1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Portsmouth Supporters trust

Discussion in 'Hull City' started by The Omega Man, May 4, 2017.

  1. Fez

    Fez Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,618
    Likes Received:
    5,154
    You said:

    I asked, why? That is all and you answered it, but strangely.

    Why does there need to be ownership, rather than influence.

    Does having influence, and not ownership, mean a trust is simply anti-protest or a saviour from trouble?

    Should Steve Gibson have a Trust imposed on his club?

    Instead of seekìng legislation to make Trust ownership the Holy Grail, why not use legislation to make the whole professional football model one of commercial sanity and sporting integrity.

    Obi named two well known supporter ran clubs; do you want that here?

    I still think Trust ownership is Pie-in-the-Sky, a dream that will never succeed; not unless it masks something odd and elitist.

    I think Trust support, collaboration and oversight is a totally different and worthy thing.

    This vision of what a trust should be has nothing to do with protest or being a saviour in times of trouble, it has much to do with having influence through trust.
     
    #41
  2. The Omega Man

    The Omega Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    8,278
    Likes Received:
    5,664
    I never have said that a supporters trust should not have oversight and or collaboration. My view is that at the forefront of a trust there should be ownership. That ownership could be of shares or it could be of assets and or shares. Influence, does not require the setting up of a trust. The financial model used for the majority of trusts is a Provident Society. Investment and the ability to raise funds.
    Portsmouth is a success story, supporters investing in their club and now they are handing the club back to individual ownership, which whilst I support their reasons, I still find it hard to applaud.
    You are right, supporters owning clubs in the highest leagues is a pipe dream. But supporters owning a shareholding or stadium is not.
     
    #42
  3. Fez

    Fez Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,618
    Likes Received:
    5,154
    I never said you did say that. What you did say, though was:

    I'm not convinced that is how they are seen; I think it's very negative thinking to start from that point. The fact that we have a pair of tossers in ownership, simply means that protest and saving the club from extinction are necessary, but not exclusive actions.
     
    #43
  4. The Omega Man

    The Omega Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    8,278
    Likes Received:
    5,664
    I also said that this was not about HCST, Hull City or its ownership. It is a common theme that trusts form because of two reasons, saving a club or asset or protest, sometimes a combination of both.

    PST, members should be and are rightfully proud of the fact that they have succeeded, I feel that the fact that they cannot now continue to safeguard their club, is disappointing.

    I do not know where you expect this debate to go I have posted my own individual view, I do not see supporter involvement as a negative. I do see that Portsmouth Supporters selling their shares, without any furure influence as a negative, many who are selling share the same view, but they really have no choice. Its a comment on a situation and not an I am right and you are wrong debate.
     
    #44
  5. Fez

    Fez Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,618
    Likes Received:
    5,154
    I wanted to know why you thought ownership was essential to the purpose of a Trust; I have my doubts.

    I am also curious to know why you think protest and/or saving a troubled club should be seen as the reason for a Trust to be formed. This is why I ignored our club and used Boro as an example.

    I don't want this to go anywhere, I was simply asking questions about a statement of opinion you made in your post.

    I still think it odd that, it would seem, the virtues of a Trust are considered as necessary only when a club has problems; this seems to lose any reality when dealing with the many, well intentioned owners. (I believe a Trust can be effective without ownership)

    I would have been interested to know how you think an owner could let his assets be divided (weakened) by allowing ownership of the ground (facilities) by the supporters.
     
    #45
  6. The Omega Man

    The Omega Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    8,278
    Likes Received:
    5,664
    Supporters Trusts are generally formed to either to save a club or an asset. They are also formed off the back of protest. This is not true in every case. Portsmouth ST avoided being labled as a protest group, by supporting other groups who protested, this is acknowledged in the trusts written history. They did form with a view to buy shares and assets.
    When a stadium is owned by a local authority and is designated as a community asset, the terms and conditions of a sale may include supporter shareholding and seats on the board, such as at Swansea.
    Why would an owner dilute their shareholding? In order to be able to purchase a community asset or to be able to fill a gap in funding.
    The government has undertaken consultation with stakeholders and has said that supporters should have seats on boards.
    Can it work? In the same way that unions sitting on boards, yes to a degree.

