases in Share Capital and the 1989 resolution re Ground Sale etc are not included. I have requested an updated version from the new Company Secretary - that should keep him busy. |
Cheers. | |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 01:06 - Mar 22 with 3743 views | 49thseason |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 18:06 - Mar 21 by tony_roch975 |
My reading of the Articles suggest the Directors have absolute power over what shares are issued and to whom but this was a central issue for the postponed Company EGM which has still not been re-arranged. |
Without the former Chairman's 110,000 shares in the Boardroom, the Trust now has the opportunity to get a representative onto the Board if it asks for and gets the support of enough proxy shares at the AGM. 4 Directors including an interim Chair is unsatisfactory and that number needs to be increased to at least 6 and probably 8. | | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 08:03 - Mar 22 with 3639 views | judd |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 01:06 - Mar 22 by 49thseason |
Without the former Chairman's 110,000 shares in the Boardroom, the Trust now has the opportunity to get a representative onto the Board if it asks for and gets the support of enough proxy shares at the AGM. 4 Directors including an interim Chair is unsatisfactory and that number needs to be increased to at least 6 and probably 8. |
Fully agree with you.
However, at the farcical forum recently, Mr Pockney announced that having a Trust board Director would not happen as it would mean they "lose their independence".
How so?
Aren't all Directors independent, representing only their own shareholding? The Trust holds a similar number of shares as 3 of the 4 current Directors.
It is a sadly antiquated and well-worn excuse that completely overlooks the ability of Trust members, who may run businesses or hold senior positions in the public sector, to remain discreet and keep matters confidential that need it, to evaluate and implement new ideas, having listened in the first place.
Perhaps he doesn't want to expose a new Director to the real shitshow going on, as evidenced at the forum? | |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 09:23 - Mar 22 with 3566 views | VivaDonaldo |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 08:03 - Mar 22 by judd |
Fully agree with you.
However, at the farcical forum recently, Mr Pockney announced that having a Trust board Director would not happen as it would mean they "lose their independence".
How so?
Aren't all Directors independent, representing only their own shareholding? The Trust holds a similar number of shares as 3 of the 4 current Directors.
It is a sadly antiquated and well-worn excuse that completely overlooks the ability of Trust members, who may run businesses or hold senior positions in the public sector, to remain discreet and keep matters confidential that need it, to evaluate and implement new ideas, having listened in the first place.
Perhaps he doesn't want to expose a new Director to the real shitshow going on, as evidenced at the forum? |
I might be recalling it incorrectly, but didn't he say that it was a mutual feeling following discussion with the trust?
To one point I can understand it that it could feel similar to having a member of the "opposition" in the cabinet. Not that they're on opposite sides of a fence but that they are there to hold the board to account and their ability to do that effectively could be compromised by being on the inside as it were.
On the other, how can the trust do so without a more full view of the facts? Its a quandary for sure.
One thing is for sure though, the fan owned model so far has proven to get clubs only so far before significant investment is needed.
Look forward to the rest of this series. | | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 09:54 - Mar 22 with 3522 views | dawlishdale |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 09:23 - Mar 22 by VivaDonaldo |
I might be recalling it incorrectly, but didn't he say that it was a mutual feeling following discussion with the trust?
To one point I can understand it that it could feel similar to having a member of the "opposition" in the cabinet. Not that they're on opposite sides of a fence but that they are there to hold the board to account and their ability to do that effectively could be compromised by being on the inside as it were.
On the other, how can the trust do so without a more full view of the facts? Its a quandary for sure.
One thing is for sure though, the fan owned model so far has proven to get clubs only so far before significant investment is needed.
Look forward to the rest of this series. |
Very well put.
At the moment, it just appears a big mess. The club consults the Trust asking for input... the Trust provides help and suggestions back to the club, which then takes decisions without any further consultation which leads to both Trust and supporters becoming annoyed, and then following a lengthy thread on here, which usually becomes a mud slinging match; the club apologises, saying it won't do it again.
There is a clear pattern here, and it all points to the CEO not communicating (exactly as shown at the forum) | | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 10:05 - Mar 22 with 3496 views | judd |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 09:23 - Mar 22 by VivaDonaldo |
I might be recalling it incorrectly, but didn't he say that it was a mutual feeling following discussion with the trust?
To one point I can understand it that it could feel similar to having a member of the "opposition" in the cabinet. Not that they're on opposite sides of a fence but that they are there to hold the board to account and their ability to do that effectively could be compromised by being on the inside as it were.
On the other, how can the trust do so without a more full view of the facts? Its a quandary for sure.
One thing is for sure though, the fan owned model so far has proven to get clubs only so far before significant investment is needed.
Look forward to the rest of this series. |
Yes, you are right about it being mutually agreed by the current Trust, and probably previous Trust leadership.
