Football Finances?

[FoxyPV]

This would actually increase the focus on branding of the club, more spectators, better sales of merchandise etc.. I don`t know what and how the Tigers are doing but it beats me that there is no or very little cooperation between the 2 clubs in relation to stadium facilities, merchandise, overall staffing (administration, ticket sales, stewarding, merchandise sales etc.). The cost of maitaining 2 stadiums a short walk apart must be horrendous, and both parties would benefit from the merging and reduction of overhead costs. Just a thought!

The only problem with sharing a pitch with the Tigers is that the pitch will be turned to shite as per Donny and other teams that i can't remember.

[TheStig]

The only problem with sharing a pitch with the Tigers is that the pitch will be turned to shite as per Donny and other teams that i can't remember.

Yes I know, but considering the costs saved by having to finance only 1 stadium it would probably be cheaper to have the pitch relaid 8 times a season - which is actually possible (cost per pitch 500.000) which is supposedly peanuts compared to the saved costs.........

What I am getting at is that "out of the box" thinking is necessary to free resources, get out of the financial schackles and focus on getting back in The Prem. AND staying there.

[Flynny]

As I said in another thread, although Mandaric says he's put in £20 Million, he was obliged to invest £9 Million as part of his takeover, which is why he got the shares so cheap in part. Good on our previous consortium to be fair. The rest he's arguably cost us himself with some of the decisions he made and the players he signed over managers' heads. Relegation cost us a lot and ridiculous wages for has-beens like Bruno N'gotty even more, some of whom are still on our books even now. And lets not forget some inflated transfer fees while Allen was in charge.

I think he's about even in my estimation now. If he continues to subsidise us, hangs on to Pearson and spends sensibly from this point on then we can call him a good owner. Lets hope it happens.

[Spudulike]

Yes I know, but considering the costs saved by having to finance only 1 stadium it would probably be cheaper to have the pitch relaid 8 times a season - which is actually possible (cost per pitch 500.000) which is supposedly peanuts compared to the saved costs.........

What I am getting at is that "out of the box" thinking is necessary to free resources, get out of the financial schackles and focus on getting back in The Prem. AND staying there.

The day that City share the stadium with a rugby club is the day that I stop going.

[Daggers]

Any comments on this?

Yes, it's bollocks.

Do you need some rules, a couple of laws and the threat of a fine to prevent you slamming your dick in a car door? Now most Chairmen seem to - but that doesn't mean regulation is the answer: we have 'fit and proper' ownership test but that is worth less than a wank in a tissue.

Once Chairmen stop being greedy and fans cease to crave success at any cost, maybe then you'll have some sense return to the running of clubs.

[ta-fc]

Totall agree that there should be some sort of cap but realistically there will always be a way around this... take that wonderful sport American football, players cannot be paid whilst playing college football, but most of the top players drive around in Beamers/Bentleys and Lexus.... for comparison purposes I had a vauxhall nova whilst at college that i could barely afford to run!!! the point is clubs will always find a way around the rules.

The reality is that there is always a way around salery caps, also if its based solely on gate recipts the big clubs with 60k+ staduims will always remain big and the clubs with small following or have a tiny ground and little catchment will remain small and never able to compete.

finally you'll need to get the whole of Fifa to agree so that regardless of where you are the rules are the same.... Real Madrid must have the same financial constraints as our beloved Leicester City.

[Guest]

This would actually increase the focus on branding of the club, more spectators, better sales of merchandise etc.. I don`t know what and how the Tigers are doing but it beats me that there is no or very little cooperation between the 2 clubs in relation to stadium facilities, merchandise, overall staffing (administration, ticket sales, stewarding, merchandise sales etc.). The cost of maitaining 2 stadiums a short walk apart must be horrendous, and both parties would benefit from the merging and reduction of overhead costs. Just a thought!

Stick "groundshare" in the forum's search engine, and in amongst the emotional arguments against groundsharing you will find some sensible arguments against it.

In a nutshell, running costs would go down by groundsharing, however the non-matchday revenue would be reduced.

[tartanowl]

Do you still own the Walkers, or are you paying rent?

