Fan Ownership - can it work in Scotland?

[Kitty_Boy]

I would class myself as an advocate of 'fan ownership' of football clubs. For me, clubs with a responsibility to their communities (= local area AND supporters), which are run democratically and transparently are far preferable to those where one man (or group of men) are making decisions in their own interest, with little regard to that community. This summer saw fans influence the decision making process in Scottish football like never before, but if clubs fans were responsible for making these decisions in the first place there would be no need for strong arm tactics to be employed on the people that run our clubs. Perhaps Scottish football would be a better place?

My sense, however, is that there is a significant level of scepticism - indeed outright opposition - to fan ownership in Scotland. It didn't happen at St. Mirren, or Motherwell for example. There was an opportunity, potentially, at Rangers. Consensus appears to be a difficult commodity to achieve in Scotland, even more so in Scottish football, and this underpins a notion that 'fan ownership', whatever that might be, is unworkable: "what do fans know about running a football club". And I'm sure we have all come across fellow supporters (maybe even on P&B) who, well, are complete morons.

Worse, opponents will point at Stirling Albion (or perhaps Clyde if they are slightly more informed) as proof that 'fan ownership' doesn't work. Its not my view that Stirling Albion's position isn't because they are fan owned, more that they are having to adjust to life without a wealthy (and elderly) benefactor underwriting large and unsustainable losses every year. I wonder what Stirling Albion fans' experiences of being a 'fan owned' club are.

What are your views on fan ownership? Does the example of Stirling Albion prove it cannot work?

[the_bully_wee]

Anyone who points to Clyde and Stirling Albion as examples of why it can't work should instantly have their opinions disregarded. Both clubs have, fairly recently, switched to being fan-owned to secure their respective futures - their current positions league-wise have very little (if anything at all) to do with the fact that they are now owned by fans. What their positions do show are the effects of having, then losing, wealthy investors whose money will eventually dry up. In Stirling and Clyde's cases, the damage was done when not fan-owned and is now being repaired, partially as a result of being fan-owned.

[Skyline Drifter]

Fan ownership can work at the bottom level ie Division 3 with maybe an occasional foray up a division when everything comes together perfectly. It isn't likely to take you much further than that.

Contrary to popular belief budgeting in football is extremely difficult. It's easy to say that all you do is take worst case scenario and budget to that but if that's the case you'll be paying every player £50 a week tops and going nowhere as, relatively speaking, you get what you pay for. The problem with football, and I think it's pretty unique, or at least unique to professional team sport, is that you have to decide what you are going to spend for the year ahead every June / July but you have no solid idea what your income will be in the same period. You don't know if you might get a lucky cup draw. You don't know if your team will do well and bring in decent gates or be rubbish and have terrible gates. You don't know if the weather will hold or if you might get winters like 09/10 and 10/11 when virtually nothing was played for a couple of months, cash flow was ruined and midweek incomes of half those for Saturday games are generated. You don't know if you might lose 2 or 3 players to serious injury meaning you either pay for operations or bring other players in or cope with using kids instead. You don't know what the SFL will pay you for your season. Just last year they helpfully announced a 30% cut in annual payouts, three months into the season when clubs had already set and spent their budgets! Whilst in that case it was a result of the pools companies pulling funding and not known earlier, it illustrates the problems. You also don't get the SFL money until the last day of the season anyway.

Budgeting in football is a horrible task. Now where you have some wealthy individuals on a Board of directors prepared to underwrite the problem when it goes wrong, then you have a safety net. When you have fan ownership trusts, etc, you don't. So you end up having to leave players unpaid (as Stirling did in 2011 for a month or so I think) because you simply don't have the cash, or you go out cap in hand with a begging bowl.

I don't have a problem with fan involvement at Boardroom level, in my experience most Boardrooms are full of fans anyway despite the perception that they somehow aren't "proper fans" the minute they don a suit and join the Board. BUt I do think that any progressive club needs to have some wealth sitting in the background as a fall back option.

[Ludo*1]

I think Dundee are proving reasonably well that fan ownership doesn't work. We're doing alright with getting a team on the park, but we're unlikely to be an SPL team with it in place. We're giving it a good go though.

