Fans Ownership of the Club.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I know this idea has been floated before, but is there nay chance that we could all put some money together to try to invest in the club. I know I'd be more than happy to put in a thousand or two, but if we could actually get enough to have a representative on the board (not NI or RC), surely that would be positive. I know similar was attempted with SISA, but I'd be interested to see what we could do with it.

 

Mods, could we make this into a poll?

[Mole]

It'll never be feasible at Saints nor for the majority of English league clubs. Perhaps if we were a noddy outfit like a Bournemouth it could work but Saints are just to big and would require huge participation. Look to the Saints Trust and you can see it couldn't work.

[bungle]

Looking at the history of what our fans think is best for the club, it would clearly be one of the worst moves ever.

[Scummer]

It'll never be feasible at Saints nor for the majority of English league clubs. Perhaps if we were a noddy outfit like a Bournemouth it could work but Saints are just to big and would require huge participation. Look to the Saints Trust and you can see it couldn't work.

 

It works in most European countries though, and at far bigger clubs than Saints.

 

I guess it's easier if it's always been that way though.

[Micky]

It'll never be feasible at Saints nor for the majority of English league clubs. Perhaps if we were a noddy outfit like a Bournemouth it could work but Saints are just to big and would require huge participation. Look to the Saints Trust and you can see it couldn't work.

 

I think you'll find that a certain poster from here actually tried that with some cohorts not so very long ago, and found it not as simple as you suggest...!!

[Snowballs2]

It could never work, can you imagine Nick Illingsworth as CEO or Chairman...no thank you!

[70's Mike]

I think you'll find that a certain poster from here actually tried that with some cohorts not so very long ago, and found it not as simple as you suggest...!!

 

30Pieces of silver

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

It could never work, can you imagine Nick Illingsworth as CEO or Chairman...no thank you!

 

I said no Nick Illingsworth or Richard Chorley.

[cambsaint]

We would need five thousand supporters, or mini groups, to put £1K in to raise £5million.

It might be feasible, my savings are returning very little at the moment and I could afford £1K for Saints.

However it would be too unwieldy to have holdings lower IMO, but of course groups of five fans could put £200 in each, and hold one sharebetween them.

Unfortunately the fees would probably very high unless a Saints fan was a corporate lawyer who would do it on the cheap.

It's not impossible, but it would need a consortium of suitably skilled fans to start the ball rolling.

I doubt it could be completed by next season, but if we could just buy Wilde out at a sensible price we would hold the balance of power.

 

Cambsaint

[Thedelldays]

Looking at the history of what our fans think is best for the club, it would clearly be one of the worst moves ever.

for once bungle..i totally agree

[1976_Child]

i would love it if the club was an Industrial and Provident Society. One member, one vote. But i wouldn't be prepared to put any cash into the club as it is currently constituted - as a blood-sucking plc.

[1976_Child]

..perhaps we should ask the government to bail us out.

 

..oh, hang on, we aren't a bank or a car maker.

 

duh...

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Unfortunately the fees would probably very high unless a Saints fan was a corporate lawyer who would do it on the cheap.

 

Cambsaint

 

Fulthorpe?

[Snowballs2]

I said no Nick Illingsworth or Richard Chorley.

 

 

OOPS sorry did not see that !

[Rebel]

I know this idea has been floated before, but is there nay chance that we could all put some money together to try to invest in the club. I know I'd be more than happy to put in a thousand or two, but if we could actually get enough to have a representative on the board (not NI or RC), surely that would be positive. I know similar was attempted with SISA, but I'd be interested to see what we could do with it.

 

Mods, could we make this into a poll?

 

That's exactly what the Saints Trust set out to do - but Saints fans didn't want to know

 

The Trust was registered as an Industrial and Provident Society with the Registrar of Friendly Societies. As such all its actions and conduct are regulated by the Financial Services Authority under the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1965 - 1978.

 

The Trust therefore has to be run democratically by an elected committee - with all major decisions put to its members to vote on

 

the Trust has failed so far simply because Saints fans didn't want to get involved and put their money or their time where there mouths are

 

The Trust was set up to use its memberships fees to buy shares in the club - giving its members collective ownership of shares in the club

 

similarly the Trust was also set up so that exisiting supporter shareholders could proxy their shares to club - giving a stonger collective voice for fans

 

about 40% of the Shares in SLH were owned by small shareholders - for the most part fans I would guess

 

Unfortunately SLH chose not recognised the proxy forms on an ongoing basis as other clubs have done but required a proxy formn for each vote or AGM (severely weakening the Trust)

 

the Trust found a solution to this but it would have cost c. £15,000 a year to administer - money the Trust simply didn't have

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

OOPS sorry did not see that !

