51% Fan Ownership

[FoxCal]

A lot of talk about whether this should be enforced here, as it is in Germany (with the exception of two(?) clubs), due to recent events - though mainly by fans of the offending clubs themselves.

 

Hypothetically, if this was to be enforced, is it something you’d want?

 

I think it’s probably in the best interest of most clubs and obviously prevents tyrannical madmen from taking a controlling stake, but then I look at what Vichai did and Top continues to do for us and can’t look past the good an owner has the potential to perform. We’re a special case though, and an extreme one at that.

 

They clearly love the club which is more than can be said for a lot of these people but they’re business people first and foremost. Would they have ever been interested if there was only 49% available to them?

Edited 22 April 2021 by FoxCal

[Scotch]

Like you said, i think it would benefit most clubs but I trust our owners and I don't benefit us in particular. 

[st albans fox]

Where is the money coming from to buy 51% of the clubs from the existing owners???????

Edited 22 April 2021 by st albans fox

[StriderHiryu]

It probably wouldn't benefit us and in some ways might even hinder us as big plans would likely take longer to get done, such as the Training Ground, Stadium Improvements and so on. But regardless I think 51% ownership should be mandatory for all clubs across the UK, the recent Super League attempt showing exactly why that's necessary. Both Vichai and top have been phenomenal, but what about in 20 years time when Top's son takes over or Top decides to sell up, however unlikely that is? What if the next owner in line isn't as amazing as our current owners?

 

If it did happen, would the current owners still want to own us? I think they would because unlike almost any other owner, they have already done the hard part in winning us over. Many of us fans sing Vichai's name and go on a yearly walk to commemorate his passing. They are connected to us, and we are connected to them and we both want the best going forwards. 

[yorkie1999]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Where is the money coming from to buy 51% of the clubs from the existing owners???????

From season tickets. Unfortunately next season's ticket cost will need to be slightly increased. £27350.  

[Lambert09]

Do the fans need ownership or can there not just be a system that certain changes to a club can only happen if approved by a fan panel. 
 

personally I think that this would be more effective. Don’t think the fans need to be involved in everything but certainly should be able to veto something as huge as changing competitions 

[UniFox21]

9 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

Do the fans need ownership or can there not just be a system that certain changes to a club can only happen if approved by a fan panel. 
 

personally I think that this would be more effective. Don’t think the fans need to be involved in everything but certainly should be able to veto something as huge as changing competitions 

Think the buying of ownership would get incredibly complex, especially with values of the club etc. What defines a fan and how many could be brought. 

 

Think the fan panel of some sort where changes need to be approved through it would be good. Changes could include leaving leagues, name changes, investments into grounds and training facilities etc. Allowing fans to have a defined say in the club

[Guest Danny Clender]

[goody2028]

19 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

From season tickets. Unfortunately next season's ticket cost will need to be slightly increased. £27350.  

They’ve got to make up for all the years they’ve frozen the prices somehow

[Matt]

31 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Like you said, i think it would benefit most clubs but I trust our owners and I don't benefit us in particular. 

This, I think our case it could be a bad thing.

 

It's all a dodgy situation really, for all we know KP could turn distarous for us, but from what we've seen I think I trust KP than I would 51% of our own fans - That includes myself

 

All owners can turn from fantastic to badly run, but ultimately you have to question the 'Fit-and-proper-person test', I read or heard they were abit more thorough in the PL but they're pretty shabby and easy to pass in the football league.

[FoxesWalk]

44 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Where is the money coming from to buy 51% of the clubs from the existing owners???????

As I understand it, the way to implement these plans is to allow supporters groups first option to buy whenever any shares become available, and if required I think the government can mandate the sale of 51% of shares if that hasn’t occurred after a certain period of time
 

Personally, I’d be very excited, and honoured, to have the chance to buy shares in the club. I think majority fan ownership should be made mandatory to safegaurd the game against big money interests, but our owners have been pretty much faultless and I wouldn’t want to see them depart the club for sure. 

