Is this a better way to run our club?

[lush]

An anual elected, non paid board of representatives, voted for, by anyone who has atleast 70% proof of match day attendance.

Poster Allen made a great point about investors not investing in city.

I just dont think our boards past and present like the thought of someone coming in and taking over from their cushy positions.

Is it time we got rid of the old ideology of how our club is run, and took control of things with the attitude, that we welcome all investors?

I remember a mockery front page headline, the day we played swindon away, in brian littles first game for city. It read something like, "lets not be all-so rans". I think they were refering to the manager more than the team.

Now since that day, weve actually been a decent club, with trophy`s having been won. But now, we are little different.

Will we carry on regardless, and hope for the best, a "lottery winner" in another martin o`neill, or will we change things for the better, in this financial jungle of proffessional football?

[Head Honcho]

What I can't get over is that, yes we have debt, but who bloody doesn't these days, for the last 15 years Newcastle have never been in the black they exist by being in debt.

We have gates that can sustain a well maintained debt and potential investors will know this and if our board got off their arses and went out looking for investors they will find them!

[Matt]

What I can't get over is that, yes we have debt, but who bloody doesn't these days, for the last 15 years Newcastle have never been in the black they exist by being in debt.

We have gates that can sustain a well maintained debt and potential investors will know this and if our board got off their arses and went out looking for investors they will find them!

Not if things carry on the way they are. This season surly we have to be relying on STH's, with a few (Hundred) thousand buying tickets, Next season can't see many people buying ST's, so the club will then be relying mostly on Ticket sales, and can't see that being too many. Things hav got to dramaticly change (Quick) to change this...its they Leicester going...Down.

[Head Honcho]

Not if things carry on the way they are. This season surly we have to be relying on STH's, with a few (Hundred) thousand buying tickets, Next season can't see many people buying ST's, so the club will then be relying mostly on Ticket sales, and can't see that being too many. Things hav got to dramaticly change (Quick) to change this...its they Leicester going...Down.

I agree but a bit of investment and some decent pre-season signings will sort that out!

I remember in the early 80's going up to Newcastle sorry for using them as an example again, but I was up there with city we beat them 4-1 I think and the attendance was just over 9000 with I'd say about 3 or 4 thousand city fans, now they are getting crowds of over 40000 so it is possible with the right investment and a bit of foresight!

[Jon the Hat]

What I can't get over is that, yes we have debt, but who bloody doesn't these days, for the last 15 years Newcastle have never been in the black they exist by being in debt.

We have gates that can sustain a well maintained debt and potential investors will know this and if our board got off their arses and went out looking for investors they will find them!

Investors want a return and the ability to get out with a profit when they want to. Footbal clubs don't generally offer this, so your potential investors have to be wealthy football fans who are led more by their heart than their head and can afford not to worry too much if they don't get back what they put in.

Obviously there are exceptions to the above, but we aren't one. If you think there are lots of potential investors out there you are kidding yourself.

[Jon the Hat]

I just dont think our boards past and present like the thought of someone coming in and taking over from their cushy positions.

Well, they have put their money into the club. Lots of it. Why the hell should they want to hand over control to anyone esle? I'm sure there's a few people around who'd quite like their house and car too. Shall we vote to take over them?

I see what you are saying, but your in dreamland unless you happen to have a spare hundred grand around, and know another few hundred people with the same?

[Head Honcho]

Well, they have put their money into the club. Lots of it. Why the hell should they want to hand over control to anyone esle? I'm sure there's a few people around who'd quite like their house and car too. Shall we vote to take over them?

I see what you are saying, but your in dreamland unless you happen to have a spare hundred grand around, and know another few hundred people with the same?

If you read your last two posts you'll see you've contradicted yourself in the first you say that investors want a quick profit and in the second you say why should they sell up and hand control to another investor!

Make yer mind up

[lush]

Investors want a return and the ability to get out with a profit when they want to.

Obviously there are exceptions to the above, but we aren't one. If you think there are lots of potential investors out there you are kidding yourself.