 

No worries, it was my first thought too when drafting, lol!

[Rebel]

i would love it if the club was an Industrial and Provident Society. One member, one vote. But i wouldn't be prepared to put any cash into the club as it is currently constituted - as a blood-sucking plc.

 

that's exactly what the Saints Trust is - and if it had enough members and bought enough shares in SLH as a result - that is in effect what the club would be!

[eelpie]

..perhaps we should ask the government to bail us out.

 

..oh, hang on, we aren't a bank or a car maker.

 

duh...

 

We could have been a shareholder in Barclays if it was part nationalised like the others..

[Ponty]

We'd only break it.

[Thedelldays]

after reading posts from some of the nut jobs on here...there is no way I would want them anywhere near the club...

 

the blameless hypocricy that would be in play and the cloak and dagger jibes would make the current lowe affair look rather tame

[Mole]

That's exactly what the Saints Trust set out to do - but Saints fans didn't want to know

 

The Trust was registered as an Industrial and Provident Society with the Registrar of Friendly Societies. As such all its actions and conduct are regulated by the Financial Services Authority under the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1965 - 1978.

 

The Trust therefore has to be run democratically by an elected committee - with all major decisions put to its members to vote on

 

the Trust has failed so far simply because Saints fans didn't want to get involved and put their money or their time where there mouths are

 

The Trust was set up to use its memberships fees to buy shares in the club - giving its members collective ownership of shares in the club

 

similarly the Trust was also set up so that exisiting supporter shareholders could proxy their shares to club - giving a stonger collective voice for fans

 

about 40% of the Shares in SLH were owned by small shareholders - for the most part fans I would guess

 

Unfortunately SLH chose not recognised the proxy forms on an ongoing basis as other clubs have done but required a proxy formn for each vote or AGM (severely weakening the Trust)

 

the Trust found a solution to this but it would have cost c. £15,000 a year to administer - money the Trust simply didn't have

 

The Trust failed because it tried to run before it could walk. It squandered money on a negligable number of shares that would have been better spent on administration. It threw away it's independence by accepting proxies from Wilde and Crouch. It got led up the garden the path by Wilde in respect of having a fan on the board. The very idea of a fan on the board is ridiculous because the said FOTB would be a law unto himself for the simple reason he'd be voting as he saw fit, not as the membership saw fit, if there had not been a Trust ballot previously which set in stone the views of members. Nick Illingsworth is the current chairman and i for one would not want him voting in meetings propped up by the weight of my Trust membership!

[Rebel]

The Trust failed because it tried to run before it could walk. It squandered money on a negligable number of shares that would have been better spent on administration. It threw away it's independence by accepting proxies from Wilde and Crouch. It got led up the garden the path by Wilde in respect of having a fan on the board. The very idea of a fan on the board is ridiculous because the said FOTB would be a law unto himself for the simple reason he'd be voting as he saw fit, not as the membership saw fit, if there had not been a Trust ballot previously which set in stone the views of members. Nick Illingsworth is the current chairman and i for one would not want him voting in meetings propped up by the weight of my Trust membership!

 

I agree with you about the Trust trying to run before it could walk - unfortunately it was cause of the times!

 

Similarly the Trust wasn't the only one fooled by Wilde - a lot of people were and like Crouch the Trust preached caution and called for Crouch and Wilde to work together

 

Other clubs have supporters representatives on the board - and in Germany I think it is - clubs are 51% owned by their members - and Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain are 100% owned by the members

 

A significant supporter shareholding or supporter representative on the board would ensure that decisions are made in the favour of the club and not its major shareholders or directors, it would also make the operating of the club more open and honest

 

things that would have made a real difference to to the way things have turned out for SFC over the last few years

[FMPR]

We would need five thousand supporters, or mini groups, to put £1K in to raise £5million.

It might be feasible, my savings are returning very little at the moment and I could afford £1K for Saints.

However it would be too unwieldy to have holdings lower IMO, but of course groups of five fans could put £200 in each, and hold one sharebetween them.

Unfortunately the fees would probably very high unless a Saints fan was a corporate lawyer who would do it on the cheap.

It's not impossible, but it would need a consortium of suitably skilled fans to start the ball rolling.

I doubt it could be completed by next season, but if we could just buy Wilde out at a sensible price we would hold the balance of power.

