Topic: Supporter Representation & 50+1 Voting Rights

[Billy Elliot]

Without it being European wide you're basically just advocating for a flight of capital out of the league.  There's also then the small issue of the rest of the football league pyramid being insolvent as is.

Real and Barca are already 100% fan owned, most others in Spain are public limited. If England did bring in legislation it'd only leave Italy from the biggest leagues to follow.

In Germany the 49% is usually made up of corporate sponsors so they still have the financial clout. It also brings a great level of security for lenders as the 51% brings in continual capital investment with membership fees.

It doesn't do anything to sort the rest of the pyramid. At the moment there's no trickle down, something different needs to be done about that.

[So… Howard Philips]

Oh no. We can't save football if it costs a billionaire a few quid.

It wouldn't cost the billionaires anything as the taxpayer would foot the bill. That precedent was well and truly set when the taxpayer paid slave owners the value of their 'property' as the payoff when the UK prohibited slavery.

[Dave McCoy]

Real and Barca are already 100% fan owned, most others in Spain are public limited. If England did bring in legislation it'd only leave Italy from the biggest leagues to follow.

In Germany the 49% is usually made up of corporate sponsors so they still have the financial clout. It also brings a great level of security for lenders as the 51% brings in continual capital investment with membership fees.

It doesn't do anything to sort the rest of the pyramid. At the moment there's no trickle down, something different needs to be done about that.

Spain is not legally 50+1, France is not 50+1, Italy is not 50+1.  If the Socios of Barcelona FC in some bizarro world actually agreed they could sell 100% of Barca to anyone they wanted.  And yet even with 50+1 that doesn't mean it can't be completely fucked up as we're seeing with Barca or Schalke now.

[redmark]

It wouldn't cost the billionaires anything as the taxpayer would foot the bill. That precedent was well and truly set when the taxpayer paid slave owners the value of their 'property' as the payoff when the UK prohibited slavery.

I'm not proposing fan ownership, to be clear, but 'mandatory' fan representation. The argument was put that that would devalue the ownership; which I think is arguable.

The line you're quoting is a throwaway one; there was a slightly more serious followup, but I was finishing work then dashing out. If there are demonstrable losses to owners, those can be compensated - if the legislation allows for that. I don't actually think it has to, but if necessary. I don't think the abolition of slavery is the most relevant or recent precedent. In any event, there are ways that such compensation could be paid off without it costing the taxpayer money.

There's another point to consider here, though. We have a strange expectation with FSG that they don't take any money out of the club. An odd scenario for a 'business'. The only way they can profit is by selling. Arguably, it also encourages them to sell at a point when our value is most inflated but they can see difficult times ahead, which wouldn't be ideal for the club. If we wanted to encourage stable, long term, responsible, commercially astute owners, we should allow - even encourage - them to take reasonable dividends from operating profits. Another means of offsetting any potential reduction in the value of the club.

[Eeyore]

I'm not proposing fan ownership, to be clear, but 'mandatory' fan representation. The argument was put that that would devalue the ownership; which I think is arguable.

The line you're quoting is a throwaway one. If there are demonstrable losses to owners, those can be compensated - if the legislation allows for that. I don't actually think it has to, but if necessary. I don't think the abolition of slavery is the most relevant or recent precedent. In any event, there are ways that such compensation could be paid off without it costing the taxpayer money.

There's another point to consider here, though. We have a strange expectation with FSG that they don't take any money out of the club. An odd scenario for a 'business'. The only way they can profit is by selling. Arguably, it also encourages them to sell at a point when our value is most inflated but they can see difficult times ahead, which wouldn't be ideal for the club. If we wanted to encourage stable, responsible, commercially astute owners, we should allow - even encourage - them to take reasonable dividends from operating profits. Another means of offsetting any potential reduction in the value of the club.

FSG gave LeBron James 2% of the Club just because he would add value commercially. So how much value do we add commercially.

[redmark]

FSG gave LeBron James 2% of the Club just because he would add value commercially. So how much value do we add commercially.

Probably about 51% worth .

[diggerling!]

