Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

MyFootballClub

Onket said:
If everyone did that what would happen? Would they go down the pan?


I'm not an economist, so I cant give you a proper answer to that.

Pre-existing revenue streams would still be in existence, and there would be new people coming in to try it for themselves, so I suspect not.
 
Final said:
Like all other friendly societies, it's one member-one vote, not one share-one vote.

And all profits have to remain within the company, there are no dividends paid out to the shareholders / members.

But presumably someone can still make an offer?
 
Coming next year to a wadded-up flash mob - MyAfricanTown.com - have a say in economic policies, vote on penal-reforms - should we allow exxon to drill for oil? YOU DECIDE!
 
butchersapron said:
But presumably someone can still make an offer?


yes. But the value of the share doesn't change.

If someone buys a share for more than it's value, then (as I understand it) the excess goes into the company funds, not to the individual who sold the share.

But since owning more shares doesn't give more voting rights, and you're unable to remove any profits from the company, then why would you want to have more than one share?

Even in the event that the company was dissolved / liquidated, any assets have to go into a separate charity, and not into the pockets of the remaining shareholders.
 
Most clubs are owned by a board of directors who siphon off as much money as they can get away with and still have a functioning club.

A club run by fans would keep all the money in the club making it in theory a stronger club.

In this case the fans won’t be die hard fans but will become fans because they own a slice. I like the concept sorry.

I’d prefer it if all clubs weren’t run by capitalist fatcats. Ticket prices all round might be lower if that were the case. Instead of us paying to line the pockets of businessmen who care less about results and more about profit.
 
Onket said:
And what if that almost guaranteed outcome doesn't actually happen, for some unknown &/or unforseseen reason? :rolleyes:

Try again the next season?

That's football for you :)
 
Final said:
Try again the next season?

That's football for you :)

Hello? That brings us back to my first question- what if people get bored after 1 season (or maybe 2) and pull out?
 
Final said:
yes. But the value of the share doesn't change.

If someone buys a share for more than it's value, then (as I understand it) the excess goes into the company funds, not to the individual who sold the share.

But since owning more shares doesn't give more voting rights, and you're unable to remove any profits from the company, then why would you want to have more than one share?

Even in the event that the company was dissolved / liquidated, any assets have to go into a separate charity, and not into the pockets of the remaining shareholders.

Assuming that everything goes to plan - the most you can ever hope for is a soul-less entitiy operating in the shell of what was once a community club? Cheered on by a flash-mob.

football in the 21st century eh?
 
Chorlton said:
Assuming that everything goes to plan - the most you can ever hope for is a soul-less entitiy operating in the shell of what was once a community club? Cheered on by a flash-mob.

football in the 21st century eh?

A lot of assumptions there, and not just about everything going to plan.

Football being football, I suspect that if the results on the pitch improve and the club gets a promotion or two, people will warm to it, if not, they wont.
 
This isn't a club being run in the normal way though. The whole premise relies on lots of people remaining interested & contributing money.
 
Onket said:
This isn't a club being run in the normal way though. The whole premise relies on lots of people remaining interested & contributing money.

No it doesn't.

All pre-existing revenue streams will still exist.

The money which comes in from the members is a bonus revenue stream which the club's league rivals wont have.
 
Final said:
A lot of assumptions there, and not just about everything going to plan.

Football being football, I suspect that if the results on the pitch improve and the club gets a promotion or two, people will warm to it, if not, they wont.

I'm not sure that's the case. - You under estimate the sense of ownership people have about their clubs and also the importance of the manager in the relationship betwixt club and fan. It will also be an extremely strange experience for the players. If one is upset at being dropped - who is going to explain why? - What they going to do? Print off some forum comments and say, go and read them?

Who do you support (sorry if you've said elsewhere - havn't noticed) and would you be happy for your club to be taken over?
 
tangerinedream said:
I'm not sure that's the case. - You under estimate the sense of ownership people have about their clubs and also the importance of the manager in the relationship betwixt club and fan. It will also be an extremely strange experience for the players. If one is upset at being dropped - who is going to explain why? - What they going to do? Print off some forum comments and say, go and read them?

Who do you support (sorry if you've said elsewhere - havn't noticed) and would you be happy for your club to be taken over?


yes, it will be a different experience for the players.
The club will employ a head coach instead of the traditional manager.
Each week the coach will report back on how players have performed at training and make his recommendations about team selection which the members will then vote on (not entirely different from the way some clubs in Italy are run, but in this case the decision is a democratic one from 50k+ members, not just the whim of a single club owner).

It's new, it might not work, but it's going to be interesting for me to follow the progress.

I'm a Spurs fan.
Listed on the AIM, currently owned by a billionaire through via his ENIC investment company.

If he sells up to Abromavich Mk II, what difference would it make to me?
All I can hope for is someone who's willing to invest in the club and not sell off all the good players and siphon off funds into his personal bank account.
 
Onket said:
Yeah, forget the consequences eh, lets just do it for a bit of entertainment.


Hopefully the consequences will be positive ones (like sponsorship from EA sports).

Yep, I've not tried to disguise the fact that in my personal case, this is just a bit of entertainment.

Really, you could could level the same accusation at major percentage of football club owners.

I accept that a few are local boys done good who put the interest of the team above all else (Jack Walker maybe?), but for every one of them, there's a Michael Knighton, a Ken Bates, or a Glazer Clan whose motives are otherwise.

edited for a typo.
 
seriously, this is such a shit idea, the only reason i can think of for it being a semi decent plan would be if you were to form a completely new team at the bottom of the pyramid and start completely from scratch. there's is no way that any clubs supporters would want to be owned by a bunch of reality tv wannabe cunts who want to have a plaything to entertain them when they're a bit bored. at least when some millionaire twat owns your club and wants to do something not in the best interest of fans they can protest and hopefully force some kind of change to the way the club is run. what happens when the members of this scheme decide they want to sell the ground/relocate/change the team name etc 'sorry, you're not a member, you can't have a say in how your club is run'... :rolleyes:

bunch of fucking shit
 
Final said:
I'm a Spurs fan.
Listed on the AIM, currently owned by a billionaire through via his ENIC investment company.

If he sells up to Abromavich Mk II, what difference would it make to me?
All I can hope for is someone who's willing to invest in the club and not sell off all the good players and siphon off funds into his personal bank account.

would you be happy for spurs to be taken over by this scheme is what I meant?
 
strung_out said:
seriously, this is such a shit idea, the only reason i can think of for it being a semi decent plan would be if you were to form a completely new team at the bottom of the pyramid and start completely from scratch. there's is no way that any clubs supporters would want to be owned by a bunch of reality tv wannabe cunts who want to have a plaything to entertain them when they're a bit bored. at least when some millionaire twat owns your club and wants to do something not in the best interest of fans they can protest and hopefully force some kind of change to the way the club is run. what happens when the members of this scheme decide they want to sell the ground/relocate/change the team name etc 'sorry, you're not a member, you can't have a say in how your club is run'... :rolleyes:

bunch of fucking shit

Aye.
 
tangerinedream said:
would you be happy for spurs to be taken over by this scheme is what I meant?

It's all relative.

Spurs are currently owned/controlled by someone with very deep pockets.
For them, being taken over by this scheme would be a step backwards.

However, for a team further down the league struggling for investment, this would be a step forwards.

If membership reached 20m members worldwide all chipping in £35 a year...

-------------

Also - membership isn't capped or closed.
Once club X is taken over, all the fans of that club will be free to sign up (if they so wish).
 
Back
Top Bottom