I'd rather be a PLC

[Ponty]

I don't think a PLC is the way to go but it IS the only way that the integrity of the owner/chairman is accountable. Imagine if Lowe privately owned SFC... there'd be no one to answer to, not even the shareholders.

[Minsk]

Jesus.

 

 

The problem is not the PLC, it is the management.

 

Would this be the same management, whom you have been championing on here, who has presided over 2 relegations and administration?

 

How much money over the past 12 years has been spent on share-buy-backs, boardroom bonuses, etc? I am certain it would be the difference between where we are now and not having to worry about not being in existance this time next week.

 

How much money have board members (aside from Leon) pumped into the club? Apparently we went into admin because we exceeded our overdraught by 110k. If it was a private company I am sure the owners would have found a way to raise such a (in footballing terms) paltry sum.

 

A private owner will still listen to his fanbase customers. If they don't come through the turnstiles he/she will have to do something to attract them back. However, in a plc the chairman is just picking up a wage to do a job. No matter how shambolically that job is done he still gets paid, and if he leaves because of his own inabilities he will still get a nice big payday when he goes!

[jonah]

I think people confuse PLC status with being listed on a stock market for starters - we can still be a PLC with just one owner (like Merlion was), and that gives a higher degree of visibility than private ownership. I had always been strongly in favour of shared ownership as it gave the fans a chance to own part of the club and in theory should have meant they cared more about how it was run. It also provides, by definition, a right to remove people who don't run club as the majority of shareholders see fit. In theory that's what happened when Wilde came along.

 

Where I think it went wrong is on two levels - firstly, individuals held too many shares. I always wanted a 3-5% cap on individual holdings to prevent any individuals holding too much sway - Crouch's 10%, Wilde's 25% (I lost track?) gave them far too much personal power and say in matters. Lowe's 6% even was too high. If those individuals' holdings dropped below 3% then their power and public perception waned and fans in general would have remained more in control.

 

The second level where I think this went wrong was the combination of the campaigns warred by certain individuals and (pardon my bluntness), the stupidity of a section of fans who didn't take their responsibilities are shareholders seriously enough and failed to act on facts rather than PR. I bet there are a lot of unhappy ex-shareholders who lost a lot on the back of that. But most of those fans were simply led by a handful of "uber-fans".

 

The first of these 2 issues is resolvable, the second I'm not so sure - perhaps the first would help fix the second. At least with fans holding shares they have lived and died by their own swords and paid the price for their own failures.

 

If we now get private ownership then fans have no say, no ownership, little visibility of finances and no means to change the club's direction. On the one hand that means they can't interfere and make wrong decisions based on PR and a lack of due dilligence, on the other hand we could be stuck with a Lowe/Wilde/Crouch (delete as applicable) character forever. Stanley might want to "judge them on their actions", but he can do what he likes as there will be no accountability to fans any more and no way to change anything.

 

Given the way the fans have handled the mess of the last few years I'm inclined to think it's best to keep them all at arms length - provided we can get a private owner who ignores the Saints Trust and the other hangers-on from the last 2 decades, I think the fresh start with a clean split between board and fans could be the better option for rebuilding the club.

[miserableoldgit]

Jesus.

 

You post an idea about the club and get slated for it.... and then NC and UM Pahars start knocking bells out of each other.

 

The problem is not the PLC, it is the management. My argument, missed by most, is that you have more influence over a PLC than a private company. If Hitler was your CEO he can be voted off by the shareholders. If Hitler owns you as a private company, it's out with the red and white stripes and in with the Brown shirts. And you can do **** all about it.

 

FYI Alpine - I didn't buy any tickets but I wager I put more in the bucket than you've spent on Saints this season.

I`m sure that he would get us back in the Prem. O.K., it may be by going through Poland first, but he would get us there.

[Frank's cousin]

Uhm... maybe its just me, but surely the the TYPE of ownership is irrelevent - its what teh owner/owners/shareholder DO that is the most important factor. A PLC structure in football works perfectly well IF those purchasing shares are doing so for the right reasons - there is NO real profit to be had if the team is to be successful - so if fans and those who really care own teh shares its a great way of fans owning a small stake and the bEST way of ensuring transparency in the finances - its also possible as we have seen for unpopular baordmembers to be voted off and this is ultimately in some ways the most democratic given the limitations of any ownership system.