    If a supporters trust does not seek to invest in the club or its assets , why would it need to be a Provident Society, with all of the rules and regulations that need to be followed?
     
    #46
  7. originallambrettaman

    originallambrettaman Mod Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    107,527
    Likes Received:
    64,703
    TOM's right, people are generally lazy and are generally only spurred into action during a crisis, it's far easier to get members to a protest group than it is to a Trust and that's why one normally leads to the other.
     
    #47
  8. Fez

    Fez Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,618
    Likes Received:
    5,154
    I agree that they are generally formed from protest or struggle, but that does not have to be the model for forming a Trust; especially as it is quite a negative model in many peoples eyes. whether that is a fair perspective is irrelevant.

    Whether owned by a local authority or not, I can see nothing wrong with there being some element of supporter representation on boards; this would have nothing to do with ownership (my point!), but everything to do with sensible legislation, which the Government seems to have in-hand.

    I said, "I would have been interested to know how you think an owner could let his assets be divided (weakened) by allowing ownership of the ground (facilities) by the supporters."; there is a difference. If he has not got control over the assets on which he depends that would be a stupid move to make if it were not already the case. If those assets are governed by a local council (via a management company, if need be) then that again is a different matter, but not supporter ownership. It's not a matter of shareholder power.

    A Supporters Trust might need to be a Provident Society because they wish to be a minority shareholder; something much less than the ownership that we were discussing.
     
    #48
  9. Fez

    Fez Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,618
    Likes Received:
    5,154
    We all know people are generally lazy in such things; such as it is fairly common knowledge that it is easier to get folk to a protest group than a Trust. What might not be so evident is that a Trust set up without antagonism and without a stated intention to covet the Club's owner's business, might be more palatable to the owner and the supporters, which might just move things forward quicker and more amicably - a Trust doesn't need to be so damned ambitious, especially when that ambition is stated as being impossible by those who push it; it foolish nonsense and Plan B needs to be considered.

    Of course this is not applicable to Hull City under this pair of fools, but there are plenty of good owners out there.
     
    #49
  10. originallambrettaman

    originallambrettaman Mod Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    107,527
    Likes Received:
    64,703
    #50

  11. ImperialTiger

    ImperialTiger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    #51
  12. Chazz Rheinhold

    Chazz Rheinhold Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    53,750
    Likes Received:
    43,952
    This is true fan ownership and democracy at work, according th the Trust chairman.

    So who gets what in the offer??

    Death knell for trusts this.
     
    #52
  13. PLT

    PLT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    25,066
    Likes Received:
    13,372
    Hoped Chazz.
     
    #53
    Kempton likes this.
  14. originallambrettaman

    originallambrettaman Mod Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    107,527
    Likes Received:
    64,703
    Nobody gets a fortune, at least as far as I can see. The purchase price seems to be £5.67m, the PST own 48.5% so that's about £2.7m split over about 2,200 members, so about £1,200 each. The rest goes to the 'presidents' (75% agreed to sell and the other 25% are keeping their shares). In addition to the purchase price, the new owner has agreed to make an immediate cash injection of £10m to improve the team. At least I think that's what's happening.
     
    #54
  15. balkan tiger

    balkan tiger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,358
    Likes Received:
    9,478
    So when the buyer said he wanted 100% he meant he wanted 100% of the fans share but is happy enough to have other share holders.
    I think it would have created a better bond with the fans if he found a way of keeping the trust on board, even if it was only a token gesture.
     
    #55
  16. originallambrettaman

    originallambrettaman Mod Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    107,527
    Likes Received:
    64,703
    The new owner will own 81.4% of the club’s shares (the threshold to approve a sale was 75%) and the rest is owned by a few of the Trust presidents, so almost 20% is still held by the biggest Trust investors. At least I think it is, the information all seems rather vague, though I'm sure it's far clearer if you're a Pompey fan.
     
    #56

Share This Page