This is the 50+1 thread which assumes ownership of half the club has to go elsewhere so I'm making an assumption that is what you're talking about. 

In the context in which most of us have been discussing it on here, 50+1 is an aspiration that fans initially receive (read: take via new legislation) a majority of voting rights. This may or may not (depending on the timelines or whether you deem it desirable or not), include a 50+1% financial share in the club.

My view is that clubs should be given a new legal entity based on them being 'community assets' which would require them to operate on a not-for-profit basis. Regulations around those CA's would be much easier to implement than changes to existing competition laws and the like which would apply to business entities. Not everyone's cup of tea I know, but that's my view.

[Eeyore]

Probably about 51% worth .

Sounds very fair mate.

[Dave McCoy]

In the context in which most of us have been discussing it on here, 50+1 is an aspiration that fans initially receive (read: take via new legislation) a majority of voting rights. This may or may not (depending on the timelines or whether you deem it desirable or not), include a 50+1% financial share in the club.

My view is that clubs should be given a new legal entity based on them being 'community assets' which would require them to operate on a not-for-profit basis. Regulations around those CA's would be much easier to implement than changes to existing competition laws and the like which would apply to business entities. Not everyone's cup of tea I know, but that's my view.

I don't know, maybe I just need to exit the thread then.  Sounds to me that as always there's an ideal and then there's reality.  What does any of this have to do with what can actually be accomplished in the current political and financial climates?

[John C]

This is Alan's superb post from the ESL thread and it's pertinent in here for everyone's deliberations. The posts he refers to from 2010 can be found if you click on the link to his initial post.

We've been through the hoop of fan ownership once before and it's just not going to happen. It didn't stand a chance when

For context this is a list of the owners of Premier League clubs and their wealth. FSG just scrape into the top ten. It's from an article written last April when Saudi Arabian Public Invstment Fund (assets £257bn) and Reuben Brothers (£18bn) were trying to buy Newcastle:

Man City - Abu Dhabi Group / Sheikh Mansour. Net Worth £17.7bn
Chelsea - Roman Abramovich. Net Worth £9.2bn
Arsenal - Stan Kroenke. Net Worth £8bn
Wolves - Fosun International / Guo Guangchang. Net Worth £5.4bn
Aston Villa - Nassef Sawiris and Wes Eden. Net Worth - Sawiris £4.6bn, Eden £2bn
Man United - Glazer Family - £3.8bn.
Tottenham - Joe Lewis £3.7bn.
Crystal Palace - Joshua Harris £3.3bn.
Leicester - Srivaddhanaprabha family - £2.9bn.
Liverpool - Fenway Sports group / John Henry - £2bn.
Newcastle - Mike Ashley £2bn.
Everton - Farhad Moshiri - £1.8bn.
Brighton - Tony Bloom £1.3bn.

This is the context. It's why 'plucky little teams' like Leicester can win the league and Wolves, Villa and others are no longer struggling Championship teams but established Premier League teams.

I wrote these posts back in 2010 about the failure of ShareLIverpool and I don't think much has changed.

The value of the club has increased since then and the idea a wholly fan-owned Liverpool Football Club is just not worth wasting time on.

There are people who have been involved in the fan consultation process who need to push the club into looking at fan representation at board level, not just consultation. That doesn't have to be reliant on fan ownership.

[diggerling!]

What does any of this have to do with what can actually be accomplished in the current political and financial climates? 

Have a look at https://reclaimourgame.com to see what is going on around this in the here and now. See also Supporter Trusts up and down the leagues and the FSA. There's plenty going on if you're interested.

You're readily admitting this would be no answer for lower league football.

No I haven't. The whole idea of what I've been discussing is based around a sustainable model for the whole football pyramid. Don't make shit up.

[CraigDS]

No I haven't. The whole idea of what I've been discussing is based around a sustainable model for the whole football pyramid. Don't make shit up.

Given how much the PL subsidises the lower leagues, and needs to more than it does, I'm not sure how there is both a leveling off of finances at the top level and a sustainable model for the lower leagues which doesn't see a load of them going out of business.

[diggerling!]

