Ownership of the club(share issue)

[loweiy]

On a previous thread I have stated that I would like to see the fans own 35% of the club. The club has improved beyond measure in the past 6 months and I would love to see fans given a chance to direct the club on major decisions. These are just the thoughts of a fan with only a limited income but and unlimited pot of ideas.

[katei77]

the limted income is the problem thought its a great idea but at present the club needs deep pockets what us fans havent got

the club needs investment at present from people with deep pockets who are happy not to see a return on their investment for along time

if as fans we were able to create a large fund over time something along the lines of the supporters club or trust and be in postion to be able to bail out the club at any given time then yes we should buy shares but IMHO i dont think a slice of shares as large as 35% will be for sale at any one given time ,we would have to slowly but surely build our shares up over time,shares get us a say on the board what can only be a good thing but we need the funds to invest in the club

without investment the club can not go forward

[Doug]

I now see what your getting at Stephen; at first I was under the impression of a maximum holding of 35% for individuals or groups; If we are talking about a supporters trust holding 35% regardless of a future owner holding a majority share it become much more understandable and acceptable to the way I feel.

The negative I was holding on to was a maximum holding of 35% irrespective; this to me meant no one body in overall control and no major investor.

I think people would agree that myself and other people have voiced a wish for a permanent forum made up of representatives from the club, local business partnerships, the fans and HBC and community groups with one major aim; too promote the Name of ASFC and the greater Township of Accrington (Hyndburn) and attract funding and investment. Should this not be a starting point to real change?

Stephen, how does the trust envisage rising the cost of purchasing 35%, what realistically does it need to raise and what add on cost are there. This is in terms of purchasing the shares.

[expatriate]

guys, thanks for getting this thread started. My primary interest as i said before is to try and stimulate a broad conversation that would ultimately be in the interests of the club as a whole, and which can help provide the foundations for a really good push forward in teh coming year.

Let me make a couple of obvious points to get started:

the decision on how to proceed has to be in the hands of the board and the majority shareholder. These discussions on the bulletin board are, in my view, a brilliant way to ensure that as the board and David think of the way forward they can take advantage of the inevitable creativity that exists out here.

separately I also think that as we have moved on from the confrontational days of summer, its more likely that suggestions can be taken on board without the fear of an associated agenda. there is no second guessing (or very little second guessing) when we are not trying to score points off each other !

Having made these points let me pick up on the question of the fan's share. This is aimed really at Lowey. At present the fans only have my shares, and that is not close to the 35% you mention. In order to get to that point, and in order for that point to be beneficial, the only way that can work is if there is a share issue which will see ASSF increase its ownership. the two points that therefore arise are as follows- will ASSF be in a position to subscribe to those shares (ie will they have the financial wherewithal ?). Or are you thinking of a different mechanism ? Obviously in my case I dontaed the shares to ASSF, and as we found out, even when the club's back was to the wall, no other contributions could be made by assf as a whole. I recall not even a solitary £. I am not being controversial here, just wondering how you foresee things since you were actively involved in all those conversations.

Katie I am not ignoring your comments, but I think that we need to figure out my question above (at least in principle) before we can debate the points you have made.

Doug, i suspect tht my question also lay at the heart of your comment on the other thread.

[maccawozzagod]

a Supporters Trust would be in a position to raise monies through any means necessary which could be stockpiled until such time as any shares become available
a Supporters Trust could use proxy votes given by minority shareholders to bulk its worth up to any percentage given. It wouldn't matter whether a ST owned 3.5% or 35% or 55% as it would have no bearing on ownership - just voting rights

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

a Supporters Trust could use proxy votes given by minority shareholders to bulk its worth up to any percentage given. It wouldn't matter whether a ST owned 3.5% or 35% or 55% as it would have no bearing on ownership - just voting rights

I seem to recall from the supporters trust open evening 35% was a significant figure for some reason. Maybe it's worth reminding me so everybody understands why the figure is so specific

[maccawozzagod]

errm ....

[Doug]

I know what your getting at Rob; but to achieve any given ST aim everyone would have to play ball, if a significant number of fans with shares where against a particular ST view point the ST wouldn't have enough clout on the day; ownership of a physical 35% would guarantee a vote at least.

[maccawozzagod]

you wouldn't proxy your vote each and every time - I think the idea would be that everyone who wished to 'donate' the voting rights of their 0.01% would do so by trusting the trust to make the right decisions collectively . You wouldn't do so on each decision or you might as well just use the vote yourself.

We did a quick count up a few weeks ago at an OSC meeting of shares that had been available recently or were intimated to be availble and we got to around 25/30% It was proof that an ST could or would have some significant clout as and when it happens. I'll post more on that later when I find my notes, as I've been meaning to update on that for a week or so.

[Chimer]

If there was an issue of new shares I would certainly be interested in buying some (once I understood the difference between A & B shares and what it was I was buying - never got my head round this when the attempt was made to sell off somebody's shares as £250 souvenirs during the crunch time ). Assuming I did buy some, I would happily in the first instance give my proxy votes to the ASSF or a Supporters' Trust to be used as part of a fans' block vote. I suspect many on here would happily do something similar if they could, but equally I suspect many dug deeper than me before Christmas, and there won't be that much spare cash floating about just now.

