Fan Ownership - the pros and cons..

[Swello]

I find people's misconceptions about fan ownership quite funny. We've been doing it quietly enough for a few years and at no point have "the fans" got to choose the design of the strips, the model of minibus that takes the U-20's about or been able to drop unpopular players after a bad run. No-one with any sense would let clueless b*****ds (like me)  anywhere near direct decision making (the only time we ever did that was to allow the support to veto new Rangers being papped straight into the top league).

It could just be total co-incidence that we became one of the better run clubs in the league around the same time that we became fan owned and that lots of the decisions we make are very fan-focussed but then again, maybe it isn't. Anyway - can't hang around on here, I need to check if my free season ticket has come through yet....

[topcat(The most tip top)]

4 minutes ago, Swello said:

I find people's misconceptions about fan ownership quite funny. We've been doing it quietly enough for a few years and at no point have "the fans" got to choose the design of the strips, the model of minibus that takes the U-20's about or been able to drop unpopular players after a bad run. No-one with any sense would let clueless b*****ds (like me)  anywhere near direct decision making (the only time we ever did that was to allow the support to veto new Rangers being papped straight into the top league).

It could just be total co-incidence that we became one of the better run clubs in the league around the same time that we became fan owned and that lots of the decisions we make are very fan-focussed but then again, maybe it isn't. Anyway - can't hang around on here, I need to check if my free season ticket has come through yet....

As far as I understand the model we’re moving towards is that the players are answerable to the coach, the coach is answerable to the director of football, the dof and coach are answerable to the board, the board is answerable to the board of the foundation and we elect the board of the foundation 

so we’re technically in charge but a long way from the day to day decisions 

which is probably a good thing 

 

[Swello]

1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

As far as I understand the model we’re moving towards is that the players are answerable to the coach, the coach is answerable to the director of football, the dof and coach are answerable to the board, the board is answerable to the board of the foundation and we elect the board of the foundation 

so we’re technically in charge but a long way from the day to day decisions 

which is probably a good thing 

 

And I think any club that allowed rank and file supporters any closer than that would a basket case before the end of the season.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, Buttocks Brown said:

 experimenting Germans? 

 

We all know where that ends.

[vikingTON]

16 hours ago, Swello said:

I find people's misconceptions about fan ownership quite funny. We've been doing it quietly enough for a few years and at no point have "the fans" got to choose the design of the strips, the model of minibus that takes the U-20's about or been able to drop unpopular players after a bad run. No-one with any sense would let clueless b*****ds (like me)  anywhere near direct decision making (the only time we ever did that was to allow the support to veto new Rangers being papped straight into the top league).

 

16 hours ago, Swello said:

And I think any club that allowed rank and file supporters any closer than that would a basket case before the end of the season.

There have been plenty of 'clueless b*****ds' who happen to be at boardroom level up and down the country. Some of them ended up running the club as a private plaything in the end (see Morton; Rae, Douglas) or are within fan ownership groups (see Morton, the self-appointed MCT directors, right now). I fail to see any distinction between these types and the "rank and file supporters" that you're looking sideways at, other than a degree in management-speak waffle and a golf club membership. Neither confer any greater ability to make competent decisions.

I'd be genuinely interested to know how Motherwell's model allows genuinely competent individuals to run the club while also ensuring representation and choice by its (fan) owners. I'd also like to understand how transparency in the club's management and decision-making is achieved, to avoid the fate of ending up as a glorified social club committee. Based on the first few months of Morton's fan ownership model trying to take on running the club, the latter is the outcome that looks much more likely for us right now and has to be avoided by taking on board lessons from elsewhere. 

[ZingaliMan]

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

 

There have been plenty of 'clueless b*****ds' who happen to be at boardroom level up and down the country. Some of them ended up running the club as a private plaything in the end (see Morton; Rae, Douglas) or are within fan ownership groups (see Morton, the self-appointed MCT directors, right now). I fail to see any distinction between these types and the "rank and file supporters" that you're looking sideways at, other than a degree in management-speak waffle and a golf club membership. Neither confer any greater ability to make competent decisions.