With regards a member of the opposition in the cabinet, how can fans be seen as opponents? Do you think the current board is 100% unified on every single decision before it is even taken? What negative difference would a Trust Director make to how the club operates?
Currently, the club is fan owned and we have not done too badly these past few years and additional investment would be most welcome.
As I said, though, the capabilities of Trust members is being dismissed and has been for a long time. | |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 10:20 - Mar 22 with 3476 views | AtThePeake |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 09:23 - Mar 22 by VivaDonaldo |
I might be recalling it incorrectly, but didn't he say that it was a mutual feeling following discussion with the trust?
To one point I can understand it that it could feel similar to having a member of the "opposition" in the cabinet. Not that they're on opposite sides of a fence but that they are there to hold the board to account and their ability to do that effectively could be compromised by being on the inside as it were.
On the other, how can the trust do so without a more full view of the facts? Its a quandary for sure.
One thing is for sure though, the fan owned model so far has proven to get clubs only so far before significant investment is needed.
Look forward to the rest of this series. |
That's true regarding the fan-owned model only being able to progress you to a certain point. I'd say it's the best possible way of ensuring the survival of the club though, as fans are never likely to sell to an untrustworthy individual trying to take advantage, although nor are the current directors, with most being fans of the club.
The team could go backwards on the pitch (as Brentford did under a fan-owned model) but you'd imagine that being Trust-owned would offer the most protection from any lurking, unsavoury characters wanting a chance to get involved in the club and in terms of on-field position you'd plateau at a certain point. I can't imagine that point would be too far away from where we are now though as although the current directors seemingly do occasionally put their own money in, they could hardly be described as funding the club completely themselves. Plus, the likes of Exeter and Wimbledon can't be seen to have been doing THAT badly as fan-owned clubs, with only slightly larger average attendances than ourselves.
Indeed, as I pointed out in the article I wrote a week or two back, it seems to me at times that the club are treading water anyway, surviving simply in order to survive by prioritising development of players for future sales over trying to win games. If this is the way you are going to operate, surviving in order to survive, then it's not much different to being fan-owned.
I guess what I'm saying is, when you say "The fan-owned model so far has proven to get clubs only so far before significant investment is needed" - is that not the situation we already find ourselves in? Could we get any further than we are now without significant investment? Why not be in that same situation but with more supporters being able to have more of a say in how the club is ran? |  |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 10:56 - Mar 22 with 3412 views | VivaDonaldo |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 10:20 - Mar 22 by AtThePeake |
That's true regarding the fan-owned model only being able to progress you to a certain point. I'd say it's the best possible way of ensuring the survival of the club though, as fans are never likely to sell to an untrustworthy individual trying to take advantage, although nor are the current directors, with most being fans of the club.
The team could go backwards on the pitch (as Brentford did under a fan-owned model) but you'd imagine that being Trust-owned would offer the most protection from any lurking, unsavoury characters wanting a chance to get involved in the club and in terms of on-field position you'd plateau at a certain point. I can't imagine that point would be too far away from where we are now though as although the current directors seemingly do occasionally put their own money in, they could hardly be described as funding the club completely themselves. Plus, the likes of Exeter and Wimbledon can't be seen to have been doing THAT badly as fan-owned clubs, with only slightly larger average attendances than ourselves.
Indeed, as I pointed out in the article I wrote a week or two back, it seems to me at times that the club are treading water anyway, surviving simply in order to survive by prioritising development of players for future sales over trying to win games. If this is the way you are going to operate, surviving in order to survive, then it's not much different to being fan-owned.
I guess what I'm saying is, when you say "The fan-owned model so far has proven to get clubs only so far before significant investment is needed" - is that not the situation we already find ourselves in? Could we get any further than we are now without significant investment? Why not be in that same situation but with more supporters being able to have more of a say in how the club is ran? |
Excellent points and well made.
Agree that having significant trust or supporters held shares protects the club from unscrupulous individuals but it can be clearly seen that the current model of relying on player sales and the odd cup run to plug the funding gaps cannot be sustainable long term. Investment needs to be made if we have hopes of giving ourselves the best chance of relative and sustainable success.
Wimbledon have had to get very creative to solve their financial issues and were able to fundraise through a sale of 10% shareholding, crowd funding and investment bond sales.
They've maintained their shareholding in the club and it going to be an interesting one to monitor. They were operating from a relative position of strength with £2m raised over the course of 5 years and full trust owned shareholding.
Could you imagine our fanbase being as invested? I think that's why the club is seeking outside investment. They know the reality of it is that they would be unlikely to raise those funds through our fanbase and AK's statement about not allowing Dan and Emre to hold the 51% they crave show that the fans interests are being represented at boardroom level.
Perhaps some honest discussion between board and trust under an NDA (if its not happened already) would expose some potential for fan involvement in raising investment capital.