I wouldn't give the shares themselves to either ASSF or Trust (though I might leave them in my will ) as I would want to retain the right to withdraw the proxy and vote as I wanted in certain circumstances, e.g. if there was a proposal to give the whole shooting match to another Munto - ain't hindsight wonderful? I applaud Ilyas' gesture in making his shares over to the ASSF but I'm not sure it was the best thing to do.

[expatriate]

Chimer, thanks for your comments. There are quite a few different ways in which supporters trusts have been set up. I think that my view on this needs just a bit more explanation before you (and others) can see where i might be coming from. It is my view that the initial capital that was needed to help save stanley, and then stabilise it, could not have been invested by any one with a purely commercial outlook. Any sensible measure of business returns etc would have meant that the plan would be deemed to be unfeasible. Equally, in my view, the capital that has been required (and still will be needed) to fund the deficits, is really not commercial. I think i have given my views on why i have made the capital available - and I can confirm that my outlook was not commercial. I have clearly made the capital available in the form of a convertible loan, but i did not believe that the capital would be able to earn a return. Or at least not for a very very long time, and not unless there is a remarkable confluence of circumstance.

Also, looking forward, the club needs more investment in order to bring into place the types of infrastructure that can allow it to think of being self sufficient. In this regard I think its possible that someone (probably me, but who knows, there may be others) can apply a traditional investment yardstick. Even then, the investment in stadium development and pitch improvement is not a small amount and may need the help and support of people and institutions that have a broader, non commercial outlook (local authority etc).

I have therefore assumed that any supporter's trust will only be possible and credible once all these things have been put into place. The risks inherent in any supporter's trsut structure (your point about munto is well made) can be mitigated, but an awful lot of thought has to go into them, and the hardest thing in the world is to create something that is relevant today, but safe tomorrow.

I have gone on long enough, so i hope my post is useful. As I said at the outset I am intrigued by this conversation and feel that it will help shape the eventual outcome. The one thing you can be certain of is that I retain a wholly long term view of the club. I have been involved now for 17yrs, and I can see that the next few years might simply be a small step towards that elusive "objective" of true self sufficiency.

Ilyas

[Shurm]

Good post, self sufficient would be a dream come true I suppose.

[Pendle Red]

I don't know the full legalities of this and whether it is possible?

But here goes:

I posted somewhere about having a membership scheme for fans of the Club that they sign up to and pay a sum up front for a season ticket card that they then produce on match days to get it at a reduced rate, basically works the same way as a season ticket but instead of the Club getting all the cash up front the pot is divided into some up front and then some from every home game instead of receiving all the money in one sitting so to speak.

I like the Trust model but I think most people have their own views, but a way to a means that perhaps would service all requirements including the Club is to expand on the Membership Scheme or offer up an alternative that is also viable to the Club, I am not quite sure what umbrealla it would fall under:

This is only an example

An Adult pays £10 a month into a Supporters Membership Scheme in exchange for a 10% Discount on a season ticket, 10% discount on any purchase in the Stanley Store, membership of the Supporters/Owners/Shareholders/Stakeholders Club this is set up by the fans but with the interest of the Club at the core e.g. to pay for new Bar Facilities for Fans pre match which in turns creates turnover for the Club while also creating somewhere for the fans.

A OAP or Unemployed pays £5 a month for the same as above

If we got 500 to join the Adult scheme & 200 to join the OAP or Unemployed Scheme it would generate £6000 per month or £72000 a year.

This extra revenue could be used to create various things around the Ground as it grew and as the Supporter base grew it would hopefully carry on generating extra income for the Club & Fans in terms of perhaps wish lists of better facilities and if both sides were willing take Supporters to a Boardroom Level by terms of representatives from the Supporters/Owners/Shareholders/Stakeholders Club.

This all may be pie in the sky and way off the mark in terms of what people want & think likewise with the Club but it may stimulate conversation if nothing else

Please feel free to pick holes in or add as you see fit

[expatriate]

Pendle I am seeing Rob and David O Neil today and i will raise the point you make about the split season ticket scheme. ONe of the good things about this bulletin board is that there are some creative views that can be constructively applied by the club. I will get this onto the agenda. If you dont hear back in a couple of weeks, will you kindly PM me ?

thanks
Ilyas

[loweiy]

On Saturday we entertain Notts County a team once owned by a fans trust but sold to overseas big money, they have been a cautionary tale as to the state of English football, and now with the cash gone and possible point’s deductions on the way, who would the fans rather have in charge? The lure of top flight football can be a strong one and who can blame them for having a go. The only way forward in these troubled times for football must be to have a significant proportion of the club owned by the fans. I am not saying that the fans are better informed or wiser to the ways of running a football club. Just that they are inextricably linked to their club and whatever happens rain or shine they will always be there to support and they can never just walk away. In this respect we are so lucky to have Ilyas Khan and his family, yes they have the money required to rectify the mistakes of the past regime here at Stanley but they have something more important than cash. They are Accrington people and Stanley fans who love the club. Despite being a tough negotiating millionaire Ilyas has shown he has a heart of gold when it comes to the club he loves. A supporter’s trust is an idea for the future but for the present the club needs the financial security of our wealthy benefactor. This does not mean we can forget about the Trust more that we should precede at a pace which the finical stability brought to the club by Ilyas allows us to. I think at the next meeting we should set the ball rolling with a trust or the like in order to support Ilyas and the Club and look at ways we can all do that bit more to secure the future of our club.