I'd be genuinely interested to know how Motherwell's model allows genuinely competent individuals to run the club while also ensuring representation and choice by its (fan) owners. I'd also like to understand how transparency in the club's management and decision-making is achieved, to avoid the fate of ending up as a glorified social club committee. Based on the first few months of Morton's fan ownership model trying to take on running the club, the latter is the outcome that looks much more likely for us right now and has to be avoided by taking on board lessons from elsewhere. 

Think you would find SMISA very helpful if approached nothing to lose by it. 

[Guest TheJTS98]

17 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

As far as I understand the model we’re moving towards is that the players are answerable to the coach, the coach is answerable to the director of football, the dof and coach are answerable to the board, the board is answerable to the board of the foundation and we elect the board of the foundation 

so we’re technically in charge but a long way from the day to day decisions 

which is probably a good thing 

 

I'm quite comfortable with where Hearts are going with this too.

Fan ownership is one of these things that's a bit like driver-less cars. People go fucking nuts every time one of them doesn't work, but ignore the bodies piled high in road accidents caused by human drivers every day.

Fan-owned models have flaws, of course, but overall I think it's far better for clubs like non-OF Scottish clubs to pursue this model where there is the interest. We'll never have the silly excitement levels of Vlad signing Takis Fyssas, but we'll probably also never end up staring down losing our club again.

The more traditional model has led to mountains of debt at clubs up and down the country and repeated administrations etc. I'll take a bit of in-fighting and the odd complete choob stirring up a fuss to avoid that again.

[Swello]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

 

There have been plenty of 'clueless b*****ds' who happen to be at boardroom level up and down the country. Some of them ended up running the club as a private plaything in the end (see Morton; Rae, Douglas) or are within fan ownership groups (see Morton, the self-appointed MCT directors, right now). I fail to see any distinction between these types and the "rank and file supporters" that you're looking sideways at, other than a degree in management-speak waffle and a golf club membership. Neither confer any greater ability to make competent decisions.

I'd be genuinely interested to know how Motherwell's model allows genuinely competent individuals to run the club while also ensuring representation and choice by its (fan) owners. I'd also like to understand how transparency in the club's management and decision-making is achieved, to avoid the fate of ending up as a glorified social club committee. Based on the first few months of Morton's fan ownership model trying to take on running the club, the latter is the outcome that looks much more likely for us right now and has to be avoided by taking on board lessons from elsewhere. 

There is a distinction between having full club directors directly elected by supporters and letting supporters make operational decisions - which is what people always assume "fan owned" means. I am a 'Well society member and a shareholder at Motherwell but I have absolutely no qualifications in running a football club, so I haven't put myself forward as I would be clueless. My involvement (other than paying my dues) begins and ends at electing people that I do think have the necessary qualifications and that degree of separation is the important part. 

The folk that are elected represent the "owners" and if they do that well, they can continue to do that - if they turn out to be crap, they are replaced - so that helps us ensure that we have competent individuals (but obviously doesn't fully guarantee it). It's akin to an MSP or MP I guess - the Well society board reps don't consult the "voters" on every decision they make but are ultimately answerable for those decisions. In exceptional cases, they could ballot the members before making a decision but that has practically never happened.

The elected reps are full directors of the club, sit on the club BoD and have the same fiduciary responsibilities as the other Directors, so it is no more a glorified social club committee  than it would have been anyway. In terms of transparency, they have to report back to the 'Well society members and are acting on their behalf. Compared to the "Millionaire clueless b*****d" model that most clubs have (and that we had under Boyle) - the levels of transparency are in a different league. 

I suppose the fan ownership model at any given club will stand or fall by the competence of individuals that put themselves forward. - and I also think we are very lucky in having a Chief Exec and a Chairman that genuinely embrace the model and don't simply see it as an inconvenience to get around.

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Swello

[ropy]

I got to vote against the new Rangers being fast tracked into the top league.  If that is the only benefit of fan ownership then I am satisfied.

[vikingTON]

6 hours ago, ZingaliMan said:

Think you would find SMISA very helpful if approached nothing to lose by it. 