On the subject in hand, i would say to an investor, if you give us one million (as an example), we will pay you back 5 or 10 % of the clubs anual profit in return, until its paid off, plus another 5% of the following years total profit.

The investment has to be in the best interest of our club first.

Jon, there are thousands of millionaires out there right now. Sure, many couldnt give a t*ss about us, but some might, and its those we should be trying to engage.

[davieG]

On the subject in hand, i would say to an investor, if you give us one million (as an example), we will pay you back 5 or 10 % of the clubs anual profit in return, until its paid off, plus another 5% of the following years total profit.

The investment has to be in the best interest of our club first.

Jon, there are thousands of millionaires out there right now. Sure, many couldnt give a t*ss about us, but some might, and its those we should be trying to engage.

So why weren't they queuing up to buy the club out of administration for a measly sum of 5 mill? They would have then had total control.

[lush]

So why weren't they queuing up to buy the club out of administration for a measly sum of 5 mill? They would have then had total control.

Well quite possibly, the thought of investing in a club in admin, put them OFF.

[Steven]

So why weren't they queuing up to buy the club out of administration for a measly sum of 5 mill? They would have then had total control.

... plus liabilities surely.

[davieG]

... plus liabilities surely.

Well those same liabilities are still there so why should we expect someone now?

[Steven]

Well those same liabilities are still there so why should we expect someone now?

Au contraire my friend. I think the liabilities have gone down since Admin. so the asking price must go up.

[Foxes_Trust]

Lush

You are living in a dream world,

Don't know of any club which is ran at least one Director who is paid. For over the last 6 months Tim Davies has been the only paid Director, but now a new Commercial Director joins this month.

Non-paid people have to the time to spare to run the club. Just running a Trust can be very time consuming & that is not a multi million business. In fact more than one Trust board member in the past has faced 'issues' with their full time employer about the amount of time & energy give to their Trust work.

Anyway - what the hell is "who has atleast 70% proof of match day attendance" a ripped match ticket?

Allen

You are doing the existing owners a great dis-service.

The club contacted all the 'known' rich people in the area asking them to get involved when the consortium was being formed.

The top 100 Asian businessmen in the region have also been approached with none wanting to get involved.

If a major investor wanted to take over the club, this would have to be passed by the shareholders, it would not be the board's call - although they could recommend or nor recommend the offer. We have discussed this 'what if' scenario with several of the major shareholders, so we are aware of their viewpoint, but we can't reveal those discussions, as we agreed not to as part of the conversation.

Anyway are you sure about those gates, we have message board posters on other sites predicting gates of 12,000 next year if we went down.

So where is this 'investment' coming from then that you mention in your second post. In the last 12 months only 2 shareholders bought further shares in the club & we were one of them.

Lush

Back to you.

So you would promise 5-10% of the annual profits as an incentive would you?

- now lets see last year accounts - ah yes a £3.482m loss - yep great incentive to invest that is.....

[lush]

Lush

You are living in a dream world,

Don't know of any club which is ran at least one Director who is paid. For over the last 6 months Tim Davies has been the only paid Director, but now a new Commercial Director joins this month.

Non-paid people have to the time to spare to run the club. Just running a Trust can be very time consuming & that is not a multi million business. In fact more than one Trust board member in the past has faced 'issues' with their full time employer about the amount of time & energy give to their Trust work.

FT, why are you so afraid of what i say? Are you scared i will uncover the emptiness that surrounds OUR football club?

Anyway - what the hell is "who has atleast 70% proof of match day attendance" a ripped match ticket?

It means that everyone who is dedicated to OUR club, can have a say who should co-run it. Thats fair right, your all for democracy right? Fans input is something you adhere to right? Get with the program.

Allen

You are doing the existing owners a great dis-service.

The club contacted all the 'known' rich people in the area asking them to get involved when the consortium was being formed.

The top 100 Asian businessmen in the region have also been approached with none wanting to get involved.

