Fan Ownership - can it work in Scotland?

[Thumper]

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?

Their own pockets. The same as privately-owned clubs.

A lot of the arguments above are basically saying that it's impossible to run a football club in Scotland at a profit, or even simply without haemmoraging money every season. This seems unlikely. Right now the country is still suffering from a decade-long hangover as a result of a collapsed TV deal which has saddled lots and lots of clubs with debt that they can't shift, but that won't last forever.

Anyone invoking Dundee in this discussion is an utter moron. Dundee's position right now has absolutely nothing to do with it being fan-owned.

[the_bully_wee]

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?

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.

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?

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.

Personal attacks on Clyde as a football team just show how much you've accepted that you're wrong on that point - thanks for that one. Then again, you always have had a bit of an obsession with Clyde, haven't you? Cute.

I'm afraid I know of no "concrete evidence" for my claim, and can't really be bothered trawling to find any; but a lack of evidence doesn't always devalue an argument. Any football fan worth his salt will know that the Bundesliga is fast catching up on the likes of the EPL and La Liga in terms of both popularity and quality.

At no point have I said that the German model could be replicated precisely in Scotland - that would be utterly ludicrous. My point is that it could be copied in this country, albeit on a much smaller scale. Fan ownership is another way to integrate fans into the club and give it more presence in the local community, which may just help turn future generations to supporting their local team rather than one of the Old Firm; which is one of the problems currently facing our game.

Again, you're wrong; even if an investor came in right away, they'd still have gone with fan ownership. What you can't seem to grasp, for some reason, is that the decision to become fan-owned was not one made in the result of the club's non-appeal to investors - it was one made to prevent the financial cock-ups made by the club when our cash flow was provided by investors.

[vikingTON]

Personal attacks on Clyde as a football team just show how much you've accepted that you're wrong on that point - thanks for that one. Then again, you always have had a bit of an obsession with Clyde, haven't you? Cute.

I'm afraid I know of no "concrete evidence" for my claim, and can't really be bothered trawling to find any; but a lack of evidence doesn't always devalue an argument. Any football fan worth his salt will know that the Bundesliga is fast catching up on the likes of the EPL and La Liga in terms of both popularity and quality.

It isn't: the only German club capable of matching the best sides in Europe are runaway leaders, while the league is not even remotely competing with Barcelona, Real Madrid or much of the EPL in terms of world-wide revenues. This is why you can't find any evidence for your argument: it's nonsense.

At no point have I said that the German model could be replicated precisely in Scotland - that would be utterly ludicrous. My point is that it could be copied in this country, albeit on a much smaller scale. Fan ownership is another way to integrate fans into the club and give it more presence in the local community, which may just help turn future generations to supporting their local team rather than one of the Old Firm; which is one of the problems currently facing our game.

Once we ignore the meaningless buzzwords, you're now claiming that fan owned clubs will help take fans away from the Old Firm. Laughable. While Clyde and Stirling host abysmal attendances, there are many successful clubs gaining many fans further up the pyramid. Are these clubs failing because they're not fan-owned? Where is your evidence for this claim?

Again, you're wrong; even if an investor came in right away, they'd still have gone with fan ownership. What you can't seem to grasp, for some reason, is that the decision to become fan-owned was not one made in the result of the club's non-appeal to investors - it was one made to prevent the financial cock-ups made by the club when our cash flow was provided by investors.

The fact that your club was a financial basket-case and dreadful on the field was why it didn't attract investors, which led directly to fan ownership as the poor man's alternative. As I've said, it's all well for Clyde fans to feign a sense of self-righteousness about their position now: I don't recall any of you complaining about your position ten years ago. Your new ownership is simply a sop to justify your amusing fall from grace, and is fooling absolutely no-one.

[the_bully_wee]

It isn't: the only German club capable of matching the best sides in Europe are runaway leaders, while the league is not even remotely competing with Barcelona, Real Madrid or much of the EPL in terms of world-wide revenues. This is why you can't find any evidence for your argument: it's nonsense.

Once we ignore the meaningless buzzwords, you're now claiming that fan owned clubs will help take fans away from the Old Firm. Laughable. While Clyde and Stirling host abysmal attendances, there are many successful clubs gaining many fans further up the pyramid. Are these clubs failing because they're not fan-owned? Where is your evidence for this claim?

The fact that your club was a financial basket-case and dreadful on the field was why it didn't attract investors, which led directly to fan ownership as the poor man's alternative. As I've said, it's all well for Clyde fans to feign a sense of self-righteousness about their position now: I don't recall any of you complaining about your position ten years ago. Your new ownership is simply a sop to justify your amusing fall from grace, and is fooling absolutely no-one.