This is Alan's superb post from the ESL thread and it's pertinent in here for everyone's deliberations. The posts he refers to from 2010 can be found if you click on the link to his initial post.

With respect nobody is seriously suggesting that fans getting a majority financial share is realistic at the moment. It is voting rights and the ability to determine the direction of travel that the clubs and the wider game are going in that is being suggested.

[Dave McCoy]

Have a look at https://reclaimourgame.com to see what is going on around this in the here and now. See also Supporter Trusts up and down the leagues and the FSA. There's plenty going on if you're interested.
No I haven't. The whole idea of what I've been discussing is based around a sustainable model for the whole football pyramid. Don't make shit up.

My bad, that was a different poster. I'll edit the previous post.

[So… Howard Philips]

I don't know, maybe I just need to exit the thread then.  Sounds to me that as always there's an ideal and then there's reality.  What does any of this have to do with what can actually be accomplished in the current political and financial climates?  You're readily admitting this would be no answer for lower league football.

And were will this rampant socialism end? Worker representation on company boards?

[diggerling!]

My bad, that was a different poster. I'll edit the previous post.

No worries.

[diggerling!]

Given how much the PL subsidises the lower leagues, and needs to more than it does, I'm not sure how there is both a leveling off of finances at the top level and a sustainable model for the lower leagues which doesn't see a load of them going out of business.

Yeah this is all probably happening too late for a good number of clubs. Unfortunately it was inevitable given the amount of money at the top of the game and the trickle down myth.

[JackBauer]

With respect nobody is seriously suggesting that fans getting a majority financial share is realistic at the moment. It is voting rights, the ability to determine the direction of travel the clubs and the wider game are going that is being suggested.

Yes, and as has already been said, those voting rights have value, so the idea that the current owners are willingly going to give those up to supporters (or, more realistically, a tiny clique of supporters who will then claim to speak for the entire fanbase) is fantasy island, pie in the sky stuff as well.

[Dave McCoy]

Have a look at https://reclaimourgame.com to see what is going on around this in the here and now. See also Supporter Trusts up and down the leagues and the FSA. There's plenty going on if you're interested.

So I looked at the website and I still have the same opinion.  As soon as you legislate majority vote there is no other choice but to then force a majority sale as nobody in their right mind is going to value it otherwise.  The whole political establishment is feeding from the austerity trough so where again where is this possible?

[Dave McCoy]

And were will this rampant socialism end? Worker representation on company boards?

What's funny was I was going to respond to diggerling with how I thought you all were a bunch of socialists.  The solution to most of European football's issues is socialism in that more money needs to be shared but all I see is people arguing over who gets to control the money instead.

[redmark]

Given how much the PL subsidises the lower leagues, and needs to more than it does, I'm not sure how there is both a leveling off of finances at the top level and a sustainable model for the lower leagues which doesn't see a load of them going out of business.

Ultimately - and this can only really be delivered by the involvement of ordinary people in football clubs - the distorted finances of football will be corrected by reducing the proportion of money spent on player wages and agent fees. There's plenty of money within the sport once the PL realises that ~ £2.5bn per year on a few hundred footballers is a little excessive.

[redmark]

What's funny was I was going to respond to diggerling with how I thought you all were a bunch of socialists.  The solution to most of European football's issues is socialism in that more money needs to be shared but all I see is people arguing over who gets to control the money instead.

The people

[redmark]

So I looked at the website and I still have the same opinion.  As soon as you legislate majority vote there is no other choice but to then force a majority sale as nobody in their right mind is going to value it otherwise.  The whole political establishment is feeding from the austerity trough so where again where is this possible?

Why?

[diggerling!]

Yes, and as has already been said, those voting rights have value, so the idea that the current owners are willingly going to give those up to supporters (or, more realistically, a tiny clique of supporters who will then claim to speak for the entire fanbase) is fantasy island, pie in the sky stuff as well.

Who's expecting them to willingly give them up?

[redmark]

Yes, and as has already been said, those voting rights have value, so the idea that the current owners are willingly going to give those up to supporters (or, more realistically, a tiny clique of supporters who will then claim to speak for the entire fanbase) is fantasy island, pie in the sky stuff as well.

