Topic: Does Arsenal Fanshare Scheme Set The Standard?

[xerxes1]

With new ownership at least on the horizon for us, and no sign of a significant effort by our fans to buy the Club, or a share,on the open market, have Arsenal set the standard for what we should be aiming for with our new owners?


At a time when the governance of football clubs has never been more controversial, the Arsenal board will this season actively promote a scheme that will further encourage fan representation and plurality of ownership at the club.

The support for 'Arsenal Fanshare’ from Stan Kroenke, Alisher Usmanov, Danny Fiszman and Lady Bracewell-Smith, who between them own almost 88 per cent of the shares, is particularly significant as it strongly suggests that no takeover is imminent.

At present, shares in Arsenal are trading for around £10,000 each, valuing the club at more than £600 million and ensuring that representation is out of reach for most ordinary fans.

Under the new scheme, however, fans will be able to pay as little as £10 a month to purchase a fraction of a share. Those collective fractions will then be used to purchase shares in the company.

In the short-term, the aim is to increase the representation of supporters as a means of influencing and safeguarding the club’s values.

In the longer term, the scheme could become sufficiently popular to bring boardroom representation or even get past the 25 per cent mark that would represent a 'blocking’ stake to major changes to the club’s ownership, such as a private takeover.

The aim is not for Arsenal to be taken over by fans, but to enable more supporters to have genuine power and involvement over the club’s future.

Such checks and balances are absent from the various privately-owned models of many rivals clubs, including Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea or Manchester City.

“As football became a bigger and bigger business, few fans were able to retain a share in the ownership of their clubs,” said Tim Payton, a board member of Arsenal Fanshare.

“The result has been that the fans’ voice on matters affecting their clubs’ futures has grown weaker and weaker.

“But at Arsenal, the idea of custodianship is central to the club’s unique character. Custodianship is our responsibility as Arsenal fans to look after the club’s values and spirit, and keep them safe for future generations.”

Stock market rules prevent the club from explicitly recommending the scheme, but they will provide space in the club’s match-day programme and also the electronic advertising boards within the Emirates Stadium.

The four years at Arsenal since the move from Highbury have been characterised by considerable boardroom upheaval, as well as the arrival of two billionaire investors in Kroenke and Usmanov, but chief executive Ivan Gazidis is not expecting major changes in the foreseeable future.

He also believes the ownership structure has been enhanced by the existence of small investors, who make up just over 12 per cent of the overall shareholding.

“I don’t see anything dramatic happening in the ownership but of course that can change,” said Gazidis.

“We have four major shareholders and many hundreds of smaller shareholders and I am glad that we do have the participation of those shareholders as well. I don’t sense that there will be any dramatic changes.”

Kroenke, an American sports team owner, is the largest individual shareholder with a stake of 29.9 per cent.

He is then followed by Usmanov, an Uzbek oligarch with just over 26 per cent, Danny Fiszman on 16.1 per cent and Lady Bracewell-Smith on 15.9 per cent.

The balance of power is currently held by Kroenke and Fiszman, who are both on the club’s board, with Usmanov and Lady Bracewell-Smith denied a place among directors despite their combined stake of 42 per cent.

Lady Bracewell-Smith has put her 15.9 per cent stake up for sale through Blackstone, a global financial services company, but would like to sell her shares in one block and has been unable to attract a buyer.

If they were able to raise enough money, it is conceivable that she may be willing to sell some of her stake to Arsenal Fanshare.

With Uefa introducing new 'financial fair-play’ rules to stop clubs spending more than they earn, Arsenal believe their ownership model, which already includes significant fan representation via the Arsenal Supporters’ Trust, fits with the changing new ethos in football.

“I think we are moving into a post-materialistic world,” said Gazidis.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...p-the-nod.html

[Alan_X]

At face value it looks a good idea and probably the only way to get decent levels of fan ownership without government legislation or FA direction.

[planet-terror]

With new ownership at least on the horizon for us, and no sign of a significant effort by our fans to buy the Club, or a share,on the open market, have Arsenal set the standard for what we should be aiming for with our new owners?
etc,,,


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...p-the-nod.html

I think youll find a great amount of effort has been put by SOS,Save LFC ,etc>Good subject for debate.Questionsable opening arguement

[stfabians]

If we were going to own our club the time is now, but its impractical for obvious reasons.

My idea would be to strike a deal with RBS where we agree Liverpool FC fans can open what I would call a LFC ownership account.  From these account fans would loose any interest for a set time - say 25 years or something.  That money would go into a fund that would then be used by the bank to get the money back through investments etc!!!  Problem is how could this be managed? If we were going to do it, we would have to do in a more creative way than saying 100,000 fans put up 3500!!!!

[Joe Rogans Chin]

So, if the rumor is £100 for a fan share, it will take 100 collective fanshares to buy one real share?

lets say all the emirates take it up, thats 600 shares in total? Pointless really.

Share lfc / SOS fan ownership has more purpose, even if its not a relaistic target.

So what do you go for something realistic with no real power or something with substance but inrealistic?