I can't find evidence because I don't want to waste any amount of time looking - as I said above. I guess you're totally disregarding Dortmund in your argument, who beat and drew with both Real Madrid and Manchester City in the Champions League group stages this season. I didn't claim it was competing; I claimed that it was "expanding" - in other words, catching up. So effectively, you are twisting my argument into something which is indeed nonsense: my actual argument is very reasonable.

No evidence is needed - by reaching out to their communities and participating more, smaller clubs can attract new youngsters in a community environment. Clyde recently attracted a large gate (with a lot of kids in attendance) by allowing kids in for free - with intelligent initiatives, young children local to the club will go along to these sorts of games, and if these initiatives are followed up on correctly, kids who may come from Old Firm supporting backgrounds may well become fans of other teams.

I don't know why you're still going on about this - I thought we'd established that no matter how forcibly you try to assert this claim, you are fundamentally wrong. Why can you not comprehend that the club didn't want the risks attached to finite investment? Instead, they decided to try and become self-sufficient, which has happened - and to relatively good success, as we will, in 20 months' time, be in a sufficient financial position to try and scale the leagues again.

[H_B]

Clyde recently attracted a large gate (with a lot of kids in attendance) by allowing kids in for free - with intelligent initiatives, young children local to the club will go along to these sorts of games, and if these initiatives are followed up on correctly, kids who may come from Old Firm supporting backgrounds may well become fans of other teams.

How did this "large gate" compare with Clyde's home crowds in Division One, when you had "finite investment".

VikingTon is spot on here. The only reason clubs like Stirling and Clyde are fan owned is because no one with money has any interest in investing in either club. It's a shit model, and that's why both clubs are in the bottom league and floundering even at that level.

No club in Scotland aspires to be fan owned, unless that fan, or group of fans, is/are wealthy enough to sustain the club through cyclical periods of financial success/failure.

Take Falkirk for example, who ended up sort of fan owned. We would never have been in the SPL (where we made a profit every season) had we not had external investment from the likes of Sandy Alexander.

Fan ownership by committee doesn't work. And never will work.

[Kitty_Boy]

Clyde recently attracted a large gate (with a lot of kids in attendance) by allowing kids in for free - with intelligent initiatives, young children local to the club will go along to these sorts of games, and if these initiatives are followed up on correctly, kids who may come from Old Firm supporting backgrounds may well become fans of other teams.

How did this "large gate" compare with Clyde's home crowds in Division One, when you had "finite investment".

VikingTon is spot on here. The only reason clubs like Stirling and Clyde are fan owned is because no one with money has any interest in investing in either club. It's a shit model, and that's why both clubs are in the bottom league and floundering even at that level.

No club in Scotland aspires to be fan owned, unless that fan, or group of fans, is/are wealthy enough to sustain the club through cyclical periods of financial success/failure.

Take Falkirk for example, who ended up sort of fan owned. We would never have been in the SPL (where we made a profit every season) had we not had external investment from the likes of Sandy Alexander.

Fan ownership by committee doesn't work. And never will work.

I would make the point that ownership/governance is different to finance.

Being fan owned doesn't prevent investment, doesn't equal less money.

Why did Sandy Alexander invest in Falkirk? Why would he turn round and say "no, I'm not giving Falkirk any money because I don't agree with supporters, who back the club by buying season tickets, hospitality, sponsorship, merchandise, etc. having influence on how the club is run"?

[the_bully_wee]

How did this "large gate" compare with Clyde's home crowds in Division One, when you had "finite investment".

VikingTon is spot on here. The only reason clubs like Stirling and Clyde are fan owned is because no one with money has any interest in investing in either club. It's a shit model, and that's why both clubs are in the bottom league and floundering even at that level.

No club in Scotland aspires to be fan owned, unless that fan, or group of fans, is/are wealthy enough to sustain the club through cyclical periods of financial success/failure.

Take Falkirk for example, who ended up sort of fan owned. We would never have been in the SPL (where we made a profit every season) had we not had external investment from the likes of Sandy Alexander.

Fan ownership by committee doesn't work. And never will work.

Well, in 2008-09, the season we were relegated from SFL1, our average gate was 1,236. Since then they have gone as follows;

2009-10 (SFL2) - 633

2010-11 (SFL3) - 698

2011-12 (SFL3) - 566

This season, excluding the Rangers games, the average has probably been even less than 500 - but but allowing kids in for free we attracted a gate of 912, almost double of what we could expect in our average home match this season. I'd say that's pretty damn good, no? Considering at our peak in recent times (almost winning SFL1 in 2003-04) our average home attendance was still only 1,672.