This is MORE spin folks. No one connected with the love of our club would invest in a company that is in administration. DONT let the foxes trust (a lcfc board room puppet) fool you!!

If a major investor wanted to take over the club, this would have to be passed by the shareholders, it would not be the board's call - although they could recommend or nor recommend the offer. We have discussed this 'what if' scenario with several of the major shareholders, so we are aware of their viewpoint, but we can't reveal those discussions, as we agreed not to as part of the conversation.

This is all spin. The FT are full of it. There are 2 sets of people in this world, those who dictate, and those who listen, then follow. Lets stop being the followers of our club, and lets RUN it.

So where is this 'investment' coming from then that you mention in your second post. In the last 12 months only 2 shareholders bought further shares in the club & we were one of them.

That doesnt mean investors arnt interested. Its only what you and we have been told.

So you would promise 5-10% of the annual profits as an incentive would you?

- now lets see last year accounts - ah yes a £3.482m loss - yep great incentive to invest that is.....

Then what have we got to loose? The incentive is there for any potential investor, thats what its all about. Your dark age`d approach wont get us anywhere. We need to "offer" ourselves for a brighter future where LCFC is the WINNER!!

[Foxes_Trust]

Lush - here we go again

FT, why are you so afraid of what i say? Are you scared i will uncover the emptiness that surrounds OUR football club?

- we aren't afraid of you, but you do write some strange stuff

It means that everyone who is dedicated to OUR club, can have a say who should co-run it. Thats fair right, your all for democracy right? Fans input is something you adhere to right? Get with the program.

- yes we are in favour of fan participation, but how many cinema goers who buy a ticket to watch a film have a say in how the cinema is ran. The Trust movement follows the principal that each member has an equal £1 share in the Trust & this is the first £1 of every annual membership fee.

- I think you will find we are far more knowledgable about the constitution of democratically ran fans organisations than you are !

This is MORE spin folks. No one connected with the love of our club would invest in a company that is in administration. DONT let the foxes trust (a lcfc board room puppet) fool you!!

- the approach to Asian businessmen came after the club came out of administration, we spoke about this with the club months later & were aware of one such approach via another source, so it is independently verified & therefore not spin, so we aren't fooling anybody

This is all spin. The FT are full of it. There are 2 sets of people in this world, those who dictate, and those who listen, then follow. Lets stop being the followers of our club, and lets RUN it.

- well give us a ring when you have raised a minimum of £6m to buy the shares & have a financial agreement with the stadium owners & we will talk further, good luck !

- alternatively are there 3 types? - the 3rd being those who post endless about their plans for the club, but never actually do anything positive, like join the Trust & become an active member

That doesnt mean investors arnt interested. Its only what you and we have been told.

- OK then, pass on the details of any investor you know is interested & we will talk to them directly. We won't hold our breath, as 2 other posters on message boards have claimed awareness of major investor interest before, but funny enough they never did supply details to us (call my bluff, its called)

Then what have we got to loose? The incentive is there for any potential investor, thats what its all about. Your dark age`d approach wont get us anywhere. We need to "offer" ourselves for a brighter future where LCFC is the WINNER!!

- the ability to pay a dividend is written into the clubs constitution. Having spoken with many of the shareholders, we have yet to speak to one who wants a dividend & would prefer any profit to be utilised on the playing budget instead - why, because they are all fans (just fans who had some money they could invest)

[lush]

we aren't afraid of you, but you do write some strange stuff

Yet more spin. I didnt ask you if you were afraid of me...Are you scared i will uncover the emptiness that surrounds OUR football club?

yes we are in favour of fan participation The Trust movement follows the principal that each member has an equal £1 share in the Trust & this is the first £1 of every annual membership fee.

- I think you will find we are far more knowledgable about the constitution of democratically ran fans organisations than you are !

Why are you responding with a FT belief? You are not the fans spokesman.