[Trav Le Bleu]

Do you still own the Walkers, or are you paying rent?

We own it in as much as we're still paying for it.

[davieG]

Do you still own the Walkers, or are you paying rent?

Despite the fact that many ignorant people in the media think we got it for free as a result of enforced administration we have a £17Million+ mortgage on it.

[TheStig]

Yes, it's bollocks.

Do you need some rules, a couple of laws and the threat of a fine to prevent you slamming your dick in a car door? Now most Chairmen seem to - but that doesn't mean regulation is the answer: we have 'fit and proper' ownership test but that is worth less than a wank in a tissue.

Once Chairmen stop being greedy and fans cease to crave success at any cost, maybe then you'll have some sense return to the running of clubs.

Well well Mario - you certainly have simple solutions for complicated matters. From your reply there is no point trying to establish a decent debate on the issues of football. Maybe you and your comments are part of the problem. - I mean living in the past? Or am I mistaken here?

[Daggers]

Maybe you and your comments are part of the problem.

That's right - I am to blame for the state of British football in the 21st Century.

Careful not to slam a car door on your dick...

[The Doctor]

This would actually increase the focus on branding of the club, more spectators, better sales of merchandise etc.. I don`t know what and how the Tigers are doing but it beats me that there is no or very little cooperation between the 2 clubs in relation to stadium facilities, merchandise, overall staffing (administration, ticket sales, stewarding, merchandise sales etc.). The cost of maitaining 2 stadiums a short walk apart must be horrendous, and both parties would benefit from the merging and reduction of overhead costs. Just a thought!

was this not considered two/three years ago and rejected by both clubs?

[Daggers]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/brighton/8555799.stm

[FoxyPV]

The government is to unveil radical proposals that would give football fans first option to buy their clubs when they were put up for sale and require clubs to hand over a stake of up to 25% to supporters' groups.

The ideas, due to be included in the Labour manifesto with a promise of action in the first year of a new government, are designed to give fans a far greater say in how their football clubs are run and overhaul the way the game is governed.

It is believed that No 10, which has been working secretly on the plans for weeks, has resolved to deliver concrete proposals to tackle growing public disquiet at the level of debt carried by some clubs, the ownership model of others and the dysfunctional structure of the Football Association.

The plans include:

• Requiring clubs to hand a stake of up to 25% to fans in recognition of their links with their local community.

• Implementing a change-of-control clause that would allow fans a window to put together a takeover of their club if it was up for sale or went into administration.

• Giving the football authorities a deadline to reform the FA and remove "vested interests" from the board, and streamline decision making.

• Introducing a unified system of governance that co-ordinates issues such as club ownership and youth development.

• Allowing professional leagues and the FA additional oversight of club takeovers.

The plans are likely to put Gordon Brown on a collision course with the Premier League, which has vigorously defended its free-market model in recent years, but he will claim that the proposals are for the good of the game.

Two policy ideas have emerged as frontrunners to improve supporter representation around the boardroom table, both of which would see fans taking a meaningful ownership stake in clubs.

Portsmouth's financial collapse, the outpouring of anger in response to the leveraged buyouts at Manchester United and Liverpool that loaded the clubs with combined debts of more than £1bn, and last week's shock resignation of the FA chief executive, Ian Watmore, in protest at the "vested interests" on the board are all understood to have persuaded the prime minister to act.

Reflecting the view that they will succeed in democratising ownership only if there is stronger leadership from the top, it will also set football a deadline of up to a year to overhaul its governance system.

Under the scheme to give fans a stake, supporters' trusts with elected representatives, audited accounts and Financial Services Authority recognition would be responsible for maintaining the link between clubs and their community and ensuring fans are not priced out of the game.

The government could, however, face legal challenges from existing owners over the dilution of their shares. It has echoes of the model proposed by the so-called Red Knights attempting to buy Manchester United. Wealthy fans will contribute 74.9% of the overall purchase price, but supporters will hold a "golden share" of just over 25%, giving them a blocking stake on any change of ownership and an influential boardroom voice.

