Nope. You may not agree with my responses, but I've addressed that point several times.
1. On the assumption that Taylor lacks the qualities you mention, what's he supposed to do if there is no-one with those qualities looking to take over. Close the whole thing down?
The correct answer is stop wasting everyone's time and either close it down or work out what can be achieved with the resources available. The point is (and I've said it pretty much from day one) it should have been considered from the outset along with a whole load of other basic issues. What scuppered SLFC at the launch was not too much negativity but not enough.
To use the example of my own business, when we design a building we don't rely on optimistic hopes that everything will be ok as long as no-one asks difficult questions... you ask all of the hard questions, look for all the reasons it will fail, whether that's structure, services, waterproofing... whether the marketing model (for commercial and retail) or visitor profile (arts buildings) will allow it to be successful... You look at the costings, add in all the figures you know about, then add in some for the ones you don't, then add more for contingencies (and the client will add their own contingency) and then the QS will add a bit more just to be sure. You look at all the reasons why you won't get planning and address those, you interview the contractors and investigate to see whether they can handle the job and whether they might go bust. When we do the drawings and write the specification we check every word and every line to see where it might fail and do endless pin-ups and peer reviews... And so on...
I think people who don't work in this sort of business and with no contact with fundraising organisations (not commercial investors), simply don't understand the importance of intelligent pessimism in getting complicated schemes off the ground.
There are plenty of places to get advice on fundraising - this site is as good as any. It's arts based but the principles apply:
http://www.creative-choices.co.uk/digital-culture/finance-and-funding/how-to-arts-fundraising-getting-the-basics-right A couple of key sections:
****
Situational analysis
Before fundraising begins, it is important to consider whether the project or organisation is 'fit for purpose'. Does it have a clear [artistic] vision? Is there a business plan? For potential funders, just as important as the [artistic] quality of the project is the quality of the organisation leading it.
Whether it is money from the public sector or a private company, no money will be forthcoming if the organisation or project cannot demonstrate its viability. Is it feasible that an individual would buy a car without being sure of the quality of the product or taking a test drive before buying? Too often people make the mistake of having the artistic side sewn up, but the engine that will deliver it is in need of repair or, worse still, an emergency roadside pick-up.
In a start-up situation, proving the case can be harder but a funder will need to see evidence of planning and be assured that the right advice has been taken and the appropriate structures are in place. Too often fundraising is marginalised and not seen as an integral part of an operation.****
and
****
Fundraising, sponsorship, patronage or development?
Fundraising comes in many guises and has many different names. A fundraiser needs to understand the difference and what, if anything, is expected in return for funding.
Sponsorship signifies an exchange; a fee is offered in return for an agreed set of benefits that will meet business objectives. A donation implies that nothing is expected in return and that money given is a philanthropic gift.basic stuff - SLFC started out as donation based without a clue whether it would work and is now cobbling together some hybrid version of all of those plus commercial investment...
****
and most crucially:
****
The three Rs of funding
"Two of the biggest hurdles the fundraiser can face are fear and apathy. Fear of a target that seems insurmountable and apathy about tackling it."
To quote Ben Lane, applications manager at the Performing Rights Society Foundation for New Music (PRS Foundation), the three most important factors in arts fundraising are, 'research, research and research'. If fundraising starts without any, targets are likely to remain just targets. A fundraising strategy is an effective tool that will help plan activity and provide direction and focus. At its simplest it will outline the research, define targets, list a plan of action and demonstrate where and how money can be found. It should be a bespoke, active document that is adapted as the fundraising progresses. The research element of the strategy will provide information on where synergies lie, who is likely to support the project and the level of funding available.