 

Cambsaint

 

This is said with all seriousness, could you not get a group of fans together to help raise the other £4m that Crouch requires to get rid of Lowe? I know its a lot of money but 4,000 people donating 1k each to rid your overdraft is probably the single biggest thing to getting your club our of the mire its in. Pompey a few years back had lifetime season tickets for 5k donations iirc when we wnet through the same. Providing Lowe doesnt get the money and leaves which is surely your aim?

[derry]

The approximate shareholding position is 41 shareholders own 81% and 4000 shareholders own 19%. Of the 41 shareholders more than half are in nominee companies and not even named.

[Stirchleysaint]

Why doesn't the club offer bonds to the supporters? For example:

 

£500 bond - to be paid back at £100 per year for 7 years in a variety of formats (cash, discount off season ticket, in match tickets of bondholder's choice etc).

 

Selling twelve thousand £500 bonds would pay off the overdraft.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

We would need five thousand supporters, or mini groups, to put £1K in to raise £5million.

It might be feasible, my savings are returning very little at the moment and I could afford £1K for Saints.

However it would be too unwieldy to have holdings lower IMO, but of course groups of five fans could put £200 in each, and hold one sharebetween them.

Unfortunately the fees would probably very high unless a Saints fan was a corporate lawyer who would do it on the cheap.

It's not impossible, but it would need a consortium of suitably skilled fans to start the ball rolling.

I doubt it could be completed by next season, but if we could just buy Wilde out at a sensible price we would hold the balance of power.

 

Cambsaint

 

 

I think someone is actively working on something similar.

[Mole]

A significant supporter shareholding or supporter representative on the board would ensure that decisions are made in the favour of the club and not its major shareholders or directors, it would also make the operating of the club more open and honest.

 

But would it be better for fans? The FOTB would be constrained by a confidentiality clause effectively meaning he (or she) would by voting how he (or she) saw fit. Of course if whatever was being voted on had already been voted on by Trust members that's ok, but the there would be occasions where the FOTB had to vote of his (or her) own back.

 

Would you trust Nick Illingsworth to vote on your behalf without knowing how he was going to vote?

[trousers]

I think someone is actively working on something similar.

 

Is their website nearing completion? cheers

[$$$]

the Trust has failed so far simply because Saints fans didn't want to get involved and put their money or their time where there mouths are

 

:smt005

 

Perhaps if the trust actually communicated with its members, it might be more successful. I stupidly joined up when it was first created and the only communication I have received in that time was a demand for £10, a few months back for eight months membership. The trust can't even be bothered to update the committee page on it's website. It is a pointless joke.

[Snowballs2]

I agree with you about the Trust trying to run before it could walk - unfortunately it was cause of the times!

 

Similarly the Trust wasn't the only one fooled by Wilde - a lot of people were and like Crouch the Trust preached caution and called for Crouch and Wilde to work together

 

Other clubs have supporters representatives on the board - and in Germany I think it is - clubs are 51% owned by their members - and Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain are 100% owned by the members

 

A significant supporter shareholding or supporter representative on the board would ensure that decisions are made in the favour of the club and not its major shareholders or directors, it would also make the operating of the club more open and honest

 

things that would have made a real difference to to the way things have turned out for SFC over the last few years

 

 

By its apparent link to supporting through Illingsworth the Lowe / Wilde combination, it would be very unwise to take the Trust seriously.

Therefore although I could afford to buy a bond or two not through the Trust.

[Mole]

:smt005

 

Perhaps if the trust actually communicated with its members, it might be more successful. I stupidly joined up when it was first created and the only communication I have received in that time was a demand for £10, a few months back for eight months membership. The trust can't even be bothered to update the committee page on it's website. It is a pointless joke.

 

I said in the early days they were wasting money on pointlessly poxy numbers of shares. 1885 shares gimmicks and such like was an idiotic way for a new club to throw away subs that should have been put into the bank and used to grow the Trust. They should have got someone on the Trusts board with accountancy skills as i'm sure he would have advised they concentrated on building up a membership base before trying to become players in the PLC.

[captain sensible]

As I haven't paid my fiver, I cant post a new thread, but I would like to see this site and possibly the Saints Trust organize and advertise a proposed boycott of Barclays by all Saints fans and the wider Community, unless they look elsewhere to recapitalize by recalling overdrafts. I would hope that the potential losses and damage to reputation would be enough to stave off the threat of administration, to the club.

 

Have I got any support on this idea?