 

Ltd companies still have to have audited accounts held at companies house, but are not made public, and the convoluted ownership possibilities can be complex to unravel. Partnerships and private comapanies are a law unto themselves in comarison with owners being able to do as you please - when they get bored - it can all go pearshaped.

 

But like I said its not the type really but who and how its managed that has by far the greatest impact and significance on success - the rest is just political ****** if you ask me...

[SaintRichmond]

I'd rather Saints remain a PLC than convert to a private company. There's far more visibility and opportunity to be heard in a PLC than in a private company.

 

To keep a balance and avoid the fragmented share base that has caused us problems I'd do the following:

 

- I'd allocate 10% of the share capital and allocate them to each fan who buys a ticket.

- All shares allocated in this way would be placed in trust so that each fan would 'own' a number of shares in a nominee account under their name - but the voting rights would live with the trust.

 

That way, fan ownership increases over time and there's an incentive for fans to buy tickets.

 

 

I've had enough of " Rupert Lowe's Personnal PLC " .......... Everbody always says we are a potentially BIG Club down South, yet Lowe never did, or want to attract any Investment to make that possible

[Alain Perrin]

Would this be the same management, whom you have been championing on here, who has presided over 2 relegations and administration?

 

How much money over the past 12 years has been spent on share-buy-backs, boardroom bonuses, etc? I am certain it would be the difference between where we are now and not having to worry about not being in existance this time next week.

 

How much money have board members (aside from Leon) pumped into the club? Apparently we went into admin because we exceeded our overdraught by 110k. If it was a private company I am sure the owners would have found a way to raise such a (in footballing terms) paltry sum.

 

A private owner will still listen to his fanbase customers. If they don't come through the turnstiles he/she will have to do something to attract them back. However, in a plc the chairman is just picking up a wage to do a job. No matter how shambolically that job is done he still gets paid, and if he leaves because of his own inabilities he will still get a nice big payday when he goes!

 

That's a rather quaint view of the world I think.

 

The chairman is answerable to the shareholders. If he does a bad job, he gets fired (as in Lowe the first coming). If he does a bad job in a private company, then the only person he's hurting is himself. Someone who is uber wealthy can do what he/she wants (see Hearts / Romanov for a great example.

[Nineteen Canteen]

I think people confuse PLC status with being listed on a stock market for starters - we can still be a PLC with just one owner (like Merlion was), and that gives a higher degree of visibility than private ownership. I had always been strongly in favour of shared ownership as it gave the fans a chance to own part of the club and in theory should have meant they cared more about how it was run. It also provides, by definition, a right to remove people who don't run club as the majority of shareholders see fit. In theory that's what happened when Wilde came along.

 

Where I think it went wrong is on two levels - firstly, individuals held too many shares. I always wanted a 3-5% cap on individual holdings to prevent any individuals holding too much sway - Crouch's 10%, Wilde's 25% (I lost track?) gave them far too much personal power and say in matters. Lowe's 6% even was too high. If those individuals' holdings dropped below 3% then their power and public perception waned and fans in general would have remained more in control.

 

The second level where I think this went wrong was the combination of the campaigns warred by certain individuals and (pardon my bluntness), the stupidity of a section of fans who didn't take their responsibilities are shareholders seriously enough and failed to act on facts rather than PR. I bet there are a lot of unhappy ex-shareholders who lost a lot on the back of that. But most of those fans were simply led by a handful of "uber-fans".

 

The first of these 2 issues is resolvable, the second I'm not so sure - perhaps the first would help fix the second. At least with fans holding shares they have lived and died by their own swords and paid the price for their own failures.

 

If we now get private ownership then fans have no say, no ownership, little visibility of finances and no means to change the club's direction. On the one hand that means they can't interfere and make wrong decisions based on PR and a lack of due dilligence, on the other hand we could be stuck with a Lowe/Wilde/Crouch (delete as applicable) character forever. Stanley might want to "judge them on their actions", but he can do what he likes as there will be no accountability to fans any more and no way to change anything.