It's a great subject to get wider views on though as it will be crucial to the direction of our club in the next decade or so. | | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 11:28 - Mar 22 with 3363 views | Dalenet |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 10:56 - Mar 22 by VivaDonaldo |
Excellent points and well made.
Agree that having significant trust or supporters held shares protects the club from unscrupulous individuals but it can be clearly seen that the current model of relying on player sales and the odd cup run to plug the funding gaps cannot be sustainable long term. Investment needs to be made if we have hopes of giving ourselves the best chance of relative and sustainable success.
Wimbledon have had to get very creative to solve their financial issues and were able to fundraise through a sale of 10% shareholding, crowd funding and investment bond sales.
They've maintained their shareholding in the club and it going to be an interesting one to monitor. They were operating from a relative position of strength with £2m raised over the course of 5 years and full trust owned shareholding.
Could you imagine our fanbase being as invested? I think that's why the club is seeking outside investment. They know the reality of it is that they would be unlikely to raise those funds through our fanbase and AK's statement about not allowing Dan and Emre to hold the 51% they crave show that the fans interests are being represented at boardroom level.
Perhaps some honest discussion between board and trust under an NDA (if its not happened already) would expose some potential for fan involvement in raising investment capital.
It's a great subject to get wider views on though as it will be crucial to the direction of our club in the next decade or so. |
I have to agree with you there. We are a lot different to Wimbledon. They had success on the field a few decades ago and built a strong core of fans. They then came together to rebuild their club and no doubt with the help of some wealthy fans
We are different. We have never been well supported. We have always struggled. The Trust represents about a quarter of the underlying fanbase. Hardly anybody turned up to the Trust AGM despite it being on zoom. The Trust has encouraged fund raising in the past and not had a lot of success. I don't want to be defeatist, but a fan run club would set fan on fan. A small core of fans that put their hearts into the job would become the whipping boys. That doesn't mean that our voice shouldn't count, or we shouldn't try to hold the club to account.
But unless a figurehead that all the fan base can get behind comes forward we have no hope of being fan led. | | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 12:59 - Mar 22 with 3234 views | D_Alien |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 11:28 - Mar 22 by Dalenet |
I have to agree with you there. We are a lot different to Wimbledon. They had success on the field a few decades ago and built a strong core of fans. They then came together to rebuild their club and no doubt with the help of some wealthy fans
We are different. We have never been well supported. We have always struggled. The Trust represents about a quarter of the underlying fanbase. Hardly anybody turned up to the Trust AGM despite it being on zoom. The Trust has encouraged fund raising in the past and not had a lot of success. I don't want to be defeatist, but a fan run club would set fan on fan. A small core of fans that put their hearts into the job would become the whipping boys. That doesn't mean that our voice shouldn't count, or we shouldn't try to hold the club to account.
But unless a figurehead that all the fan base can get behind comes forward we have no hope of being fan led. |
Unfortunately, i have to agree. This messageboard demonstrates day in day out how widely views differ, between equally committed fans
I don't see us becoming fan-led (as in fanbase or Trust) but board representation would go a long way towards taking some of the heat out of the perception of "them and us" which is equally divisive. The way fans are ignored via email and indeed, the way they've been spoken to in the recent past is unacceptable and a more direct means of communication would be of great benefit
But, the devil is in the detail of Trust board representation. Obviously, commercially sensitive information can't be made readily available on demand and there may be a perception that any leaks of such info would lead to finger-pointing at the Trust rep. How can such issues be resolved? There must be models at other clubs where it works? I don't look into these things but i'm sure others must, as previous posts have suggested | |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 13:33 - Mar 22 with 3162 views | 49thseason |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 12:59 - Mar 22 by D_Alien |
Unfortunately, i have to agree. This messageboard demonstrates day in day out how widely views differ, between equally committed fans
I don't see us becoming fan-led (as in fanbase or Trust) but board representation would go a long way towards taking some of the heat out of the perception of "them and us" which is equally divisive. The way fans are ignored via email and indeed, the way they've been spoken to in the recent past is unacceptable and a more direct means of communication would be of great benefit
But, the devil is in the detail of Trust board representation. Obviously, commercially sensitive information can't be made readily available on demand and there may be a perception that any leaks of such info would lead to finger-pointing at the Trust rep. How can such issues be resolved? There must be models at other clubs where it works? I don't look into these things but i'm sure others must, as previous posts have suggested |
If Fred Ratcliffe turned up at a board meeting today, he would be familiar with just about every topic under discussion, there has been no significant development at this club for 100 years. The pitch is maybe better, we will see in a couple of years time, the crowds are no better, the ground catering is worse, the lights apparently need new bulbs, the tannoy is still crap and supporters are still treated like mushrooms. The trust has made the square root of FA progress, the lottery is defunct, there are no Christmas or Easter Draws, and the opposition still bombards Dale fans in the Sandy with footballs during the warm up.