Edited 22 April 2021 by FoxesWalk

[davieG]

From Wiki

 

 

The 50+1 rule is an informal term used to refer to a clause in the regulations of the Deutsche Fußball-Liga (German Football League). The clause states that, in order to obtain a license to compete in the Bundesliga, a club must hold a majority of its own voting rights. The rule is designed to ensure that the club's members retain overall control, by way of owning 50% of shares, +1 share, protecting clubs from the influence of external investors.

 

Background

Prior to 1998, football clubs in Germany were owned exclusively by members' associations.[1] This meant that clubs were run as not-for-profit organisations, and private ownership was not allowed under any circumstances.[2] This changed following a ruling by the German Football Association (DFB) in October 1998, which allowed clubs to convert their football teams into public or private limited companies. However, the "50+1 rule" requires the parent club to own at least 50% plus one additional share of the football company, ensuring that the club's members still hold a majority of voting rights.[3]

 

Exceptions

In cases where a person or company has substantially funded a club for a continuous period of 20 years, it is possible for that person or company to own a controlling stake in the club.[4] This exception most notably applies to Bayer 04 Leverkusen (owned by pharmaceuticals company Bayer), and VfL Wolfsburg (owned by automobile manufacturer Volkswagen), and has more recently allowed SAP co-founder Dietmar Hopp to gain control of his former youth club of 1899 Hoffenheim.

 

Criticism

The rule has been criticised on a number of occasions. One of the rule's most vocal opponents is Hannover 96 president Martin Kind, who argued that the rule could be in breach of EU competition law.[5] In 2009, Hannover put forward a motion to change the 50+1 rule, but this was overwhelmingly rejected, with 32 out of 36 clubs voting against the proposal.[6]

The effectiveness of the rule has also been brought into question following the rise of RB Leipzig. Although it is theoretically possible to become a voting member in the association, RB Leipzig reserves the right to reject any membership application without citing a reason. As a result, RB Leipzig has only a handful of members, most of whom are Red Bull GmbH agents. Critics have also noted that the annual membership fee is relatively expensive compared to other clubs.[7]

 

Other countries

In Sweden, the "51-per cent rule" says that only non-profit clubs can play in the Swedish league systems, and if the club owns a company handling economic activities, the club must own at least 51% of that company. This rule is decided by the Swedish Sports Confederation and is valid for all sports with teams and league systems.

[davieG]

So there is scope for exceptions.

 

I also think, maybe wrong but I could imagine Top actually setting this up if it was the law and gifting the shares or at least making them affordable.

[coolhandfox]

I'd rather see legislation which provide more specific protection for clubs in general then the 51% rule.

 

Clubs should be seen as heritage organisations, a bit of a twist on heritage sites.  

 

51% ownership by fans is going to be hard to achieve when clubs are worth 500m+

[yorkie1999]

22 minutes ago, FoxesWalk said:

As I understand it, the way to implement these plans is to allow supporters groups first option to buy whenever any shares become available, and if required I think the government can mandate the sale of 51% of shares if that hasn’t occurred after a certain period of time
 

Personally, I’d be very excited, and honoured, to have the chance to buy shares in the club. I think majority fan ownership should be made mandatory to safegaurd the game against big money interests, but our owners have been pretty much faultless and I wouldn’t want to see them depart the club for sure. 

But you could in theory end up with one person buying 51% of the shares, or a small group having more say in how a club is run. For it to work it would need one share per person and consequently one vote on club matters and one chairman who gets voted in every few years.

[Finnaldo]

25 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Think the buying of ownership would get incredibly complex, especially with values of the club etc. What defines a fan and how many could be brought. 

 

Think the fan panel of some sort where changes need to be approved through it would be good. Changes could include leaving leagues, name changes, investments into grounds and training facilities etc. Allowing fans to have a defined say in the club

The way these things are ran in Germany is the 50% is owned by a member’s association, it’s not a decentralised rabble of fans buying in. And the issue with fan panels is there’s nothing to stop clubs simply not listening. We already have them in the form as Supporter’s Trusts and we see how effective they are. We already have fan-owned clubs in the English system, Exeter in League Two, Darlington, Chester and Chesterfield in the National League, so it’s not like it doesn’t work.There’s still shares to be invested in by private individuals/consortiums as well. 