[HibeeJibee]

_{Didn't the fans at Dundee decide to sell their majority stake?}

[Ludo*1]

_{Didn't the fans at Dundee decide to sell their majority stake?}

Not as far as I know. Although if you jump on to the likes of Dee Mad, they'd absolutely love it if they did.

[Kitty_Boy]

Not as far as I know. Although if you jump on to the likes of Dee Mad, they'd absolutely love it if they did.

The members of the DFC Supporters' Society voted in December 2011 to "allow their shareholding in the club to drop below 50% in order to accept external funding". LINK

I'm not sure whether this has subequently happened but seemed to be in response "significant funding" being offered and the legacy of administration and outstanding debt.

Further information here:

The aim is to raise up to £500,000 over the next 12 months for the club through a partnership between the Society, the Dark Blue Business Trust, current shareholders, businesses and fans.

Of this, it is anticipated that £300,000 could come from private investors, and already £170,000 has been offered. A further £100,000 could come from current shareholders through a rights issue, while the Society and the Business Trust hope to contribute a further £50,000 each.

If the target is achieved as outlined above, the Society’s shareholding would drop to around 37%, the Business Trust would hold 8%, and the rest would be held by a number of private investors and ordinary fans. However, the Dundee FC Supporters’ Society would remain the club’s biggest single shareholder, with three directors on the Club board

[Ludo*1]

The members of the DFC Supporters' Society voted in December 2011 to "allow their shareholding in the club to drop below 50% in order to accept external funding". LINK

I'm not sure whether this has subequently happened but seemed to be in response "significant funding" being offered and the legacy of administration and outstanding debt.

Further information here:

Aye, it never happened. We've had investment from Bill Colvin since then, but DFCSS are still the majority shareholders.

[Kitty_Boy]

Aye, it never happened. We've had investment from Bill Colvin since then, but DFCSS are still the majority shareholders.

Why do you say Dundee are an example proving fan ownership doesn't work?

Clearly the established model SD described, wealthy Board members underwriting (or not underwriting) budget shortfalls, didn't work.

Given, and correct me if I'm wrong, there is still historical debt at Dundee and the Club were promoted in the circumstances they were, I think its unfair to say because they are struggling on the pitch that fan ownership doesn't work, just as it is at Clyde and Stirling mentioned by the_bully_wee above.

The problem with the 3 examples in Scotland is that none of them started with a clean sheet. They incurred debt purchasing the club, or inherited debt, or were faced with having to run a club in a way which no longer accumulated debt.

[Skyline Drifter]

Why do you say Dundee are an example proving fan ownership doesn't work?

Clearly the established model SD described, wealthy Board members underwriting (or not underwriting) budget shortfalls, didn't work.

Well it suffers from the obvious problems of people running out of cash but not timing the withdrawal of support from clubs well. Or clubs just being run by Grade A nutters. That doesn't mean it can't work.

Equally, "were faced with having to run a club in a way which no longer accummulated debt" is not something that should be considered a hardship for fan owned clubs, it's an ongoing necessity. The clean sheet position would still see that statement being absolutely 100% true.

[TheHoodedClaw]

Most fans don't have a pot to pi** in, the quicker Dundee jettison this the better.

[Kitty_Boy]

Why do you say Dundee are an example proving fan ownership doesn't work?

Clearly the established model SD described, wealthy Board members underwriting (or not underwriting) budget shortfalls, didn't work.

Well it suffers from the obvious problems of people running out of cash but not timing the withdrawal of support from clubs well. Or clubs just being run by Grade A nutters. That doesn't mean it can't work.

Equally, "were faced with having to run a club in a way which no longer accummulated debt" is not something that should be considered a hardship for fan owned clubs, it's an ongoing necessity. The clean sheet position would still see that statement being absolutely 100% true.

I wasn't suggesting is was a hardship for fan owned clubs (exclusively), rather any club - regardless of ownership - that goes from operating on a budget that proves to be unsustainable to a smaller budget is going to see a downturn in their fortunes on the pitch. Over a longer period this is what has happened at Ayr and in more cataclysmic circumstances it happened at Stirling and Dundee.