Two of the biggest hurdles the fundraiser can face are fear and apathy. Fear of a target that seems insurmountable and apathy about tackling it. A strategy will focus efforts and demonstrate where the money is and how to get it. Another trap is getting on the phone or internet in a scattergun fashion and not researching all options; while the net might spring up a lead for a £5k grant, a strategic research plan might mean awareness of a £25K grant that can be secured in half the time. More haste, less speed generally holds true when it comes to reaching targets. ****
Basic fucking stuff that no-one seemed to bother about. "Research, research, research..." I'd add another three 'R's to that: research, research, research.... What was Share Liverpool's research? From the launch proposal it seemed to have comprised some general stuff on sporting cooperatives tied to the-back-of-a-beermat calculation along the lines of: "we need half a billion... loads of reds spend a few grand going to European finals... and err... if we round it up to five-grand we'd need ummm... 100,000 supporters to stump up... so err... the interweb says we've got a million supporters so err... 5k times a hundred thousand equals half a bill... bingo!, we've done it... get the beers in Rogan lad..."
2. It is likely that RT has been looking for someone with the qualities you mention and would gladly step aside if someone was found. BUT, in any case, SL is sufficiently democratic that your hypothetical someone could almost certainly take over even if RT didnt welcome it.
I'm not sure what democracy has to do with anything? You're missing the point. Fundraising for half a billion quid needs a project champion from the outset. Either a well-connected philanthropist or a well-connected professional. This is all fannying around after the horse has bolted.
3. Even if a hypothetical someone felt unable to take charge of SL, there's nothing to stop them creating their own fan ownership scheme from scratch.
The answer to this is the same as why I choose to slag of Rogan Taylor. Something like this follows the law of diminishing returns. Every time someone tries it the chances of success are reduced, probably exponentially. My anger at Rogan (who let's remember runs a course on football business) stems from the wasted opportunity and the damage it has dome to any subsequent attempt at fan ownership by SLFC, SOS or anyone else.
The SL leadership said long ago that that might be the best it can achieve.
After they'd fucked it up completely first time round...
Bottom line is that it's a free country, and people can knock the SL concept, or organisation, or personnel as much as they want. There's nothing to stop anyone from doing that, and nor should there be.
But how does slagging off Rogan Taylor, or what he has tried to do actually help LFC in any way?
See my points above...
When SL started in 2008, there was still plenty of people willing to pooh pooh the idea on the basis that G&H were going to build us a stadium, and we should give them a fair chance. They've had that chance now. Besides, they want to sell, so the strategy for fan ownership does not require prising the club out of their cold dead hands.
I don't know about others but I pooh-poohed it for the same reasons I am now - it was a half-arsed back-of-the-fag-packet scheme with none of the basic groundwork:
My two pennorth on the Share Liverpool thing:
I wasn't able to get on the site and have only read the Q&A that was posted on here. I have to confess when I read it I was staggered by the amateurish level of the whole thing. These are just my initial thoughts:
I'd love it to happen but if anything this will make it less likely. My big beefs with Share Liverpool:
• Why the big secret? Surely you should have a properly considered debate before asking people to commit to spending £5,000. At least publish your ideas in advance. Going online at 5.00pm and suggesting the first 20,000 would get some (undefined) ticket priviledges was crass in the extreme. I'm involved with an architectural manifesto group and we're about to spend £4,000 on a handout in one of the trade magazines. For £10,000 or so they could have included a decent prospectus, outlining the scheme, a draft constitution and other information in the Echo. An online version could follow but the disemination of the idea and the ability to sign up should have been separate.
• Why sign up on the internet? (I know the answer - it's cheap). Is that really the way to go about raising half-a-billion pounds? I don't know how many clicks the "Count me in" button got before the site crashed but I bet there's a fair amount of students, time-wasters and god-alone-knows what else in there.
• No consideration for the heart and soul of the club. The people who go week in week out and spend all their money on tickets and travel. This wouldn't be "the fans" owning the club. Fatuous comments like "Liverpool fans have always turned out when the club needed them... They find the money somehow, even at short notice..." made my blood boil. Reading the posts from Reds who I know are match goers, talking about getting together with 10, 20 or 50 of their mates to buy one share was ridiculous. There should have been appropriate levels of entry rather than one, overpriced entry level that excluded a vast number of fans and potentially allows middle-class OOTs like me who go to maybe 9/10 games a season to have ten or twenty times the representation of match-going fans.