 

Given the way the fans have handled the mess of the last few years I'm inclined to think it's best to keep them all at arms length - provided we can get a private owner who ignores the Saints Trust and the other hangers-on from the last 2 decades, I think the fresh start with a clean split between board and fans could be the better option for rebuilding the club.

 

AP and Jonah talk alot of sense and at least Ponty acknowledges the key benefit. Under private ownership the new owner could easily be disillusioned by at times an apathetic and unreasonable fan base and simply close the club down and decide to take the structure away to start MK Saints and generate some new interest and income. Said fans could then start their club of dreams in the Sunday leagues or wherever.

 

Private ownership doesn't necessarily mean a sugar daddy or an individual with the fans interests at heart or even an astute businessman.

[Gemmel]

Private ownership doesn't necessarily mean a sugar daddy or an individual with the fans interests at heart or even an astute businessman.

 

And as we have seen, neither does being a PLC. Having said that, i am not against the idea of being a PLC, more but the fragmented shareholding, that makes investment impossible.

[Torres]

This thread is without doubt the most riduculous thing ever to said in relation to Saints. The PLC brought this club to it's knees and some fans would actually like to go backwards and do it all over again. You could not make it up.

 

Pretty much proves how stupid you really are if you think that it was purely the fact that the club was owned by a PLC is to blame for our current plight...

[John B]

And as we have seen, neither does being a PLC. Having said that, i am not against the idea of being a PLC, more but the fragmented shareholding, that makes investment impossible.

 

I dont think it was the PLC which caused our demise it was the shareholders I would have thought

[Nineteen Canteen]

I dont think it was the PLC which caused our demise it was the shareholders I would have thought

 

Very true and to pick up on Gemmel's point that there was IMO a misguided belief that the largest shareholders bestowed on themselves the right to be chairman. In reality the chairman/CEO of PLC's is rarely the biggest shareholder and if that was the case most of them would be run by fund managers who usually have the biggest equity stake. Holding a whole heap of shares does not necessarily make you a shrewd and effective CEO although IMO Lowe was closest to fulfilling the remit and that is the sole reason I supported him.

[Golac's Cunning Stunts]

I'd rather be a porn star.

[Minsk]

Very true and to pick up on Gemmel's point that there was IMO a misguided belief that the largest shareholders bestowed on themselves the right to be chairman. In reality the chairman/CEO of PLC's is rarely the biggest shareholder and if that was the case most of them would be run by fund managers who usually have the biggest equity stake. Holding a whole heap of shares does not necessarily make you a shrewd and effective CEO although IMO Lowe was closest to fulfilling the remit and that is the sole reason I supported him.

 

So, in your eyes, the person who was closest to being a shrewd and effective CEO was the one at the helm for two relegations and administration!?

 

Thank fook there wasn't another option then..........

 

And if the shrewdest and most effective CEO of a PLC achieved that, imagine what a bad one would/could do to us.....................

[um pahars]

So, in your eyes, the person who was closest to being a shrewd and effective CEO was the one at the helm for two relegations and administration!?

 

Thank fook there wasn't another option then..........

 

And if the shrewdest and most effective CEO of a PLC achieved that, imagine what a bad one would/could do to us.....................

 

Shrewd :confused:;-)

 

Effective ;)

 

:smt117:smt117

[Minsk]

That's a rather quaint view of the world I think.

 

The chairman is answerable to the shareholders. If he does a bad job, he gets fired (as in Lowe the first coming). If he does a bad job in a private company, then the only person he's hurting is himself. Someone who is uber wealthy can do what he/she wants (see Hearts / Romanov for a great example.

 

Has Romanov led Hearts to two relegations and administration????

 

Lowe (the first coming) got a nice healthy 250k+ (more than double the amount that led us into admin) for leading us to relegation from the prem and then failing to do anything to get us back there. Not bad for being 'accountable' especially when he had more than 25% of the shareholding in his pocket (probably because he had helped to line thiers).