[pfc123]

Pompey a few years back had lifetime season tickets for 5k donations iirc when we wnet through the same.

 

The price was 2 grand not 5. It was all done by word of mouth and was a quick way to raise cash for an outstanding VAT or IR payment. I missed out on it by a single day. Bugger.....

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Is their website nearing completion? cheers

 

 

very soon I was told last night

[jonah]

They should have got someone on the Trusts board with accountancy skills

 

:-):-):-):-):-):-):-)

 

If one thing has summed up why Saints fans should be kept 1000 miles away from the boardroom, the Saints Trust was it. A complete lack of integrity from day one, the false membership renewal numbers, all the way through to their collusion with Wilde and Crouch and lying about share proxies. There is not one prominent "fan" I would want anywhere near the running of the club.

 

The way for fans to get the club back on an even keel is to support it, not to deliberately disrupt it from on high (and down low on here).

[70's Mike]

very soon I was told last night

 

I am intriged

[CB Fry]

Would be a total disaster.

 

Exhibit one - the Saints Trust has never really got off the ground and now seems an irrelevence.

 

Exhibit two - the clowns that were responsible for the Ted Bates Statue calamity, the only thing in our history that really did make us a national laughing stock. (I don't remember the Steve Wigley appointment appearing on Have I Got News For You)

 

Run entirely by fans/football people/"us"/etc, for fans. And it was one project, not a multi lateral business. They only had to put one statue up.

 

And those "Saints people" totally co c ked it up. Totally co c ked it up.

 

Why - the utter obsession that if you are "passionate Saints fan" that out ranks any other qualification.

 

That's why we ended up with a wildlife woodcarver who had never in his life done a life size human sculpture or a large scale public space commision and never worked in bronze being handed the biggest human sculpture comission in the city of Southampton since the war. To be made out of bronze.

 

What was his qualification? He was a "passionate Saints fan" and owned a chisel. Brilliant. When can you start?

 

 

We do not need these people anywhere near the running of the football club. We don't need good old Mick from the Northam social club appointed executive in charge of media relations because he used to run a paper shop and he's had a season ticket for forty years.

 

Fan ownership? No, no, no, no, no.

Edited 28 January, 2009 by CB Fry

[Ponty]

Or... The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[wild-saint]

Would be a total disaster.

 

Exhibit one - the Saints Trust has never really got off the ground and now seems an irrelevence.

 

Exhibit two - the clowns that were responsible for the Ted Bates Statue calamity, the only thing in our history that really did make us a national laughing stock. (I don't remember the Steve Wigley appointment appearing on Have I Got News For You)

 

Run entirely by fans/football people/"us"/etc, for fans. And it was one project, not a multi lateral business. They only had to put one statue up.

 

And those "Saints people" totally co c ked it up. Totally co c ked it up.

 

Why - the utter obsession that if you are "passionate Saints fan" that out ranks any other qualification.

 

That's why we ended up with a wildlife woodcarver who had never in his life done a life size human sculpture or a large scale public space commision and never worked in bronze being handed the biggest human sculpture comission in the city of Southampton since the war. To be made out of bronze.

 

What was his qualification? He was a "passionate Saints fan" and owned a chisel. Brilliant. When can you start?

 

 

We do not need these people anywhere near the running of the football club. We don't need good old Mick from the Northam social club appointed executive in charge of media relations because he used to run a paper shop and he's had a season ticket for forty years.

 

Fan ownership? No, no, no, no, no.

 

Brilliant, Mr fry u are a funny man ! and absolutely spot on

[um pahars]

Fan ownership? No, no, no, no, no.

 

I would counter that the majority of the Club is already owned by fans.

 

If you accept that Lowe, Wilde and the rest of their cabal are fans, then I would guestimate that 75%* of the Club is already in the hands of supporters (feel free to reduce this amount by every person in the cabal who you don't think qualifies as a fan).

 

*(Lowe's cabal 26%, Wilde 16%, Crouch 10%, Corbett's 6%, other ex directors and associates 5%, other fans guessing at circa 10%+)

 

There are some intelligent people on this thread, so I find it strange how few can differentiate between ownership of a club and having an execuitve and board actually running a company/club.

[Thedelldays]

CB Fry is a forum ace...glad he has signed up

[CB Fry]

I would counter that the majority of the Club is already owned by fans.

 

If you accept that Lowe, Wilde and the rest of their cabal are fans, then I would guestimate that 75%* of the Club is already in the hands of supporters (feel free to reduce this amount by every person in the cabal who you don't think qualifies as a fan).