The idea does not rely on their willingness.

[John C]

With respect nobody is seriously suggesting that fans getting a majority financial share is realistic at the moment. It is voting rights and the ability to determine the direction of travel that the clubs and the wider game are going in that is being suggested.

That's fine mate, somehow getting a voice on the board is more realistic if possible at all. All I'm emphasising is beware of the numbers associated with any sort of ownership

[diggerling!]

All I'm emphasising is beware of the numbers associated with any sort of ownership

You mean the £££'s or the clamour of rabid reds at the boardroom door?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

The idea does not rely on their willingness.

[Dave McCoy]

Ultimately - and this can only really be delivered by the involvement of ordinary people in football clubs - the distorted finances of football will be corrected by reducing the proportion of money spent on player wages and agent fees. There's plenty of money within the sport once the PL realises that ~ £2.5bn per year on a few hundred footballers is a little excessive.

Yes, really sticking it to those Billionaire Capitalists by fucking over Labor......

The people

I wasn't aware that socialism was the hording of capital by the few.  Will jot that down now.

[redmark]

Yes, really sticking it to those Billionaire Capitalists by fucking over Labor......

You missed a u. And cutting the total sum spent on player wages by - say - 10% isn't going to be sending any of them down the foodbanks.

I wasn't aware that socialism was the hording of capital by the few.  Will jot that down now.

I've got no idea what you're talking about here. For the nth time, I'm not even talking about ownership.

[Alan_X]

Have a look at https://reclaimourgame.com to see what is going on around this in the here and now...

#3 CREATE A LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK TO PROMOTE GREATER SUPPORTER OWNERSHIP OF CLUBS, MOVING TOWARDS THE GERMAN 50+1 MODEL

While point 3 provides immediate protection, the way to provide long-term protection for English clubs is by adopting the German 50+1 rule on supporter ownership of clubs.

Between 2000 and 2020, we saw huge growth in supporter ownership of clubs in the UK through the establishment of Supporters Direct, a body set up to promote democratically-controlled, not-for-profit supporters’ trusts. We now need to build on those foundations.

While we can’t move to a German model overnight, we call on the Government and the game’s authorities to adopt it as the long-term direction and create a legislative framework to support it. Where clubs shares are being sold, either by shareholders or through new share issues, the legislation should require vendors to make shares available on a first refusal basis to recognised, democratically-controlled supporters’ trusts. This rule would apply until trusts own 51% of club shares. The effect would mean that any prospective owner would need the consent of the supporters.

The Government should consider other tax and financial incentives to help trusts build up the shareholding.

I posted in the other thread that the total valuation of Premier League clubs is somewhere between £8bn and £15bn. That leaves supporters trusts needing to find £4-8bn in the coming years to buy the 51% stake.

I also re-posted something from 2010 that responded to the original ShareLiverpool plan to buy Liverpool when it was valued nearer £500m. My best guess at the time was that supporters could raise around £90m at best in hindsight I think that was an over-estimate.

50+1 was brought in to allow commercial investment in German football, not to get rid of it.

[redmark]

#3 CREATE A LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK TO PROMOTE GREATER SUPPORTER OWNERSHIP OF CLUBS, MOVING TOWARDS THE GERMAN 50+1 MODEL

While point 3 provides immediate protection, the way to provide long-term protection for English clubs is by adopting the German 50+1 rule on supporter ownership of clubs.

It irritates me, probably excessively, that they've still not noticed that someone re-ordered the points, but didn't change the wording to reflect that the original point 3 has obviously become point 2.

[Dave McCoy]

You missed a u. And cutting the total sum spent on player wages by - say - 10% isn't going to be sending any of them down the foodbanks.
I've got no idea what you're talking about here. For the nth time, I'm not even talking about ownership.

Tax them more, sure. But any socialism that goes after what a worker can make for their own talents is no socialism I'd want a part of.

For your second part, that was you responding to me about I thought socialism was sharing and not arguing over who owned the capital so not sure what to tell you there.