Are you happy for city fans, to run our club, to have a say who runs our club, WITHOUT your organisation, or anyone elses?

were aware of one such approach via another source

How aware?

well give us a ring when you have raised a minimum of £6m to buy the shares & have a financial agreement with the stadium owners & we will talk further, good luck !

Why would i ring you i wouldnt need you. Are you aware that all city fans could financially turn their backs on the board, and then the board would have to give in? Then the fans could decide city`s future.

OK then, pass on the details of any investor you know is interested & we will talk to them directly.

You live in a dream world. If the board dont want you to know about any possible investment, they dont have to tell you....

the ability to pay a dividend is written into the clubs constitution. Having spoken with many of the shareholders, we have yet to speak to one who wants a dividend & would prefer any profit to be utilised on the playing budget instead - why, because they are all fans (just fans who had some money they could invest)

Your talking about the current rule of law, not the potential future fans law.

[Babylon]

Is it time we got rid of the old ideology of how our club is run, and took control of things with the attitude, that we welcome all investors?

How do you plan to do that? You just said they don't want to move.

I remember a mockery front page headline, the day we played swindon away, in brian littles first game for city. It read something like, "lets not be all-so rans". I think they were refering to the manager more than the team.

Now since that day, weve actually been a decent club, with trophy`s having been won. But now, we are little different.

Football is about peaks and troughs, name me one team that has had consistent good times. I'd love to be doing well all the time, but I know the facts are it just doesn't happen.

[surrifox]

It seems that any reference to "investment" when it comes to football is a sly euphemism. It is doubtful with the possible exception of Man U (and the Glazers will have to work hard and be extremely patient for any real return on their investment) and possibly Arsenal (and they have taken on massive debt with their new stadium) if any money in a footy club is considered well invested. The degree of recklessness and incompetence by directors would be intolerable in any other area of economic activity- Ridsdale has just been cleared of any malpractice by the crash investigators at Leeds where all the junior office staff were purportedly arriving for work in Kompressor Mercs. History will judge football very harshly - no other sport has benefited from such a cash bonanza and treated that windfall in so profligate fashion allowing it to fall in the hands of mediocre players and greedy agents.

[Snik-Snok]

Lush,

I assume your proposal is inspired by the system at Barcelona (amongst other clubs) where every few years their 100,000 socios (members) vote on who, amongst the nominated candidates, should be the next president. If they run the club well then then remain in charge, if the make a mess of it, they'll get voted out next time out by the socios i.e. the fans.

The difference is, with Barcelona and Real Madrid, being President of these clubs is an enormous status symbol, and candidates generally get voted in after promising to spend millions of pounds on players. If they fail in their promises (e.g. Perez at Real Madrid promised to sign Figo during his Manifesto, which he subsequently did) then the socios will turn on them.

Leicester is a completely different situation. Nobody is going to want to donate (not invest because football investments are never really that) millions into a club at Leicester knowing that they could, under your plan, be voted out 12 months later. Therefore any nominated candidates are likely to be fans organisations such as the Foxes Trust. In other words, a body of fans willing to run the clun in the best interests of the supporters, but without the financial means to actually donate millions of pounds. Several thouand pounds maybe, but that'll cover one players wages for a week. The only way people with huge amounts of money will get involved is if they take over the club and have complete unchallanged ownership, and unable to be ousted. If that was going to happen, then it would have happened 3 years ago. The club is not an attractive propect because, although the debts were reduced after administration, that was primarily becuase ownership of the ground was tranferred to Teachers, who we are contracted to pay between £1-£3m a year to. The only way out of this arrangement would be to buy the ground back for approx. £20m.

Anyway, running Leicester is a different proposition to running a club like Rushden and Diamonds (which is now run by their Trust). Rushden is essentially a non-leage club (formed by the merger of 2 village teams) which essentially serves as a community club, but went well above it's natural level after Max Griggs, the Doc Martins chairman put millions of pounds into the club. The finances involved are relatively small, and it's just like running a small local business i.e. it an be done part-time by a small dedicted team of fans.