 

*(Lowe's cabal 26%, Wilde 16%, Crouch 10%, Corbett's 6%, other ex directors and associates 5%, other fans guessing at circa 10%+)

 

There are some intelligent people on this thread, so I find it strange how few can differentiate between ownership of a club and having an execuitve and board actually running a company/club.

 

 

Can I take that as a compliment, then Um?

 

Funnily enough I think you have hoisted yourself on your own theory a little here.

 

Your 75% rump of fans could, easily, dominate every EGM and every decision. Your 75% could have fans on the board, fans on the touchline, fans in the kitchen, fans under the stairs, fans everywhere. Your 75% could have kept Pearson or appointed any number of eligible managers.

 

But they don't. It's not active ownership, is it?

 

What the original poster is suggesting is the old chestnut of the Barcelona style super-fan-ownership and by default fans running.

 

You get enough umbridge against the anonymous suits "taking our money and not listening" when fans are "only" stumping up their £600 season tickets.

 

If they are ploughing in another grand, two grand to own the thing that level of shoulder chippage and inflated "we're the lifeblood" importance is only going to swell.

 

Sorry, a fan-led mass buy out could only lead to fan leadership. I find it almost impossible to envisage x thousand saints fans all stumping up a grand each to get their club back only to hand the whole lot over to some rent-a-Hone-or-Hoos.

 

And even if they did the disillusionment would kick in within a fortnight.

 

Plus the very fact that some fans would have to lead and run the mass buy up already would create enough egoage to puff up a fleet of balloons to cross the atlantic and those self appointed saviours are hardly likely to decide to stop there and give up their created empire.

 

Sorry Um, got to disagree - fan ownership would lead to fan running and the dogs breakfast* that would ensue.

 

*current dogs breakfast at club does not make this alternative a success by default.

Edited 28 January, 2009 by CB Fry
missing *

[Saint Fan CaM]

My personal opinion is that the club is already owned by far too many people - i.e. that's because its a PLC with many shareholders.

 

This is the main reason why the club cannot be sold and why investment will not be forthcoming...there are too many interested parties.

 

So for that reason, I think this idea stinks so highly, even a dung beetle would find it repulsive.

[um pahars]

Can I take that as a compliment, then Um?

 

Funnily enough I think you have hoisted yourself on your own theory a little here.

 

Your 75% rump of fans could, easily, dominate every EGM and every decision. Your 75% could have fans on the board, fans on the touchline, fans in the kitchen, fans under the stairs, fans everywhere. Your 75% could have kept Pearson or appointed any number of eligible managers.

 

But they don't. It's not active ownership, is it?

 

What the original poster is suggesting is the old chestnut of the Barcelona style super-fan-ownership and by default fans running.

 

You get enough umbridge against the anonymous suits "taking our money and not listening" when fans are "only" stumping up their £600 season tickets.

 

If they are ploughing in another grand, two grand to own the thing that level of shoulder chippage and inflated "we're the lifeblood" importance is only going to swell.

 

Sorry, a fan-led mass buy out could only lead to fan leadership. I find it almost impossible to envisage x thousand saints fans all stumping up a grand each to get their club back only to hand the whole lot over to some rent-a-Hone-or-Hoos.

 

And even if they did the disillusionment would kick in within a fortnight.

 

Plus the very fact that some fans would have to lead and run the mass buy up already would create enough egoage to puff up a fleet of balloons to cross the atlantic and those self appointed saviours are hardly likely to decide to stop there and give up their created empire.

 

Sorry Um, got to disagree - fan ownership would lead to fan running and the dogs breakfast* that would ensue.

 

current dogs breakfast at club does not make this alternative a success by default.

 

But I would counter that by saying that those clubs that are truly supporter owned (and as you have mentioned them, we'll use Barcelona as an example) don't operate in the active mode that you suggest (in fact our Club is much more active, given the number of boardroom changes recently!!!!).

 

They don't operate in a knee jerk manner, nor do they consult the supporter owners over small or even major decisions.

 

Just because they are owned by supporters, does not mean they are led by supporters, nor that supporters are actively involved.

 

At Barcelona for instance, every four years they choose a president and a board of directors who manage the club; supporters/members have the right to speak and to vote.

 

Nor are they alone in Spain. Athletic Bilbao, Osasuna and Real Madrid are also democratic/mutual organisations, who hold quadrennial elections allowing their members to help determine the future direction of the club.