[Medellin]

Right now, whilst FSG are sort of vulnerable..we should be setting meetings and making demands.
Lets see how sorry they are.

[diggerling!]

I posted in the other thread that the total valuation of Premier League clubs is somewhere between £8bn and £15bn. That leaves supporters trusts needing to find £4-8bn in the coming years to buy the 51% stake.

I also re-posted something from 2010 that responded to the original ShareLiverpool plan to buy Liverpool when it was valued nearer £500m. My best guess at the time was that supporters could raise around £90m at best in hindsight I think that was an over-estimate.

50+1 was brought in to allow commercial investment in German football, not to get rid of it.

Short term: "We call on the Government to legislate to require all English clubs to secure a 51% majority of their registered season ticket holders on any major decision that fundamentally affects the club’s identity or future".

Long term: "While we can’t move to a German model overnight, we call on the Government and the game’s authorities to adopt it as the long-term direction and create a legislative framework to support it. Where clubs shares are being sold, either by shareholders or through new share issues, the legislation should require vendors to make shares available on a first refusal basis to recognised, democratically-controlled supporters’ trusts. This rule would apply until trusts own 51% of club shares. The effect would mean that any prospective owner would need the consent of the supporters."

[Zeb]

Some decisions needing input from supporters is something already conceded by the clubs. Why they made the effort with supporters forums and so on. I don't think it would be particularly onerous on clubs to attach something like a planning permission, a condition for holding a licence, that a decision like moving the club to the arse end of the world should require agreement beyond the owner. Obviously the more you add on, the more onerous it could be. I think some have the idea that German clubs function like workers' collectives when you'd be probably best looking at a cooperative or even something like a museum for an example.

[Vulmea]

I dont think its a simple question to answer how we mend the game and make it more equal,

The US build in specific rules to try and ensure equality and prevent the biggest pockets buying success, the draft etc, if anybody knows about capitalism it has to be them, well them and the Tories, well them and the Tories and Monaco, well them the Tories, Monaco and Dubai, well them the Tories, Monaco, Dbai, and the Russian oligarchs,   oh and the saudi's, and .....
 well them and and ...

UEFA's attempt at financial fair play has been farcical, the fit and proper ownership is a travesty,

The UK Government must recognise that football clubs are community assets - a bit like listed buildings etc - there have to be rules on what is done with them - and that's every club not just the big 6 - that's the way the clubs should be protected in the UK -  I don't think you can just flip to 51 % fan owned and think that's that answer. This probably means any big decisions have to be voted on by the community,  which probably means 'membership' becomes a bigger issue. Then you have the context of actually you could have more members outside the Uk than in it, so a different set of problems but one step at a time , I aint got the brains to think of everything in one go.

In terms of the clubs themselves - no taxation without representation - so the fans have to be on the Board, they have to have voting rights and they have to be duly elected. This isnt a panacea - plenty of knobs out there, good orators and lynch mobs , not a big fan of the democratic process  but its better than most of the alternatives. And this isnt invite a fan to work day they need a specific role on the board and attendance at all board meetings not an afterthought or part time member  - included in strategic planning like the super league, sponsorship deals, etc

UEFA have to recognise that the big 15 or however many there are have too big an advantage, that money buys success, that the dream of a plucky team beating the odds is ridculously long odds, the chances of a team earning there place at the top table without a billionaire owner is non existent. So they need rules to make it more equal - they have tried the squad size, the young recruits, the local players - they have tried various things to try and make it more equal but the clubs themselves have just worked around it  and found loop holes or just flagrantly breached the rules and bought expensive lawyers - so actually they need to be more direct,  maybe handicapping teams who spend more - sorry City you squad costs three times that as the rest of the league you've just lost 1/3 of your points next year, they do it with horse racing dont they?

That needs the business owners to understand that they dont have guaranteed success, that their investment is a gamble, that the money they crave comes from collective TV rights, membership, merchandising -  that you only get to join the game if you buy into that -

Sky - think they already have competition now - Amazon, BT  etc


FIFA - can we just scrap them?

and scrap VAR it kills the enjoyment of the game, its there for maradonna's handball, not for armpits being offiside. Its should only be there to rule on extremes - as it stands officials are hiding behind it.