That's why it is unfair, IMO, to look at Clyde, Stirling and Dundee and say fan ownership doesn't work - especially as fans have just got their foot in the door. That's the point I was making.

[Stag Nation]

Q1. Which is the most successful club in the world?

Q2. Who owns it?

Q3. Why couldn't it work in Scotland?

[vikingTON]

Anyone who points to Clyde and Stirling Albion as examples of why it can't work should instantly have their opinions disregarded. Both clubs have, fairly recently, switched to being fan-owned to secure their respective futures - their current positions league-wise have very little (if anything at all) to do with the fact that they are now owned by fans. What their positions do show are the effects of having, then losing, wealthy investors whose money will eventually dry up. In Stirling and Clyde's cases, the damage was done when not fan-owned and is now being repaired, partially as a result of being fan-owned.

Do you have a working model for fan ownership in Scotland then? So far we have two clubs who have resorted to fan ownership because no-one else was interested in them. And they're hopeless.

[the_bully_wee]

Do you have a working model for fan ownership in Scotland then? So far we have two clubs who have resorted to fan ownership because no-one else was interested in them. And they're hopeless.

Hopeless on the park, maybe, but at the moment there aren't a lot of teams in Scotland generating an operating profit at the moment, and I know for a fact that Clyde are one of them. I'm not sure about Stirling. Fan ownership, in the correct infrastructure, is definitely the way forward - just look at Germany, who have the fastest expanding league worldwide, and who have all besides two clubs owned (by 51% or more) by fans. You could also look at Real Madrid and Barcelona, two of the biggest clubs on the planet, who are both fan-owned. It's not up to me/Clyde to come up with a working model for it for the whole of Scotland; it's up to the authorities and clubs themselves, as well as their respective fans. The fact that we have managed to turn a profit recently, even when paying ludicrously high rent, shows that for us at least it is working, and working well.

And just to pick you up on another point, Clyde's current board is the best we have had in many years; they consciously made the decision to make Clyde a fan-owned club - it was not a contingency plan in the result of not having a sugar-daddy waiting to bail us out. This was to prevent, in the future, the dream-chasing fuckwittery that has seen us end up where we currently are. At one point there were grand plans which involved Cumbernauld becoming a "Clyde Hub" and Clyde becoming a high-end SPL team. The then-chairman's money was pumped in to try and achieve mere promotion to the SPL and from there, and with the help of other money-spunking decisions, we were left in a mountain of debt. As long as we are owned by our fans, such stupid decisions will not be made again and hopefully under our current system we can become a decent First Division team once more.

[vikingTON]

Hopeless on the park, maybe, but at the moment there aren't a lot of teams in Scotland generating an operating profit at the moment, and I know for a fact that Clyde are one of them.

Does the board parade your profit and loss account on the pitch at the end of every season?

I'm not sure about Stirling. Fan ownership, in the correct infrastructure, is definitely the way forward - just look at Germany, who have the fastest expanding league worldwide, and who have all besides two clubs owned (by 51% or more) by fans. You could also look at Real Madrid and Barcelona, two of the biggest clubs on the planet, who are both fan-owned.

In what way does Germany have the "fastest expanding league worldwide"? Meanwhile, Barcelona and Real madrid's models involve hundreds of thousands of potential fans, with presidential elections that centre around the bribing of gullible fans with a collection of new signing targets. Definitely a sustainable way to run a football club: and of course both clubs don't have massive debts attached to them either.

And just to pick you up on another point, Clyde's current board is the best we have had in many years; they consciously made the decision to make Clyde a fan-owned club - it was not a contingency plan in the result of not having a sugar-daddy waiting to bail us out. This was to prevent, in the future, the dream-chasing fuckwittery that has seen us end up where we currently are.

Your board was the exercise of last resort or else you would have folded. The simple facts of the matter are that Clyde stopped throwing money at shite because you were unable to do so, not because you made a choice.

[the_bully_wee]

Does the board parade your profit and loss account on the pitch at the end of every season?

In what way does Germany have the "fastest expanding league worldwide"? Meanwhile, Barcelona and Real madrid's models involve hundreds of thousands of potential fans, with presidential elections that centre around the bribing of gullible fans with a collection of new signing targets. Definitely a sustainable way to run a football club: and of course both clubs don't have massive debts attached to them either.