 

The Germans do it a slightly different way, but they too have an executive in place to run their clubs and don't defer decisions to the membership.

 

The obvious analogy would be with a company whereby just because you are a shareholder, it doesn't mean you get a say on every decision (you get your say at AGM's or EGM's, which is more regular than the Spanish football model).

 

In our culture and competitive environment, there may be a number of reasons why supporter owned clubs may have their work cut out, but that doesn't mean that trotting out the myths that supporters would have a say in the footballing decisions and that we would be led by ameteur supporters should go by unchecked.

 

Methinks people would do well to do some reading on how these clubs operate before they propagate these myths (no offence C B Fry, but some of the stuff you have mentioned above is patently untrue and would indeed be unworkable if it was the case, which it isn't).

 

And that's even before we do get on to the argument that there are a number of individuals and clubs where the "traditional set up" is an absolute shambles, ours included.

[CB Fry]

Okay. The figures in this link are pretty eye watering and probably over-egged but do go some way to illustrating my point that Spanish football is run on fairyland money so any real comparison with that kind of set up in the UK or specifically with Saints is pretty fanciful.

 

http://www.goal.com/en/news/722/la-liga/2009/01/07/1048072/new-report-reveals-massive-debts-in-la-liga

 

The presidential elections in those clubs seem to me like a bloody circus of over inflated promises followed by disarray and fall out. The bottomless pits and reputations of the big two mean of course they get success but it always seems on a knife edge most of the time.

 

 

 

And Germany - everyone knows the old chestnut that you can buy a season ticket for Bayern for what you pay for a bag of chips in Woolston, but again, that aint going to happen here, co-operative fans collective or none.

 

 

 

So, great, you can read up about fans collectives all over the world, but you have to start one here. In Southampton, in 2009. You're not starting one just after Atlee swept in to power.

 

When the leading lights and ex members of the Saints trust can't seem to agree on the font for the letter head the chances of anyone getting a mutual society off the ground in Southampton in 2009 is pie in the sky.

 

You can carry on looking at "the trees" of how they do it across the pond, but all I can see is "the wood" of reality of why it can't and won't happen here.

 

So you can accuse me of myth making, but let's say this in response.

 

I will whole heartedly sign up to a fans collective running Southampton FC once you can show me five more clubs from the top two divisions in England running one first.

[um pahars]

Okay. The figures in this link are pretty eye watering and probably over-egged but do go some way to illustrating my point that Spanish football is run on fairyland money so any real comparison with that kind of set up in the UK or specifically with Saints is pretty fanciful.

 

http://www.goal.com/en/news/722/la-liga/2009/01/07/1048072/new-report-reveals-massive-debts-in-la-liga

 

The presidential elections in those clubs seem to me like a bloody circus of over inflated promises followed by disarray and fall out. The bottomless pits and reputations of the big two mean of course they get success but it always seems on a knife edge most of the time.

 

 

 

 

And Germany - everyone knows the old chestnut that you can buy a season ticket for Bayern for what you pay for a bag of chips in Woolston, but again, that aint going to happen here, co-operative fans collective or none.

 

 

 

So, great, you can read up about fans collectives all over the world, but you have to start one here. In Southampton, in 2009. You're not starting one just after Atlee swept in to power.

 

When the leading lights and ex members of the Saints trust can't seem to agree on the font for the letter head the chances of anyone getting a mutual society off the ground in Southampton in 2009 is pie in the sky.

 

You can carry on looking at "the trees" of how they do it across the pond, but all I can see is "the wood" of reality of why it can't and won't happen here.

 

So you can accuse me of myth making, but let's say this in response.

 

I will whole heartedly sign up to a fans collective running Southampton FC once you can show me five more clubs from the top two divisions in England running one first.

 

If we're talking indebtedness, then I think the English game (as well as the Italians) would probably give them a run for their money.

 

Ownership does not differentiate from poor leadership, no one ever said that (although there is a stronger case for arguing that supporter ownership might well ensure a degree of good governance and transparency, although I accept there are contra arguments).

 

But your concept of supporters ownership of being active in all decisions, kneejerk and led by ameteurs does not reflect on how it works abroad and indeed at home.

 

Jibes such as arguing over the font of a letterherad just belittle what could be a serious debate with mischief making and perpetuating myths about fans having their fingers in every pie.

 

It doesn't work like that, but I'm also not naive enough to think we could introduce such a utopian dream that would ensure a more competive and level playing field.