• Tickets - apart from the vague reference to the first 20,000 internet warriors to sign up getting preferential ticketing arrangements, the only response to the question "will members be guaranteed a ticket" was "You're kidding!" What the fuck does that mean?
• The references to Istanbul and Athens were stupid. I spent less than £1,000 going to Athens and it was a football match and a great trip. There is no comparison between spending up to £1,000 of your hard-earned cash on a trip to a European Final and effectively giving away £5,000. 50,000 fans at £1,000 equals £50 million so that's a tenth of the money they're asking for.
• This made my fucking blood boil!... Q. Why shouldn't I wait and see what happens, without putting up any money? A. You could miss out badly. The list would close. Also we would consider giving the first 20,000... special status... Those who commit first deserve some reward... Absolutely disgusting in my opinion. No mention that the 40,000 who turn up to the games should get special status... just the 20,000 who have a job that allows them to be online at 5.00pm on a work day...
• The figures... why £500 million? All they need is the money to buy the club and some operating capital. Why make fans subsidise the stadium with their own cash when it could be funded through loans initially and through corporate box sales, naming rights etc as it nears completion?
• The figures again... one of the things that has been passed over is what happens if they do get it off the ground but only raise say, £200 million. They talk about buying a "significant share" of the club's shares. I'm sure George and Tom would be delighted. A bunch of naive fans willing to buy a minority share of the club with a nice cash injection. They would piss themselves laughing at the irony of it all.
• Why no draft constitution or club structure? It can't be decided by 100,000 fans like they suggest. They should have published what they thought it should be before asking people to sign up with any commitment, however vague... and that goes back to the fact that they didn't consult widely enough...
Basically it seems to me that what we have is essentially a (well intentioned) pub discussion: "DIC are bidding £500milliion for the club.... How much?... £500milliion... fuck me all we'd need would be... oh... a hundred thousand fans at five grand each.... yeah... they must have spent that going to Istanbul... yeah... well nearly... so what d'you reckon... yeah, let's do it... so we'll need a load of stuff printed and issued... nah internet mate... cheap as chips... we'll need lawyers and other professionals... nah we'll just tag on a "help wanted" ad at the end of the website... "
I could go on...
Sorry but I'm very angry that a good idea has probably been pissed up the wall. I wrote a few weeks back that this sort of thing would only work (and I believe it could work) if it had at its head a real driving force willing to force things through, willing stand on people's toes and not need to rely on consensus. I don't think Rogan Taylor is that person.
The only real obstacle to fan ownership is ourselves. If we fans arent willing to put our hands in our pockets, then obviously the idea will get nowhere. But I am not yet willing to concede that that is the case. If Gerrard, Carra, Dalglish and Rush were given permission to speak in favour, then interest would be piqued. Whereas if forums are just full of negativity towards the project, then the opposite will happen.
As I said - it's not negativity that's killing this it's lack of leadership and an unwillingness to address the basic arithmetic. The model that was being sold at first was one of charitable fund-raising not commercial investment. "If we all cared about the club 100,000 of us would chip in five grand each and buy the club..." and all that's needed to make it happen is Kenny, Steven Gerrard and Carra to speak up... To get an idea of the comparative scale of fund-raising, the new Tate extension fundraising target is £100 million including the usual suspects (Clore foundation etc).
The current model is some half-arsed mongrel of donations and commercial investment that still feels as though there has been no money or effort spent on quality research. I've been angry about this for two and a half years now because there was a tiny chance that full ownership could have been achieved with the right leadership and a well researched proposal - that chance has gone now.
Yes I'm negative because we are all going round in the same circles led by Rogan and his merry band (well intentioned and committed I have no doubt). SLFC or SOS need to ask for donation s to raise a fixed amount - say up to a million - to fund research and pay for some professionals and support staff to put together a strong, costed and feasible proposal.
On past experience I don't see that happening.