[scatman]

it's a good move, but looks like a long way from proper representation due to the cost of a share, which is far beyond any average person's hands

[Paul Gardner]

It's not perfect, but it is a start.

[Alan_X]

So, if the rumour is £100 for a fan share, it will take 100 collective fanshares to buy one real share?

lets say all the emirates take it up, thats 600 shares in total? Pointless really.

Share lfc / SOS fan ownership has more purpose, even if its not a relaistic target.

So what do you go for something realistic with no real power or something with substance but inrealistic?

I think the point is that £10,000 is way outside the reach of most fans. By setting the level for "part shares" much lower there is the opportunity to make a start at increasing fan involvement. There would have to be some kind of ring-fencing to ensure that the fan shares couldn't be bought up as part of a takeover bid. The club could issue new shares up to say 25% of the overall value of the club, which would then be purchased over time.

You're right that any calculation based on the number of people attending matches doesn't add up, although it's likely that some people might pay say £5,000 or more and others only £100. The truth is that any calculation that's based on all the money towards fan ownership coming at one time is never going to work. The advantage of the Arsenal scheme is that it's incremental and if the first tranche is successful - which may only be a few hundred shares - it will encourage others to get involved. There's also the opprotunity for people to continue contributing. You may pay say £250 a year towards part-shares and over say 20 years watching the game that adds up to half a full share.

It does highlight the real problems with the original share Liverpool concept. The basic reality of the maths (number of fans x contribution) required to reach the kind of values a top club would attract on the open market (debt notwithstanding).

I'm not sure if SOS are lobbying government but it would be good to see pressure put on the Sports Minister to consider this sort of scheme being compulsory for all clubs.

[Joe Rogans Chin]

I think the point is that £10,000 is way outside the reach of most fans. By setting the level for "part shares" much lower there is the opportunity to make a start at increasing fan involvement. There would have to be some kind of ring-fencing to ensure that the fan shares couldn't be bought up as part of a takeover bid. The club could issue new shares up to say 25% of the overall value of the club, which would then be purchased over time.

You're right that any calculation based on the number of people attending matches doesn't add up, although it's likely that some people might pay say £5,000 or more and others only £100. The truth is that any calculation that's based on all the money towards fan ownership coming at one time is never going to work. The advantage of the Arsenal scheme is that it's incremental and if the first tranche is successful - which may only be a few hundred shares - it will encourage others to get involved. There's also the opprotunity for people to continue contributing. You may pay say £250 a year towards part-shares and over say 20 years watching the game that adds up to half a full share.

It does highlight the real problems with the original share Liverpool concept. The basic reality of the maths (number of fans x contribution) required to reach the kind of values a top club would attract on the open market (debt notwithstanding).

I'm not sure if SOS are lobbying government but it would be good to see pressure put on the Sports Minister to consider this sort of scheme being compulsory for all clubs.

Any fans ownership would have to be above 31%, as you say ringfenced. Isn't 70% ownership the level that compulsary purchase of the remaining shares takes place?

[xerxes1]

I think youll find a great amount of effort has been put by SOS,Save LFC ,etc>Good subject for debate.Questionsable opening arguement.

I am a big supporter of SOS, and originally of SL before becoming disillusioned with them.I intended no sleight on their efforts, I simply make the point that the evidence to date is that any share ownership scheme that becomes a reality will almost certainly be offered after purchase by the new owners, and will not comprise one "won" by the fans at point of sale.

Any scheme has to reflect the circumstances of the club, but I dont think that is a bad effort from the Arse.

[manifest]

I think the point is that £10,000 is way outside the reach of most fans.

Agreed, but only if we limit our thinking. What if people could take out a 10,000 pound 'loan' to be paid incrementally over 25-30 years? Or if that is too much, 5000 over the same period? And that such a purchase granted certain rights to seating in a new stadium? It is easy to think of supporting Liverpool for a lifetime, so a lifetime/long investment should be a pretty easy leap.

Anyway....I like the sound of this Arsenal plan, and in reality, it is the only way I can see it happening if we want to compete in the current Prem/Murdoch leveraged league. Nice call Xerxes.

More to the point, there seems nothing we can do to push our partnership issues into the current sale process, we are left dependent on the goodwill of a new owner to engage on this issue....although if October 6th comes with no sale and RBS take some form of control, I would like to see us try and act collectively and ask/demand that RBS ensure that our needs are met in some small way with any new owner. Even that sounds a stretch as I write it, it's difficult enough trying to conduct a sale without having to add in this problem, but I think that the least that Broughton should have done is get a commitment from any prospective buyer that they will meet with SL/SOS and to be willing to open the door for meaningful fan ownership going forward. 

[Chakan]

Maybe the are just trying to make Cesc feel like he is at Barca or Real.

[TLT]

Was just about to post this. An interesting angle from Arsenal, and good luck to them. On face value, it does look like a good idea, to engage fans in the running of the club.

However, unlike SOS/Share LFC, I suppose the main difference is that the fans will have one mini share each. And the joint fan power, wont count for nothing (if that makes sense?)

Where as SOS/Share LFC, if for example got a 10% stake (spread over 1000's of people) they would collectively own 10% of Liverpool.