 

But if you had read my post then I was clear where I said that cultural (we have no desire for it), historical (e.g. we have no history of it) and competive (if sugar daddies are pumping in money elsewhere then it becomes difficult to compete) issues mean it would be a tough ask to retrospectively introduce supporter owned clubs in our league (although there are a number in the lower leagues, mainly out of necessity).

 

BUT that's not the same as saying the concept is unworkable or flawed in it's concept (when it clearly works at home and abroad), not least when the current models of ownership are running a number of clubs (including ours) appallingly.

 

PS Is it a solution for us?? For the three reasons I mentioned above (cultural, history and competitiveness) as well as a few others, then I would have to say no.

Edited 28 January, 2009 by um pahars

[CB Fry]

If we're talking indebtedness, then I think the English game (as well as the Italians) would probably give them a run for their money.

 

Ownership does not differentiate from poor leadership, no one ever said that (although there is a stronger case for arguing that supporter ownership might well ensure a degree of good governance and transparency, although I accept there are contra arguments).

 

But your concept of supporters ownership of being active in all decisions, kneejerk and led by ameteurs does not reflect on how it works abroad and indeed at home.

 

Jibes such as arguing over the font of a letterherad just belittle what could be a serious debate with mischief making and perpetuating myths about fans having their fingers in every pie.

 

It doesn't work like that, but I'm also not naive enough to think we could introduce such a utopian dream that would ensure a more competive and level playing field.

 

But if you had read my post then I was clear where I said that cultural (we have no desire for it), historical (e.g. we have no history of it) and competive (if sugar daddies are pumping in money elsewhere then it becomes difficult to compete) issues mean it would be a tough ask to retrospectively introduce supporter owned clubs in our league (although there are a number in the lower leagues, mainly out of necessity).

 

BUT that's not the same as saying the concept is unworkable or flawed in it's concept, not least when the current models of ownership are running a number of clubs (including ours) appallingly.

 

PS Is it a solution for us?? For the three reasons I mentioned above (cultural, history and competitiveness) as well as a few others, then I would have to say no.

 

 

This is a nice entertaining debate, thanks for getting involved.

 

We are converging - you mention utopia, and we're more or less in the realms of the"brilliant theory" argument about communism. And you also say it in all likelihood isn't going to happen.

 

So defending the concept is pretty futile isn't it?

 

I'm sorry I've touched a nerve on fans groups but I have seen enough live and played out through the old fanzines and the forums to know that these kind of concepts will be strangled at birth by the same people that gave a six-figure commision for a city centre life size bronze cast of a hallowed public figure to a man that carves wooden eagles because he supported the same football team as they did (and this is not a myth).

 

So you carry on reading about German fans collectives in When Saturday Comes and I'll carry on sticking in a few snippy jibes at the great and the good of the fandom aristocracy and we'll meet in the middle and agree that it isn't going to happen here anyway.

 

 

 

I know that doesn't solve anything about how to run SFC, but I look forward to seeing a collective fans' endeavour that will succeed kicking off nicely on Saturday, which might lead us somewhere better.

 

Here's hoping.

Edited 28 January, 2009 by CB Fry
last sentence was a bit of a shambles.

[buctootim]

I used to think a fans buyout could just, possibly work. You know the kind of thing - 10,000 fans buy a bond of £500. That was before I experienced the incredible 'wont pay cant pay' hysteria over the £5 levied for annual membership of this board. If people can kick up such resistance to a £5 fee to post more than three times a day for a whole year - the chance of enough cyber warriors putting their hands in their pockets for the club is negligible.

[um pahars]

This is a nice entertaining debate, thanks for getting involved.

 

We are converging - you mention utopia, and we're more or less in the realms of the"brilliant theory" argument about communism. And you also say it in all likelihood isn't going to happen.

 

So defending the concept is pretty futile isn't it?

 

I'm sorry I've touched a nerve on fans groups but I have seen enough live and played out through the old fanzines and the forums to know that these kind of concepts will be strangled at birth by the same people that gave a six-figure commision for a city centre life size bronze cast of a hallowed public figure to a man that carves wooden eagles because he supported the same football team as they did.

 

So you carry on reading about German fans collectives in When Saturday Comes and I'll carry on sticking in a few snippy jibes at the great and the good of the fandom aristocracy and we'll meet in the middle and agree that it isn't going to happen here anyway.

 

 

 

I know that doesn't solve anything about how to run SFC, but I look forward to seeing a collective fans' endeavour that will succeed kicking off nicely on Saturday, which might lead us somewhere better.