Legal advice is being sought on the idea of a change of ownership at a club triggering a mandatory window for fans to take the opportunity to shape the ownership structure and buy the club at a price set by an external, independent auditor.

Under the proposals, fans would be free to set up their co-operative style model, shareholding trust or other structure that enabled them to have a say in the club.

While the government will reiterate that it has no desire to regulate football directly, the prime minister believes the democratisation of football club ownership taps into wider themes about the "mutualisation" of public services and the need for regulatory reform.

.

How does everyone feel about this? I think it is a step in the right direction but can't help feel that it will be diluted until it is useless or will never see the light of day.

How much would you invest?(discounting ST/ kits etc)

[iancognito]

The government is to unveil radical proposals that would give football fans first option to buy their clubs when they were put up for sale and require clubs to hand over a stake of up to 25% to supporters' groups.

The ideas, due to be included in the Labour manifesto with a promise of action in the first year of a new government, are designed to give fans a far greater say in how their football clubs are run and overhaul the way the game is governed.

It is believed that No 10, which has been working secretly on the plans for weeks, has resolved to deliver concrete proposals to tackle growing public disquiet at the level of debt carried by some clubs, the ownership model of others and the dysfunctional structure of the Football Association.

The plans include:

• Requiring clubs to hand a stake of up to 25% to fans in recognition of their links with their local community.

• Implementing a change-of-control clause that would allow fans a window to put together a takeover of their club if it was up for sale or went into administration.

• Giving the football authorities a deadline to reform the FA and remove "vested interests" from the board, and streamline decision making.

• Introducing a unified system of governance that co-ordinates issues such as club ownership and youth development.

• Allowing professional leagues and the FA additional oversight of club takeovers.

The plans are likely to put Gordon Brown on a collision course with the Premier League, which has vigorously defended its free-market model in recent years, but he will claim that the proposals are for the good of the game.

Two policy ideas have emerged as frontrunners to improve supporter representation around the boardroom table, both of which would see fans taking a meaningful ownership stake in clubs.

Portsmouth's financial collapse, the outpouring of anger in response to the leveraged buyouts at Manchester United and Liverpool that loaded the clubs with combined debts of more than £1bn, and last week's shock resignation of the FA chief executive, Ian Watmore, in protest at the "vested interests" on the board are all understood to have persuaded the prime minister to act.

Reflecting the view that they will succeed in democratising ownership only if there is stronger leadership from the top, it will also set football a deadline of up to a year to overhaul its governance system.

Under the scheme to give fans a stake, supporters' trusts with elected representatives, audited accounts and Financial Services Authority recognition would be responsible for maintaining the link between clubs and their community and ensuring fans are not priced out of the game.

The government could, however, face legal challenges from existing owners over the dilution of their shares. It has echoes of the model proposed by the so-called Red Knights attempting to buy Manchester United. Wealthy fans will contribute 74.9% of the overall purchase price, but supporters will hold a "golden share" of just over 25%, giving them a blocking stake on any change of ownership and an influential boardroom voice.

Legal advice is being sought on the idea of a change of ownership at a club triggering a mandatory window for fans to take the opportunity to shape the ownership structure and buy the club at a price set by an external, independent auditor.

Under the proposals, fans would be free to set up their co-operative style model, shareholding trust or other structure that enabled them to have a say in the club.

While the government will reiterate that it has no desire to regulate football directly, the prime minister believes the democratisation of football club ownership taps into wider themes about the "mutualisation" of public services and the need for regulatory reform.

.

How does everyone feel about this? I think it is a step in the right direction but can't help feel that it will be diluted until it is useless or will never see the light of day.

How much would you invest?(discounting ST/ kits etc)

Fans owning clubs is a completely gash idea. The only place it's really worked is Barcelona but that's been in public ownership with an established way of operating for decades. Look at that non-league one a few years ago where everyone chipped in a little bit. It ended up going the way of the pear because there were too many people wanting to run a club like it was Championship manager. By all means have representation of the fans within the club but it should be run like a business by businessmen, not people with a passionate interest.

[Jon the Hat]

Labour are not going to be in government again for at least another 12 years so I think we can disregard this one...