The SMISA were by all accounts very helpful when MCT was getting off the ground in 2019, but in terms of actually running the club I'm not sure what they can offer tbh. The fan group takeover at Morton is effectively complete (though the final details of the handover have now been stalled out for two very costly months this summer); Saint Mirren are moving towards fan ownership at the exact same time. 

[ZingaliMan]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

The SMISA were by all accounts very helpful when MCT was getting off the ground in 2019, but in terms of actually running the club I'm not sure what they can offer tbh. The fan group takeover at Morton is effectively complete (though the final details of the handover have now been stalled out for two very costly months this summer); Saint Mirren are moving towards fan ownership at the exact same time. 

Congratulations on fan ownership its the way forward in my opinion.  Hopefully it moves you on a good Morton is good for both clubs. 

[dardo]

Congratulations on fan ownership its the way forward in my opinion.  Hopefully it moves you on a good Morton is good for both clubs. 

Behave. A good Morton is an irrelevance, at best.

[NorthBank]

Most Club Boards in Scotland are populated with fans. Guys that have been locally successful and made their way on to the Board generally taking their responsibilities seriously and using their business acumen. In St Mirren's case we had as Chairman Stewart Gilmour, successful local business man in the retail and motor trade. Gordon Scott owner of a successful building firm. And our new Chairman, John Needham was the Chairman of an international bank. Both Scott and Needham are members of SMISA and maybe have more credentials than the bulk of SMISA members to run a business. SMISA members vote on their Board reps then let them get on with it.

The great thing about having a fan-owned Club is that the fans can get rid of those Directors if they start to f**k things up like Melville did at Dundee and a club cannot be sold to chancers like Whyte or egotists like Mileson or foreign  investors who are not fans but those looking for a profit. Fan owned Clubs ensure Clubs are not sold and Directors act responsibly and fans do actually run the club. All Clubs should be fan owned imho.

[Swello]

25 minutes ago, NorthBank said:

Most Club Boards in Scotland are populated with fans. Guys that have been locally successful and made their way on to the Board generally taking their responsibilities seriously and using their business acumen. In St Mirren's case we had as Chairman Stewart Gilmour, successful local business man in the retail and motor trade. Gordon Scott owner of a successful building firm. And our new Chairman, John Needham was the Chairman of an international bank. Both Scott and Needham are members of SMISA and maybe have more credentials than the bulk of SMISA members to run a business. SMISA members vote on their Board reps then let them get on with it.

The great thing about having a fan-owned Club is that the fans can get rid of those Directors if they start to f**k things up like Melville did at Dundee and a club cannot be sold to chancers like Whyte or egotists like Mileson or foreign  investors who are not fans but those looking for a profit. Fan owned Clubs ensure Clubs are not sold and Directors act responsibly and fans do actually run the club. All Clubs should be fan owned imho.

Everything you say is correct but I think one thing that will  be interesting is when a fan-owned club makes a real arse of it and ends up down a financial hole. I know that the fan owned model should limit that sort of thing happening but it is possible because even the best intentioned Board's can make bad decisions. There are lots of examples of clubs being dug out by the personal wealth of their owners (usually after they've fucked it up in the first place) but it will be a test when it happens in a fan-owned context.

Clubs of an Aberdeen/Hibs/Hearts size would have the fan base to raise enough money in most cases but clubs in the next tiers down would be more at risk. I know our model explicitly includes a "cash reserve" that has been built up through supporter contributions over a lengthy period of time and I would hope that most clubs going down this path would have similar thoughts.

[FTOF]

9 minutes ago, Swello said:

Everything you say is correct but I think one thing that will  be interesting is when a fan-owned club makes a real arse of it and ends up down a financial hole. I know that the fan owned model should limit that sort of thing happening but it is possible because even the best intentioned Board's can make bad decisions. There are lots of examples of clubs being dug out by the personal wealth of their owners (usually after they've fucked it up in the first place) but it will be a test when it happens in a fan-owned context.

Clubs of an Aberdeen/Hibs/Hearts size would have the fan base to raise enough money in most cases but clubs in the next tiers down would be more at risk. I know our model explicitly includes a "cash reserve" that has been built up through supporter contributions over a lengthy period of time and I would hope that most clubs going down this path would have similar thoughts.