 

Here's hoping.

 

I wouldn't say the concept is futile because it is working, and working well at a number of Clubs (home and abroad).

 

It's not a "miracle cure all" solution, and some fan owned clubs have also failed, but it is an alternative that some clubs at home have turned to and it is an model that some clubs abroad have grown with.

 

However, I would say it is futile to expect that such a model can save Saints as we stand here today.

 

And once again, I think you show your ignorance of how it works in reality by comparing it to a fans whip round and cck up when getting a bloke to do a sculpture.

 

Jibes such as that add nothing to the debate and just perpetuates the same lame stereotypes along the lines that fans will text what substitutions should be made (although a Scandanavian club do run with that model!!!). WIth all due respect, if you want debate then trotting out ill informed jibes is hardly the best way of engendering it.

 

And for those who are vehemently against supporter ownership of Saints, then I end with the fact that the majority of our Club is already owned by fans and they are much more active in influencing and making decisions than their true "supporter owned" counterparts (very often to the detriment of the Club).

 

I find it odd why a 100% owned supporters club would be so much of an aneathema to some, but can only concede it is sadly out of ignorance and mistrust as opposed to any rational argument.

 

PS Arguably, prior to the Reverse Takeover, we were probably a 100% supporter owned football club, albeit the ownership was not widespread.

Edited 28 January, 2009 by um pahars

[CB Fry]

I wouldn't say the concept is futile because it is working, and working well at a number of Clubs (home and abroad).

 

It's not a "miracle cure all" solution, and some fan owned clubs have also failed, but it is an alternative that some clubs at home have turned to and it is an model that some clubs abroad have grown with.

 

However, I would say it is futile to expect that such a model can save Saints as we stand here today.

 

And once again, I think you show your ignorance of how it works in reality by comparing it to a fans whip round and cck up when getting a bloke to do a sculpture.

 

Jibes such as that add nothing to the debate and just perpetuates the same lame stereotypes along the lines that fans will text what substitutions should be made (although a Scandanavian club do run with that model!!!). WIth all due respect, if you want debate then trotting out ill informed jibes is hardly the best way of engendering it.

 

And for those who are vehemently against supporter ownership of Saints, then I end with the fact that the majority of our Club is already owned by fans and they are much more active in influencing and making decisions than their true "supporter owned" counterparts (very often to the detriment of the Club).

 

I find it odd why a 100% owned supporters club would be so much of an aneathema to some, but can only concede it is sadly out of ignorance and mistrust as opposed to any rational argument.

 

PS Arguably, prior to the Reverse Takeover, we were probably a 100% supporter owned football club, albeit the ownership was not widespread.

 

 

Sorry, I resent being called ignorant.

 

Your starting point for debate is a fully formed working active democratic fans co-operative working wonderfully and you attack me for belittling it.

 

Well, sorry, but my starting point is Southampton, England, January 2009.

 

No fans collective, no fans co-operative, no fans mutual society.

 

So who is going to start it? What's it called? Who's the chairman? Who's going on Solent to announce it? What's the structure? How much is the membership? Who's the treasurer? What's the view on the manager now, the team now? Do the bond holders get a season ticket discount, I'd want to know before I sign up. When is the first meeting? Who's going? Who's allowed to go, do I have to register on a website first? Who's running the website? Do I have to pay another fiver to join that one? What did he just say on Sky Sports News? And he's representing us? What a t w at. I'm going to start my own group up. Who's with me?

 

 

 

Don't tell me I'm cheapening things by my approach which is grounded in as much reality as yours.

 

And you know as well as I do the chaps who would be calling to order the first meeting of the Save our Saints Co-operative Mutual Fans Society would be the usual suspects. It isn't going to land on SMS like some mothership. Someone needs to create it. Like someone needed to create one statue and co cked it up like no-one's business. The concept of a fully formed successful statue was pretty easy to revel in as well.

 

So I think the ignorance is in avoiding the facts of creation in preference to glorying in the wonder of if it did happen.

 

And you talk about "absense of rational argument" on my side, which would be fine were the rest of English football signed up to your way. But they aren't, and that's a fact, Jack. So the rest of the league are all irrational by not being in Spanish collectives and being just as bloody skint anyway. Oh, for such rationality!

 

And you've admitted yourself it isn't going to happen, so now this just seems like a debate about a religious belief. Either that or you're going to hit me with the facile "they all laughed at Christopher Columbus" routine.

 

And that is futile..........

Edited 28 January, 2009 by CB Fry