The need for root and branch surgery in the Boardroom is stark, after 60+ years of watching our best players get sold off or given away because we couldnt afford their wages or because another bill had landed from the Revenue, I would vote for a takeover by a couple of financially savvy, financially connected Americans with a potentially game changing software package in a heartbeat. Indeed its hard to believe that the current board didn't snatch their hands off when the offer was first made. Its clear we do not have the expertise,or energy at the top of the club to do what is needed. What is the point of treading water with a brick in your pocket and when a lifeboat does eventually turn up deciding you prefer to try and keep swimming? We are currently just about avoiding the inevitable slide into oblivion. This Board isnt going to put their houses on the line. Look at all the clubs who didnt manage the same trick we are currently trying to make work.. its only a matter of time until Rochdale joins the ranks of failed EFL clubs. Its time for new ideas and new enthusiasm at the top if the offer is still available of course. | | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 14:09 - Mar 22 with 3093 views | judd |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 12:59 - Mar 22 by D_Alien |
Unfortunately, i have to agree. This messageboard demonstrates day in day out how widely views differ, between equally committed fans
I don't see us becoming fan-led (as in fanbase or Trust) but board representation would go a long way towards taking some of the heat out of the perception of "them and us" which is equally divisive. The way fans are ignored via email and indeed, the way they've been spoken to in the recent past is unacceptable and a more direct means of communication would be of great benefit
But, the devil is in the detail of Trust board representation. Obviously, commercially sensitive information can't be made readily available on demand and there may be a perception that any leaks of such info would lead to finger-pointing at the Trust rep. How can such issues be resolved? There must be models at other clubs where it works? I don't look into these things but i'm sure others must, as previous posts have suggested |
This latter point presumes an hermetic boardroom currently? | |
| |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 16:41 - Mar 22 with 2935 views | jonahwhereru |
With regard to trust membership being represented on the board. If you are on the outside of the tent which has its share of dark (shite) activity going on do you get in the tent to try and get a deeper understanding of what’s happening and why. Or for fear of getting mired in the shite do you stay on the outside. Everyone will have their own view on this. My personal test is would I be prepared to represent the trust on the board. No I wouldn’t, for fear of getting tarred. So stay outside the tent is my view. However if someone else fancies it they will have my unequivocally support, as I would not do it myself. | | | |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 17:58 - Mar 22 with 2845 views | AtThePeake |
| Mark Hodkinson: Inside the Boardroom on 10:56 - Mar 22 by VivaDonaldo |
Excellent points and well made.
Agree that having significant trust or supporters held shares protects the club from unscrupulous individuals but it can be clearly seen that the current model of relying on player sales and the odd cup run to plug the funding gaps cannot be sustainable long term. Investment needs to be made if we have hopes of giving ourselves the best chance of relative and sustainable success.
Wimbledon have had to get very creative to solve their financial issues and were able to fundraise through a sale of 10% shareholding, crowd funding and investment bond sales.
They've maintained their shareholding in the club and it going to be an interesting one to monitor. They were operating from a relative position of strength with £2m raised over the course of 5 years and full trust owned shareholding.
Could you imagine our fanbase being as invested? I think that's why the club is seeking outside investment. They know the reality of it is that they would be unlikely to raise those funds through our fanbase and AK's statement about not allowing Dan and Emre to hold the 51% they crave show that the fans interests are being represented at boardroom level.
Perhaps some honest discussion between board and trust under an NDA (if its not happened already) would expose some potential for fan involvement in raising investment capital.
It's a great subject to get wider views on though as it will be crucial to the direction of our club in the next decade or so. |
But again, the fact that player sales and the odd cup run cannot be sustainable long term is as much an argument against our current structure than a fan-owned one is it not?
Wimbeldon have been creative, but they've also had to find funds to build a new stadium in conjunction with the council - something we wouldn't have to do in my opinion. Wimbledon and Exeter do have more fans than us, but not by 1000s, we aren't talking Portsmouth or Sunderland here.
Do I imagine our support being as invested? Probably not, and it would require a shift in perception of where the club lies, but there have been enough positives coming out of the Exeter story to suggest to me that Fan Ownership doesn't have to be seen as a last resort and that fans are more likely to engage and invest in the club if they feel they have as much of a say as possible in how it's ran. If the current directors are not putting in barrels of cash every year (although anything they put in currently is still greatly appreciated of course), then it's not too much of a shortfall to cover. The issues come if you start promising the earth, as obviously you're not going to be able to compete financially with a lot of other clubs.
I would not argue for a fan-owned club over a club with the investment that gives us the best chance of relative and sustainable success as you mention, but would I argue for a fan-owned club over the current situation? Frankly, there are few things I wouldn't argue for over the current situation. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
