51% Fan Ownership

[Tim'llFixIt]

If us here on foxes talk are a representation of the fans who could make up the 51% then we are truly fvcked if this happens 😂

[Foxxed]

I decided I want fans to have a say in league format changes, after the last thread turned into this topic. Leave the owners to run the club year to year.

 

The things that have damaged football have been the league format changes. Give the fans a veto.

 

If something similar to

- introduction of the premier league

- introduction of super league

- champions league format changes

come up give club fans a veto. If 1/3 of club fans disagree then the changes don’t pass.

 

 

 

[Fox seen in Norwich]

I’d buy all 51% and give them to Top as a gift

[Ric Flair]

We are some of the biggest morons in the country, if not the world. I don't want us anywhere near the running of our club. No thank you.

[Strokes]

13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We are some of the biggest morons in the country, if not the world. I don't want us anywhere near the running of our club. No thank you.

Can you imagine how many managers we would get through if @deanolegend1989or @Col city fangot any say in things. It would make the Milan Mandaric era look sane.

Edited 22 April 2021 by Strokes

[yorkie1999]

For us to even consider a 50+1 ownership would be Fvckin retarded. We’ve won the league, we’ve been in Europe, we’ve got a brilliant team and manager, we’re in a fa cup final, we get free beer and cakes and all provided by the owners of the club. Any one who would even consider it needs a cricket bat round the back of the head.Leicester has to be one of the best run clubs in the country. There comes a time to sit back and watch the other idiots get on with it and just smile.

Edited 22 April 2021 by yorkie1999

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, Strokes said:

Can you imagine how many managers we would get through if @deanolegend1989or @Col city fangot any day in things. It would make Milan Mandaric look sane.

I just had an artic deliver a shit tonne of popcorn...

[Strokes]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

I just had an artic deliver a shit tonne of popcorn...

[sacreblueits442]

5 hours 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. 

....the problem is not what could happen to us, it will always be about the 6 teams looking to breakaway!!!

West Ham, Everton, Villa are not going to be in the position to breakaway to set up their own global money spinning league. Curb the greed of the wayward 6, everyone else will keep playing the game.

[420Hashish]

As it stands right now, we have some of the best owners in world football. If the fans are anything to go by with their constant circlejerking, I reject the 50+1 idea. 

[Chrysalis]

Well yeah this is why I said I think we should limit fans involvement to football politic stuff, leave day to day running to the owners.  Give fans enough power to block things like the ESL, but not more then that.

[SemperEadem]

8 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

For us to even consider a 50+1 ownership would be Fvckin retarded. We’ve won the league, we’ve been in Europe, we’ve got a brilliant team and manager, we’re in a fa cup final, we get free beer and cakes and all provided by the owners of the club. Any one who would even consider it needs a cricket bat round the back of the head.Leicester has to be one of the best run clubs in the country. There comes a time to sit back and watch the other idiots get on with it and just smile.

It’s precisely this ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude that is part of the reason we as English football fans get shat on.

 

Yes we may have it good right now but that is not a guarantee for forever. Plus there are 91 other professional clubs who deserve the opportunity to be run better.

[CosbehFox]

In England, there needs to be a push to have a fan/supporters group at board level. That as a first step would be very important. It’s a role that’s also in Germany - it’s effectively supporters liaison plus more and they paid by the league rather than the club 

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

In England, there needs to be a push to have a fan/supporters group at board level. That as a first step would be very important. It’s a role that’s also in Germany - it’s effectively supporters liaison plus more and they paid by the league rather than the club 

Never happen in a million years.

[Ginger_Filbert]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

We are some of the biggest morons in the country, if not the world. I don't want us anywhere near the running of our club. No thank you.

Agree with this 100%. 
The Rudkin out banner proves this point for me, we as fans don’t have much of an idea at all about the people running this club and their personality. 
Luckily Susan/The owners didn’t listen to the fans on that occasion. 

[Steven]

Fan ownership no, greater meaningful fan representation yes.