And you and vikingTON would know Clyde's motives for becoming fan-owned, why? I presume both of you are not board members at Clyde, nor people who are members of the club. All you have to work on is how the situation looks externally - you have no proof.

What you're forgetting - somehow, as I have stated it repeatedly above - is that Clyde became fan-owned to eliminate the foolishly influential investment of the finite fortunes of wealthy fans. Bulk investment means financial unsustainability unless managed very carefully.

To achieve ambitious aims within a fan ownership structure then investment to some extent is required: full fan ownership still allows this. However, not much will be needed for Clyde to get back to being the SFL1/2 yo-yo team we were in the past - there isn't a lot between the divisions and an astute manager could manage to do this without a lot of cash.

That's your opinion - and my opinion is that fan ownership can work, although it is very dependent on individual scenarios. Some clubs have a suitable and sustainable model for it, others cannot build one. This is the Fan's Views forum, remember, not the Fan's Facts forum.

[H_B]

Why did Sandy Alexander invest in Falkirk?

Because he is a wealthy fan. But ultimately we bled that cash cow dry and he eventually said "no mas". Which left Falkirk failing to pay tax bills and frantically scrabbling about for soft loans from unhappy but reluctant donors, who very much want their money back.

When Falkirk won the First Division the last time we made a loss. This loss was underwritten by a wealthy fan/fans and it allowed us to build a squad capable of winning the division. A good move really, as the profit the next season wiped out the loss and then some. Obviously had we not won the league - failed gamble.

The problem with fans owning a club is that the buck has to stop somewhere. People grumble, rightly, about Martin Ritchie, but ultimately none of us have to find the money every month to pay wages and other bills.

Having no working capital, or ability to borrow from a bank or a large shareholder means that you can't function as a football club effectively.

[vikingTON]

In what parallel universe does scrounging at the bottom of Scottish football, with declining crowds year on year, with the only non-Sevco related rise coming from giving free tickets out to barely interested children, constitute a good basis for future ownership?

If you're willing to continue that path for the next twenty years then fine, batter on. Ambitious clubs will continue to celebrate success though and you'll continue to scramble for relevance at the bottom of the pile.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Fan ownership is a pile of shite.

Simply read Dundee Mad, or Dundee's Official Site forum for confirmation that football fans shouldn't be allowed within a country fucking mile of running a football club.

[H_B]

You only need to look at the league table.

Bottom 3 clubs are the perennially shit, skint and homeless East Stirling, along with Clyde and Stirling.

The suggestion that Clyde are just "an astute manager" away from competing at the top of Div Two/bottom of Div One is just utter insanity. Both clubs are going nowhere, and will go nowhere unless they get external investment from a wealthy fan.

[Kitty_Boy]

The problem with fans owning a club is that the buck has to stop somewhere. People grumble, rightly, about Martin Ritchie, but ultimately none of us have to find the money every month to pay wages and other bills.

Having no working capital, or ability to borrow from a bank or a large shareholder means that you can't function as a football club effectively.

Fan owned clubs have a chairman / board of directors. The buck stops with them.

Fan owned clubs can have working capital, borrow from a bank or large shareholder / 'wealthy fan' (although, regular borrowing / accumulation of debt is not a healthy way to run a football club).

You didn't answer the second part of my question: why would Sandy Alexander have not invested the money he did in Falkirk if Falkirk fans owned, say 51% of the Club?

Three elements to any football club: ownership / operation / financing

We need to get away from the idea that fan ownership equals a) less finance, and b) poor governance: unqualified punters stepping up from the terrace (or worse, from behind their keyboard) to run the club recklessly.

[H_B]

Fan owned clubs have a chairman / board of directors. The buck stops with them.

Right. So who pays the wages when the income doesn't meet the expenditure?

You didn't answer the second part of my question: why would Sandy Alexander have not invested the money he did in Falkirk if Falkirk fans owned, say 51% of the Club?

He might well have. But he is very much a rarity. In that he was a large investor who didn't want a shareholding return for every pound he invested.

What your model appears to be is "Let's have the fans owning the club, but have external investment giving us money for nothing in return, or a vague promise of it being paid back some day. Maybe."

Three elements to any football club: ownership / operation / financing

Right. Do you know why all three go hand in hand?

We need to get away from the idea that fan ownership equals a) less finance, and b) poor governance: unqualified punters stepping up from the terrace (or worse, from behind their keyboard) to run the club recklessly.

Fan ownership absolutely equals less finance. Look at Dundee, Clyde and Stirling Albion. As far as poor governance goes, you get what you pay for.