Leicester, however, aspire to be a top flight club. The amount of money involved is millions of pounds. It requires experienced full time personnel in various financial, commercial and marketing areas. You cannot seriously expect a small group of fans to run the club on a non-paid part time basis. It's a full time job for several people, and if people did it for free how would they pay their mortgages and feed their families, because they wouldn't also hve time for a 'normal' job. Anyway, how could long-term stability be achieved if potentially every year the people running the club were booted out. The whole idea of a non-paid, anually elected group of fans running the club is naive to say the least. As usual you're talking nonsense.

Yes the current board are making mistakes, but they are still hindered by the financial restrictions which caused administration. Their biggest propblem is that thay are businessmen that do not understand football culture whatsoever, hence the cringeworthy 'matchday experience'. What the club needs is a balance which is what the Trust are trying to give with their influence.

However, at least they are running the club with the best intentions. At least we haven't got the sort of owners that clubs such as Brighton, Darlington, Wrexham, York and now possibly Derby have suffered over the years. Working againt the club purely for their own financial gain.

If you're not happy, then join the Trust and get involved in an active role. If you disagree with the direction it takes, then join and lead it in a different direction.

[lush]

How do you plan to do that? You just said they don't want to move.

Its an act the fans collectively can achieve with a financial threat. A threat to not fund their club, unless the current board decide to withdraw their "services", for an elected board of fans representatives.

Football is about peaks and troughs, name me one team that has had consistent good times. I'd love to be doing well all the time, but I know the facts are it just doesn't happen.

Liverpool, arsenal and man yoo.

If it doesnt happen, lets MAKE it happen. Why should we think along the lines of the past. Lets think about our future, thats where our lives exist.

I assume your proposal is inspired by the system at Barcelona (amongst other clubs) where every few years their 100,000 socios (members) vote on who, amongst the nominated candidates, should be the next president. If they run the club well then then remain in charge, if the make a mess of it, they'll get voted out next time out by the socios i.e. the fans.

Not quite. I`d have an election at the end of every season, regardless of how the board have done. If they`ve done well, then fans would vote them back in. I firmly believe, that fans who turn up very regular, should have more of a say, as to who runs our club.

The difference is, with Barcelona and Real Madrid, being President of these clubs is an enormous status symbol, and candidates generally get voted in after promising to spend millions of pounds on players. If they fail in their promises (e.g. Perez at Real Madrid promised to sign Figo during his Manifesto, which he subsequently did) then the socios will turn on them.

If someone who has 70% proof of match attendance, stands as a candidate and says he/she has money to invest, then it is upto the voter to decide whether they believe them or not. Personally, i`d ask for proof, and i would also question the investors reasonings. Would the investor invest, if he/she didnt become a board member? It shouldnt make a difference.

Leicester is a completely different situation. Nobody is going to want to donate (not invest because football investments are never really that) millions into a club at Leicester knowing that they could, under your plan, be voted out 12 months later.

Investors wouldnt have to be a board member. Its purely an investment.

The only way people with huge amounts of money will get involved is if they take over the club and have complete unchallanged ownership, and unable to be ousted.

Thats the current rule of thought. Personally, i wouldnt wana be known as an investor, particuly if i had multi-millions, because other clubs hike their prices on their players. Its better to have silent investors, at a time when you wana get a player cheap, or extend a players contract. Whenever chelsea sign someone now, its double or treble the amount. What good is that to an investor, none.

However, if an "abramovich" (multi-billionaire) wanted in, hey, let him have the club, then we could sit back and cheer EVERY saturday

If that was going to happen, then it would have happened 3 years ago. The club is not an attractive propect

RUBBISH! Leicestershire is a huge county of something like 800,000 people living in it. Just south of Leicester, there are no strong footballing clubs as far as norwich, accross to luton, and back up past warwickshire (cov).

There is mass potential, and if, just if, we could get like we was with MON, and with a bigger stadium, we`d attract a minimum of 40,000 people supporting city alone.

We got full houses playing in the championship.