[GlennyFox55]

If not fan ‘ownership’ then at a minimum, some sort of veto power on certain decisions like changing club colours, stadium moves etc would be a thought.

 

 

Edited 23 April 2021 by GlennyFox55

[Voll Blau]

As a point of order, it's 50%+1 share, not 51%.

 

In the context of English football right now, we are generally a well-run club. That won't last forever though. A better model is needed for the long-term future of our club and the good of the game here overall.

[Rusko187]

Whilst I've absolutely no issues with our owners and wouldn't be in any rush to force something like this, I think consideration must be given that a large segment of owners have little/no interest in their clubs. Take Bury for example, an institution that very nearly went out of existence and all through mismanagement.

If it's not a 50+1, there needs to be significantly better protection of these clubs. If clubs are to potentially die out, than that onus comes on the owner to resolve... you shouldn't throw over a hundred of years of footballing history out the door because some prat in 2019 thought he'd have a crack at the big time.

 

Trouble will be with situations like Newcastle, I don't follow Newcastle closely to determine whether they have genuine grievances with Ashley, or simply just don't like the fact that he barely puts his hand in his pocket. All I'm saying is that fans (or a group representing fans) have an equal shout on the direction of their respective clubs, and call into question mismanagement. 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Never happen in a million years.

Far easier to have a fan representative on the board in the same way non-executive board members work than gaining ownership of a club 

 

That Liaison role is a criteria of the license to play in the Bundesliga 

[yorkie1999]

14 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Far easier to have a fan representative on the board in the same way non-executive board members work than gaining ownership of a club 

 

That Liaison role is a criteria of the license to play in the Bundesliga 

AS a member of the board, you are there to decide on what's in the best interests for the club, the whole club including the fans of your club. If you were sat on the board and Top says, i've got this deal in the pipeline and it's worth 200 billion to the club, but we'd have to play 20 matches a season in Thailand, what you going to do? considering it's in the interests of the club.

    The solution to me as far as fans are concerned is the government make a ruling to say the name of the club is owned by the fans, the club is owned by whoever. It's the name that has the value because that's the brand.

Edited 23 April 2021 by yorkie1999

[Muzzy_Larsson]

16 hours ago, FoxCal said:

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?

I think Leicester are a special case in this scenario, an outlier if you will.

 

One of the very few clubs under foreign ownership who have good owners,who are involved in the club for the right reasons and run the club in an ethical manner and to the correct ends.

 

I do think he 50+1 rule would be a good thing for football in general though if it made the shyster owners, who unfortunately seem to be the rule rather than the exception, clear off.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

AS a member of the board, you are there to decide on what's in the best interests for the club, the whole club including the fans of your club. If you were sat on the board and Top says, i've got this deal in the pipeline and it's worth 200 billion to the club, but we'd have to play 20 matches a season in Thailand, what you going to do? considering it's in the interests of the club.

    The solution to me as far as fans are concerned is the government make a ruling to say the name of the club is owned by the fans, the club is owned by whoever. It's the name that has the value because that's the brand.

In what world is LEICESTER playing their home games in Thailand in the interests of the club? 

[yorkie1999]

11 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

In what world is LEICESTER playing their home games in Thailand in the interests of the club? 

And that's why you're a fan and not on the board of a football club. Well that and the fact you can't read.

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

AS a member of the board, you are there to decide on what's in the best interests for the club, the whole club including the fans of your club. If you were sat on the board and Top says, i've got this deal in the pipeline and it's worth 200 billion to the club, but we'd have to play 20 matches a season in Thailand, what you going to do? considering it's in the interests of the club.

    The solution to me as far as fans are concerned is the government make a ruling to say the name of the club is owned by the fans, the club is owned by whoever. It's the name that has the value because that's the brand.

You'd be there to respect the opinion of the fans - you'd tell Top not to take the club to Thailand. You'd have a single vote in say a board of six, yes you could say worthless. However you'd have a direct line into fan opinion

 

Such a move would be the first step to what solution you are suggesting. We are not going to wrestle the clubs/business away from the owners in the current status quo. However, it would be a lot more easy if fans were party to the decisions