Fan run clubs don't have the money to actually pay for professionals to fill the roles you require professionals for. That's why you end up with well meaning fans trying to do roles they aren't qualified for.

Listen to the Dundee punter about fan ownership. Is he declaring it a success? Why do you think the Dundee fans are desperate to get out of it?

Fan owned clubs can have working capital, borrow from a bank or large shareholder

Yeah, good luck with that in the current climate.

[Kitty_Boy]

The financial model is fairly straight forward: ensure expenditure remains below income. I appreciate its difficult [e.g. for the reasons described by Skyline Drifter], but its clearly not impossible. If:

X ('fan owned' club finances) = B ('usual income' from season tickets, hospitality, sponsorship, prize money, fundraising etc.)

Y ('traditional' club finances) = B + C (additional money from shareholders / benefactors)

...I'm not comprehending why 'C' isn't available to 'X'.

Because those people want control? They can still have control.

Because they want a return? Unlikely in Scottish football, but that too is possible.

Because their motiviations are not in the best interest of the Football Club? Well good.

I will concede: it is difficult, at this time, for fan owned clubs to compete in Scottish Football with the complete absence of any sort of financial regulations (e.g. a Scottish form of 'Financial Fair Play').

[Skyline Drifter]

Fan owned clubs have a chairman / board of directors. The buck stops with them.

Fan owned clubs can have working capital, borrow from a bank or large shareholder / 'wealthy fan' (although, regular borrowing / accumulation of debt is not a healthy way to run a football club).

I can only presume you've never asked a bank to borrow money on behalf of a football club or you wouldn't make such a naive statement.

When your fan owned club gets into trouble and can't meet this week's payroll due to fixture postponements, where are you finding several thousand pounds from? Every week. We're not talking about the price of a couple of pints on Saturday night here. Why would anyone sign themselves up as directors in the scenario you describe?

[Kitty_Boy]

Fan owned clubs have a chairman / board of directors. The buck stops with them.

Fan owned clubs can have working capital, borrow from a bank or large shareholder / 'wealthy fan' (although, regular borrowing / accumulation of debt is not a healthy way to run a football club).

I can only presume you've never asked a bank to borrow money on behalf of a football club or you wouldn't make such a naive statement.

When your fan owned club gets into trouble and can't meet this week's payroll due to fixture postponements, where are you finding several thousand pounds from? Every week. We're not talking about the price of a couple of pints on Saturday night here. Why would anyone sign themselves up as directors in the scenario you describe?

Which statement is naive?

I'm not sure what your idea of a fan owned club is but it obviously is different to mine. I disagree that the cash flow issues you are describe rule out fan ownership working.

[Skyline Drifter]

Which statement is naive?

I'm not sure what your idea of a fan owned club is but it obviously is different to mine. I disagree that the cash flow issues you are describe rule out fan ownership working.

The one about borrowing money from a bank, as I said in the previous comment. Banks won't lend to football clubs. Period. Not without a personal guarantee from a director anyway which brings you back to square one.

So again, if cash flow isn't a problem, what is it that you do when you run out of cash because of unforeseen weather postponements and your board don't have the personal wealth to cover it?

[H_B]

The one about borrowing money from a bank, as I said in the previous comment. Banks won't lend to football clubs. Period. Not without a personal guarantee from a director anyway which brings you back to square one.

So again, if cash flow isn't a problem, what is it that you do when you run out of cash because of unforeseen weather postponements and your board don't have the personal wealth to cover it?

Why that's simple. You get it from a wealthy fan. Who just gives you it for nothing. No shareholding or anything. Or maybe with a vague promise to pay them back when things get a bit better.

[Kitty_Boy]

Which statement is naive?

I'm not sure what your idea of a fan owned club is but it obviously is different to mine. I disagree that the cash flow issues you are describe rule out fan ownership working.

The one about borrowing money from a bank, as I said in the previous comment. Banks won't lend to football clubs. Period. Not without a personal guarantee from a director anyway which brings you back to square one.

So again, if cash flow isn't a problem, what is it that you do when you run out of cash because of unforeseen weather postponements and your board don't have the personal wealth to cover it?

I refer you back to post #34.

[H_B]

I refer you back to post #34.

Why? In what way does that help?

Let's try again.

There have been games postponed through bad weather. The club has had no home game for 5 weeks, due to postponements and an early exit from cup competitions. A club sponsor, who was paying the club £15000 a month for hospitality and stadium boards goes into administration, meaning this month's payment doesn't arrive.

The club's players and other staff need paid, along with HMRC and other small traders. This comes to £75,000 for the month.

Where does this money come from? Or mnore pertinantly, from whose pocket does this money come from?