So does our model.

[pozbaird]

1 minute ago, FTOF said:

So does our model.

It’s in a shoebox under the front reception desk with ‘dud manager payoff fund’ written in black felt pen.

[FTOF]

2 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

It’s in a shoebox under the front reception desk with ‘dud manager payoff fund’ written in black felt pen.

To be fair, that fund will have been offset, to a certain extent, by compensation received for Jack Ross and, unbelievably, Brian Rice.

 

[Buttocks Brown]

27 minutes ago, NorthBank said:

 And our new Chairman, John Needham was the Chairman of an international bank. Both Scott and Needham are members of SMISA and maybe have more credentials than the bulk of SMISA members to run a business. SMISA members vote on their Board reps then let them get on with it.

Not forgetting the other 2 SMISA reps on the board: Alan Wardrop is a financial adviser and David Riley a global process manager for UPS. Throw in Jim Gillespie (Chief Executive of Kibble) as well as Mark McMillan, the former leader of Renfrewshire Council and you've got a really strong set of individuals leading the club.

There seems to be a misconception out there that Motherwell and ourselves have randomly picked some guys off the terracing at halftime and given them the keys to the boardroom! It's a long way from the truth.

 

[vikingTON]

22 minutes ago, Swello said:

Everything you say is correct but I think one thing that will  be interesting is when a fan-owned club makes a real arse of it and ends up down a financial hole. I know that the fan owned model should limit that sort of thing happening but it is possible because even the best intentioned Board's can make bad decisions. There are lots of examples of clubs being dug out by the personal wealth of their owners (usually after they've fucked it up in the first place) but it will be a test when it happens in a fan-owned context.

Clubs of an Aberdeen/Hibs/Hearts size would have the fan base to raise enough money in most cases but clubs in the next tiers down would be more at risk. I know our model explicitly includes a "cash reserve" that has been built up through supporter contributions over a lengthy period of time and I would hope that most clubs going down this path would have similar thoughts.

I fully agree that risk is significant, but it's far harder to create and then justify keeping a cash reserve below the top flight though. There are very few transfers that you can skim a portion away from to build that up, and few fans are going to be convinced to pay solely into a rainy day fund alone, without seeing tangible gains on the park.

For other clubs like ourselves, ongoing fan investment should be prioritised for capital infrastructure. We are decades behind the majority of clubs in the entire SPFL when it comes to making revenue outside of every other Saturday. In fact, there isn't even a social club or function space to maximise revenue on a match day, instead of a dwindling number handing their cash over to the clown running The Norseman. I think that you can convince fans to buy into schemes that will tangibly develop the club as a business (with a direct improvement in the fan experience being a bonus), which would also increase cashflow and marginally develop the assets on the books. 

The serious red flag for any fan ownership/investment scheme is of course when the funds are being used for the first team budget. That was how Morton's scheme started but the directors have to make a concerted push away from that now as we progress from propping up a private owner in exchange for a stake in the club plus debt write-off, to taking responsibility for running the entire thing.

[NorthBank]

Everything you say is correct but I think one thing that will  be interesting is when a fan-owned club makes a real arse of it and ends up down a financial hole. I know that the fan owned model should limit that sort of thing happening but it is possible because even the best intentioned Board's can make bad decisions. There are lots of examples of clubs being dug out by the personal wealth of their owners (usually after they've fucked it up in the first place) but it will be a test when it happens in a fan-owned context.
Clubs of an Aberdeen/Hibs/Hearts size would have the fan base to raise enough money in most cases but clubs in the next tiers down would be more at risk. I know our model explicitly includes a "cash reserve" that has been built up through supporter contributions over a lengthy period of time and I would hope that most clubs going down this path would have similar thoughts.

Of course the fans' appointed Board could make an arse of it but the fans can get rid of them hopefully before it goes too far. And in St Mirren's case the fans are still paying in after the purchase.

Besides supporting the Academy and the Charitable Foundation and stadium upgrades to benefit fans, 50% of continuing donations are going into a rainy day fund of which SMISA decide how it is spent and not the Board. Hopefully to be used for growth and not to dig us out of a hole but money will be available for emergencies.