In terms of socialism thats what football is supposed to be about isnt it? Everybody contributes, everybody shares in the rewards and the pain, some old scots fella said something like that in the 60's, if you don't believe in that then Liverpool isnt really the place to be.

[diggerling!]

I dont think its a simple question to answer how we mend the game and make it more equal,

The US build in specific rules to try and ensure equality and prevent the biggest pockets buying success, the draft etc, if anybody knows about capitalism it has to be them, well them and the Tories, well them and the Tories and Monaco, well them the Tories, Monaco and Dubai, well them the Tories, Monaco, Dbai, and the Russian oligarchs,   oh and the saudi's, and .....
 well them and and ...

UEFA's attempt at financial fair play has been farcical, the fit and proper ownership is a travesty,

The UK Government must recognise that football clubs are community assets - a bit like listed buildings etc - there have to be rules on what is done with them - and that's every club not just the big 6 - that's the way the clubs should be protected in the UK -  I don't think you can just flip to 51 % fan owned and think that's that answer. This probably means any big decisions have to be voted on by the community,  which probably means 'membership' becomes a bigger issue. Then you have the context of actually you could have more members outside the Uk than in it, so a different set of problems but one step at a time , I aint got the brains to think of everything in one go.

In terms of the clubs themselves - no taxation without representation - so the fans have to be on the Board, they have to have voting rights and they have to be duly elected. This isnt a panacea - plenty of knobs out there, good orators and lynch mobs , not a big fan of the democratic process  but its better than most of the alternatives. And this isnt invite a fan to work day they need a specific role on the board and attendance at all board meetings not an afterthought or part time member  - included in strategic planning like the super league, sponsorship deals, etc

UEFA have to recognise that the big 15 or however many there are have too big an advantage, that money buys success, that the dream of a plucky team beating the odds is ridculously long odds, the chances of a team earning there place at the top table without a billionaire owner is non existent. So they need rules to make it more equal - they have tried the squad size, the young recruits, the local players - they have tried various things to try and make it more equal but the clubs themselves have just worked around it  and found loop holes or just flagrantly breached the rules and bought expensive lawyers - so actually they need to be more direct,  maybe handicapping teams who spend more - sorry City you squad costs three times that as the rest of the league you've just lost 1/3 of your points next year, they do it with horse racing dont they?

That needs the business owners to understand that they dont have guaranteed success, that their investment is a gamble, that the money they crave comes from collective TV rights, membership, merchandising -  that you only get to join the game if you buy into that -

Sky - think they already have competition now - Amazon, BT  etc


FIFA - can we just scrap them?

and scrap VAR it kills the enjoyment of the game, its there for maradonna's handball, not for armpits being offiside. Its should only be there to rule on extremes - as it stands officials are hiding behind it.

In terms of socialism thats what football is supposed to be about isnt it? Everybody contributes, everybody shares in the rewards and the pain, some old scots fella said something like that in the 60's, if you don't believe in that then Liverpool isnt really the place to be.

Good post, lots of interesting stuff in there.

Also, I've learnt never to judge a post by the avatar. 

[redmark]

For your second part, that was you responding to me about I thought socialism was sharing and not arguing over who owned the capital so not sure what to tell you there.

It wasn't about who owned the capital, but a degree of influence/control of how it was used. And to increase the influence of the masses, not the few.

[redmark]

Some decisions needing input from supporters is something already conceded by the clubs. Why they made the effort with supporters forums and so on. I don't think it would be particularly onerous on clubs to attach something like a planning permission, a condition for holding a licence, that a decision like moving the club to the arse end of the world should require agreement beyond the owner. Obviously the more you add on, the more onerous it could be. I think some have the idea that German clubs function like workers' collectives when you'd be probably best looking at a cooperative or even something like a museum for an example.

Exactly - a 'registered community asset', as people have described it. Listed buildings have more protection from rapacious owners than football clubs do.

I see Vulmea beat me to the listed buildings analogy .