Leicester, however, aspire to be a top flight club. The amount of money involved is millions of pounds. It requires experienced full time personnel in various financial, commercial and marketing areas. You cannot seriously expect a small group of fans to run the club on a non-paid part time basis. It's a full time job for several people, and if people did it for free how would they pay their mortgages and feed their families, because they wouldn't also hve time for a 'normal' job. Anyway, how could long-term stability be achieved if potentially every year the people running the club were booted out.

Dedicated individuals wouldnt mind making decissions about their club. It would be their hobby. You paint the picture of the worst scenario. We would still have qualified expertease guiding them, but the fundamental issues would be city fans making decissions about their club.

Rubbish board members wouldnt be needed at board room level, so thankfully, they`d be "booted out", unlike the present situation.

Yes the current board are making mistakes, but they are still hindered by the financial restrictions which caused administration. Their biggest propblem is that thay are businessmen that do not understand football culture whatsoever, hence the cringeworthy 'matchday experience'.

So who better than loyal fans of the club to make decissions which affect them the most...

What the club needs is a balance which is what the Trust are trying to give with their influence.

Had a feeling you were a FT representative

However, at least they are running the club with the best intentions. At least we haven't got the sort of owners that clubs such as Brighton, Darlington, Wrexham, York and now possibly Derby have suffered over the years. Working againt the club purely for their own financial gain.

True, we have a better board than some clubs have had. But lets not butter them up in hollywood lights. If enough fans think its better for them to run our club, then its worth doing.

[Snik-Snok]

I've got nothing to do with the Trust whatsoever. I'm just stating the obvious. Generally I agree with what they, say but didn't agree when they supported the stupid groundshare idea.

As for the propsect not being attractive, I was talking about financially due to the rent and/or purchase of the ground, not the potential crowds. I like the way you selectively ignore some parts of paragraphs and not others.

You really haven't got a clue have you. You suggest a club run as a hobby by elected and non-paid fans, and at the same time expect massive investment (which won't happen now because it would have happened by now if it was going to). Nobody would put that amount of money in without expected to be the main decision maker at the club. It's fantasy to think that someone will donate millions and then let someone else decide how to spend it.

Any club run by an elected group of fans will, by it's nature, have to exist purely on money raised through the business (i.e. tickets, TV money, shirt sales, player sales etc.). There won't be any investment. What happens if the elected board cannot agree between them as to the way forward? What happens if the elected board are not up to the job and make a right cock up within the first few weeks? With it being run entirely by fans, everyone will be completely transparent and the shambles that it will inevitably become will be made public for all to see. You're forgetting that the current board are all fans, but they had to gain that position by donating a sustantial amount of cash to become part of the decision making team. What do you expect a bunch of elected season ticket holders would be able to do better? If you expect people to be voted to run the club as ordinary fans, they will not be putting in the hundreds of thousands of pounds the current directors have put into the club, so we would be substantially worse off financially. If there's people with the sort of money you're expecting to be 'invested', then it would have been done already.

What you're suggesting may work for a local village team but not for what is essentially a top flight club. What exactly do you think the benefits of your scheme would be?

[lush]

I've got nothing to do with the Trust whatsoever. I'm just stating the obvious. Generally I agree with what they, say but didn't agree when they supported the stupid groundshare idea.

Well groundsharing would`ve helped us financially, so it was in our best interests.

You suggest a club run as a hobby by elected and non-paid fans, and at the same time expect massive investment.

I dont expect it, im saying its more likely.

Nobody would put that amount of money in without expected to be the main decision maker at the club. It's fantasy to think that someone will donate millions and then let someone else decide how to spend it.

Who said an investor wouldnt have say on how his money is spent? The scenario may occur, that if a player was needed for say one mill, that an investor with such funds could offer that money as an investment, with the aim to make money himself, based on player or club profit(s).

Any club run by an elected group of fans will, by it's nature, have to exist purely on money raised through the business (i.e. tickets, TV money, shirt sales, player sales etc.). What happens if the elected board cannot agree between them as to the way forward?