 

I suspect our fanbase would be one of the most disapproving on the basis of our benevolent ownership. The issue is, clubs are never kept forever and the high likelihood is one day King Power will leave town and we’re at the mercy of whoever buys up. We could well be begging for it at that point depending on who that is. 
 

 

[Guest SO1]

31 minutes ago, Danny Clender said:

Are Leicester Fans worldwide allowed to pitch in? And that's a definite no on Abraham.

[Webbo]

As I've mentioned in other threads, Real and Barcelona are both fan owned. The German system has produced a league where only 1 team ever wins. I think this fan ownership is a red herring tbh. The Foxes Trust that had a seat on the board until the Thais took over were not well loved on here.

[David Hankey]

If all Clubs had owners like ours there would be no need for this topic.

[MPH]

I doubt our owners would have done what they have done if they were not the majority shareholders/ owners.

 

 

didn’t they wipe out our debt a few years back? Can you imagine 20,000 fans agreeing today pay millions collectively? 

[SemperEadem]

100% needed across the board to safeguard the future of clubs.

[Hoopla10]

 

1 hour ago, Matt said:

This, I think our case it could be a bad thing.

 

It's all a dodgy situation really, for all we know KP could turn distarous for us, but from what we've seen I think I trust KP than I would 51% of our own fans - That includes myself

 

All owners can turn from fantastic to badly run, but ultimately you have to question the 'Fit-and-proper-person test', I read or heard they were abit more thorough in the PL but they're pretty shabby and easy to pass in the football league.

While I 100% agree with how we're run as a club it's clear something like this is designed to give a solid structure for the game in this country that carries into the future. I would imagine Liverpool fans respected how John W Henry was running their club until Sunday night. More has to be done in readjusting how the game is run BACK towards the fans. And I don't trust multi-billionaires to ever do that. That should be pretty obvious now. Even if they might apologies, beg fans for forgiveness, say they "miss-judged the reactions" (which is BS, as you don't first announce to the world a new league on a Sunday night during a FA Semi-final with zero fan or even team/manager discussion if you DIDN'T expect a massive outcry) their mindsets and focus is CLEAR. Dock them points, fine them, they'll eventually find other ways to erode the sport in this country (which they've already done again by pushing the new CL rules). They're like that fable of a frog and a scorpion. It's in their nature. We have to heed that and set up a structure that makes it impossible for them to hurt us. Until somebody comes up with something better (and that's entirely possible) the idea of 51% is very appealing.      

Edited 22 April 2021 by Hoopla10

[Freeman's Wharfer]

100% it would be a good thing for us.

 

Whilst our owners have been great for us, this narrative that they’re these benevolent guys who love the club and have never had any business or commercial benefit from it is nonsense.

 

They bought us as an investment - and it’s turned out to be a very lucrative one for them. They bought us to diversify and promote their business - and their brand is now known throughout Europe. They bought us to access powerful and influential people in this country - and they now have a seat at many powerful tables.

 

The fan and community engagement has been pretty impressive at times but let’s not forget that they get a lot in return from the club. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship right now but nobody on this earth is going to care about the fortunes of Leicester City as much as the supporters.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

100% it would be a good thing for us.

 

Whilst our owners have been great for us, this narrative that they’re these benevolent guys who love the club and have never had any business or commercial benefit from it is nonsense.

 

They bought us as an investment - and it’s turned out to be a very lucrative one for them. They bought us to diversify and promote their business - and their brand is now known throughout Europe. They bought us to access powerful and influential people in this country - and they now have a seat at many powerful tables.

 

The fan and community engagement has been pretty impressive at times but let’s not forget that they get a lot in return from the club. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship right now but nobody on this earth is going to care about the fortunes of Leicester City as much as the supporters.

Blind loyalty is a pretty crap bedfellow to have when making decisions about stability though.

[Vlad the Fox]

Force it upon the scheming 6, and put it in the rules that any further clubs that seriously breaches certain rules will have it forced upon them as well.