I don't disagree, but we have a different supporter base now compared to then. Even so please don't gloss over the fact that at that time I have never had a Sky Sports subscription and never will. One of my aims in supporter involvement is to bring support back to the supporters. I want players who live and are part of the supporter community. Clubs and stadiums as part of the community. I don’t want billionaire owners, I want ownership of football clubs to be in the hands of those who are either playing for or supporting the club. I don’t want millionaire players, I want players who invest in the industry that they work in. I want career paths for the youth, not only as players, but in coaching and every aspect of the game.
Admirable and agree with most of what you say. Apart from 'I want/ dont want'. I thought the whole idea was supporter involvement/ consultation.
I'm more concerned with somebody's loved one being attacked than I am with getting back at sky. Easy to get back at sky, just unsubscribe.
No you have to have personal desire otherwise you don’t get involved in the first place. “I would like to see” leaves it up to others to do.
It doesn't have to be a personal desire to have your own way, surely? So no consultation? Isn't that a part of the reason why we are in this mess?
was that aimed at me? I think the point is that between 1991 and 2005 there was fan ownership of Manchester United. Maybe not the German model that keeps being brought up here, but they had a voice of sorts. Floating the club in 1991 was presented as the modern way to run a football club, away from the image of cigar smoking dodgy dealers in sheepskin coats making deals in back rooms. it was on the tail end of privatisation fever when owning shares was suddenly something ordinary people could do. But as the share price rose, it was only the really hardcore fans that resisted the pressure from their wives to cash in, and those that held out till the end lost out when the Glazers forced the takeover. There’s no way that today you could realistically get fan ownership of probably any club in the PL or Championship unless there were several hundred fans who happened to be multimillionaires who could afford to chip in the required six or seven figures each. You’d need 40 just to buy City! Ordinary fan owners wouldn’t be able to raise the funds to run the businesses, and that’s just being realistic. The genie is out of the bottle and would require a massive convulsion in the game, business and the law to change it. It would fundamentally change the sport in England. Maybe it would be worth it in the long run? But I honestly can’t see anything being done apart from a bit of tinkering around the edges to appease the fans, maybe 5% ownership by the supporters trusts. Something that looks good on paper but with no actual power to change anything. Too many vested interests.
Although if City was 51% owned by fans, then actually the price would be £1k for 20,000 people, even at a value for the club if £40m (which isn’t a likely price for any buyer) If the club was £20m say then obviously it would be half that. If the Glazers can leverage the purchase of Man Utd then why couldn’t City fans? So even 10,000 season ticket holders buying a stake in City at a club value of £20m would only cost £100 a year each over 10 years say (plus interest) which could be even less if you included some of that cost in the season ticket price. That would leave £10m to find elsewhere to buy, plus any splurges from a 49% stake owner who wanted to push on with big transfers / fund a loss making club. Assuming that person was a reasonable person you would expect they would get voted in as President (or someone they put forward would) as they’d only need the votes of 1% of fans. So they’d get all the trappings, but would still be accountable to fans. These are just morning toilet musings so no doubt I’ve missed loads and might have sums wrong too, but it’s wrong to completely dismiss I think?
I can't remember all of the details, but I seem to recall Bates setting up some form of fan ownership scheme when he was at Chelsea? If i recall it anything like right, he sold of areas of the pitch, arguing it protected the fans from future owners wanting to redevelop the land. Move on a few years when he sold to some Russian bloke, they were trying to find these people to negotiate the deal, and eventually located the stubborn owner of several of the shares, which turned out to be a grinning Ken sat waving.... I think he did similar by franchising bits of the stadium to himself too. Speculation is the Russian sent some 'advisors' to persuade him it was probably healthier to sell.
There are still Chelsea pitch owners. I know one whose wife bought him a share at the time. He took the mickey out of another one who imagined he gad the area Osgood scored a special goal from, asking him if he knew how many times the pitch had been relaid since then.There are a few thousand of the pitch owners with their own association and meetings. They supposedly own the freehold and and the stadium name owning rights. It was mentioned in one article during the ESL shenanigans that their views were a factor which would have to be taken into consideration though I am not sure what effect they could have.
Real Madrid and Barcelona are. Maybe we could get into £1 billion of debt if we were. I think a lot of people misunderstand the 50%+1system in Germany, how it works, and the exceptions allowed.
One good effect it would have, as I understand it from the Chelsea fan I know, is it could stop some future owner redeveloping Stamford Bridge and moving them without their agreement as the pitch could not be built on without their agreement.