We could elect a chairman (voted for by city fans) to make a final decission, if a vote has not produced a winner.

What happens if the elected board are not up to the job and make a right cock up within the first few weeks?

Then city fans have only got themselves to blame, for electing the wrong people.

With it being run entirely by fans

EH?

everyone will be completely transparent and the shambles that it will inevitably become will be made public for all to see.

You seem aggetated, scared of my words? Are you afraid that city fans might quite like this idea? Its only a suggestion you know, nothings been stamped, yet

You're forgetting that the current board are all fans

Nope, your wrong, again.

What do you expect a bunch of elected season ticket holders would be able to do better?

They see our club from ALL angles. From the cold and windy terrace, to the que`s in the concourses. From the ticket office, to the financial cost of supporting our club. The everyday fans of our club, know more about being a fan, than ANY of the board, FACT!! The decission makers of how our club should be run, are sitting in the stands shouting our players on. They desperately care. They are willing to go through SO much for the benefit of our club, they deserve better. Fans are the community core of any club.

If there's people with the sort of money you're expecting to be 'invested', then it would have been done already.

Only if the board have allowed them to do so.

What you're suggesting may work for a local village team but not for what is essentially a top flight club.

The principals are the same, its just with more people, and more finance this way.

What exactly do you think the benefits of your scheme would be?

Over the last week or two, many fans have been disgusted with the way their club has been run. For the record, im in favour of craig levein. My suggestion gives those paying "customers", chance to elect the way in which their club is run. They can then have no problems with what happens.

The other thing is, and the foxes trust i think explained this, that in the last few weeks, city fans are divided as to how the core (manager) of our club is run. A fans elected board of representatives, would bring all city fans to a core community of wellbeing.

If your watching Luton v liverpool right now, you`ll see a set of fans (luton`s) absolutely loving their current position in life. That position is based on a desire for the club to succeed.

Our board cant even decide for the fans, where or where not we can smoke

[Snik-Snok]

What you're suggesting is basically what the Trust are aiming for i.e. a) gaining enough shares to allow fans to decide how the club is run and b) having annual elections to determine who these decision makers are.

Why haven't the trust suceeded yet? Because they haven't raised anything near the amount of money required. Why not? Because anyone wishing to contribute the money required would want to go directly onto the current board and be able to influence decisions themselves rather than have them diluted by a supprters representative group.

Whoever runs the club, whether businessmen with no affiliation with the club, or long term fans, will always make decisions that a minority, or even a majority, of people don't agree with. You said it yourself that the fans are currently split on whether Levein should stay or go. The smoking situation is the same. An elected group of fans will only represent the fans that agree with them, sometimes a minority. Meanwhile the remaining fans will be just as annoyed as they are by the current board at times. There's no guarentee the elected fans would represent the majority of supporters. They could be elected because of a certain issue, but then 6 months down the line alienate the fans on another issue. There would be just as many decisions which the supporter base disagree with as there is with the current board. In other words there wouldn't be much difference to now. Many decisions e.g sack Levein, swap the Kop to the North stand etc. are split around 50/50.

The main advantage with having a club run primarily by fans is, as I mentioned earlier, to prevent club owners acting against the interests of the club for their own persoanl gain. That's something we don't have to worry about with the current board.

Your suggestions are so naive, contradictary and unworkable that I can't be bothered to try and explain why to you anymore. Meanwhile, join the Trust (if you haven't already) and guide them towards your goal. Canvess local rich businessmen, get them to donate (not invest because an investment assumes that there will be some financial return) and then see if you can achieve your masterplan.

[Jon the Hat]

Your suggestions are so naive, contradictary and unworkable that I can't be bothered to try and explain why to you anymore. Meanwhile, join the Trust (if you haven't already) and guide them towards your goal. Canvess local rich businessmen, get them to donate (not invest because an investment assumes that there will be some financial return) and then see if you can achieve your masterplan.

Stick around Snik-Snok I like your style! And you seem to have a brain in your head unlike some people.