Your board was the exercise of last resort or else you would have folded. The simple facts of the matter are that Clyde stopped throwing money at shite because you were unable to do so, not because you made a choice.

1) No, funnily enough the club's owners (which I am one of, although I still need to renew it!) are well-informed about goings-on at Boardroom level as well as the finances of the club.

2) Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that worldwide interest in the Bundesliga has been increasing hugely in recent times. Real and Barca are examples of what happens when fan ownership is not carried out sensibly, with huge overspending; the polar opposite is prevalent in Germany where clubs are turning over large profits and efficiently managing their finances. The amount of clubs in Scotland generating an operating profit each year is absolutely tiny in comparison.

3) The current board came in, looked at what has happened in the past and identified fan ownership as a solution; ideal as the finite fortunes of investors - and the problems associated with them - can be rejected in favour of financial stability and consistency. You can fabricate "facts" all you want - the truth is that I know a hell of a lot more about Clyde than you do.

[vikingTON]

1) No, funnily enough the club's owners (which I am one of, although I still need to renew it!) are well-informed about goings-on at Boardroom level as well as the finances of the club.

But it doesn't make up for the fact that you're a joke club scrounging at the bottom of the national game, does it?

2) Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that worldwide interest in the Bundesliga has been increasing hugely in recent times.

Where has this been taking place, and what makes this increase higher than the EPL: which is 100% not fan-owned?

Let's recall that your claim was "Germany has the fastest expanding league worldwide": I'd like to see concrete evidence for this.

Real and Barca are examples of what happens when fan ownership is not carried out sensibly, with huge overspending; the polar opposite is prevalent in Germany where clubs are turning over large profits and efficiently managing their finances. The amount of clubs in Scotland generating an operating profit each year is absolutely tiny in comparison.

The total fanbase in Scotland is also absolutely tiny in comparison to Germany. Do you think that these two facts are coincidental, or in some way linked?

3) The current board came in, looked at what has happened in the past and identified fan ownership as a solution; ideal as the finite fortunes of investors - and the problems associated with them - can be rejected in favour of financial stability and consistency. You can fabricate "facts" all you want - the truth is that I know a hell of a lot more about Clyde than you do.

The current board realised that Clyde were up shit creek without a paddle, knew that no investor would touch the club with a barge pole, and therefore turned to the third-rate option of "fan ownership". I'm not sure why you're mutually back-slapping each other on this achievement: presumably because the standard of your side is so poor that there's nothing else to look forward to.

Ambitious clubs wouldn't touch Clyde or Stirling's models with a bargepole, and for good reason.

[Monkey Tennis]

I don't have a problem with fan involvement at Boardroom level, in my experience most Boardrooms are full of fans anyway

Agreed. It's preferable however that they're fans of the same club the boardroom belongs to.

[Skyline Drifter]

The amount of clubs in Scotland generating an operating profit each year is absolutely tiny in comparison.

It's not especially difficult to make a profit in the bottom level of Scottish football though. The amount of funding supplied by the SFA and SFL annually mean you could turn a profit in a pretty straightforward manner by employing amateurs or virtual amateurs (£50 per week or less) to play football, keeping your overheads low and waiting for the cash to come in. You don't even need much in the way of gate receipts to do it. If you have those as well than that's a bonus.

I'm not sure what Clyde's rental commitment with Broadwood is and it may be they have a high fixed cost their that needs covered. If that's the case and they still make a profit (not including this season with two windfall Rangers games) then fair play to them. But the point stands, the less ambition you actually have the easier it is to make a profit. There's nothing excessively clever about it. It's much more clever if you can do it whilst moving up the divisions. There's no evidence of anyone managing that any time recently, certainly not amongst the fan owned clubs (you could make a case for Dundee I suppose but that was a very unique situation and many of their fans now want out of it moving forward).

The difficulty for fan owned clubs will come when they aren't bottom of the heap and have to consider investing more heavily in playing squads and what their fallback is if the cashflow isn't there. Banks sure as hell won't lend to football clubs very easily, that's for sure. So where do they fund it from?