Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Springburnjag

Fan Ownership Working Group

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Not sure there has been dividends for shareholders anyway, if the new Board’s aspirations are to break even, then we’re going to be in trouble .

I believe that there was the provision to pay dividends to directors in the club's constitution,  but insufficient profit to justify this. 

I think my and Dick Dastartly's opinion that fans group directors will be precluded from being given any dividend  is the correct interpretation.  This would not mean that the aspiration is only to break even.  That would not make any sense whatsoever. It's just a shame that a more in depth explanation wasn't provided.

I do have a concern on how directors are elected, and even removed from office.  I also have a concern about any future share issues being implemented, and how that is controlled.  We don't want to end up like Sevco, with shares like the German pre WW2 Mark. (And about the same number of zillion shares! Ever increasing, like the universe!) Did Dunfermline recently make a further share issue to include their new German funding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

I believe that there was the provision to pay dividends to directors in the club's constitution,  but insufficient profit to justify this. 

I think my and Dick Dastartly's opinion that fans group directors will be precluded from being given any dividend  is the correct interpretation.  This would not mean that the aspiration is only to break even.  That would not make any sense whatsoever. It's just a shame that a more in depth explanation wasn't provided.

I do have a concern on how directors are elected, and even removed from office.  I also have a concern about any future share issues being implemented, and how that is controlled.  We don't want to end up like Sevco, with shares like the German pre WW2 Mark. (And about the same number of zillion shares! Ever increasing, like the universe!) Did Dunfermline recently make a further share issue to include their new German funding?

Normally dividends are paid to shareholders, normally at a football club that’s the BoD, previously that was Reid, Bates, Oliver, Beattie etc. Our current BoD do not own the club, the future BoD under a fan ownership will not be major shareholders but merely one of many small shareholders or custodians of the shares. Dividends really has nothing to do with this current BoD and proposed future BoD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Normally dividends are paid to shareholders, normally at a football club that’s the BoD, previously that was Reid, Bates, Oliver, Beattie etc. Our current BoD do not own the club, the future BoD under a fan ownership will not be major shareholders but merely one of many small shareholders or custodians of the shares. Dividends really has nothing to do with this current BoD and proposed future BoD

But is the suggestion that not for profit is included in  the constitution of the new fan ownership group a way of making it illegal to pay a dividend to shareholders under s 830 Companies Act 2006? That would be because the dividend could then only be made out of profits available for the purpose.   

That would prevent any future BoD making such payments without substantial change.

Perhaps the working group could set out precisely what the meaning & purpose of the provision is?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

But is the suggestion that not for profit is included in  the constitution of the new fan ownership group a way of making it illegal to pay a dividend to shareholders under s 830 Companies Act 2006? That would be because the dividend could then only be made out of profits available for the purpose.   

That would prevent any future BoD making such payments without substantial change.

Perhaps the working group could set out precisely what the meaning & purpose of the provision is?  

I’m sure they will. 


As with communication they need to keep it like a skirt, short enough to grab the attention, but long enough to save the embarrassment.

The updates aren’t quite there yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

 


As with communication they need to keep it like a skirt, short enough to grab the attention, but long enough to save the embarrassment.

:clapping:. Inspired by Ebbe Skovdahl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Did Skovdahl not also say "the operation was a success, but the patient died" on an Aberdeen defeat by Celtic. 

Believe he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, joekea said:

"Some recurring themes".....aye right! 

More likely the majority of opinion would be along the lines of:

  • Look to compete again at a higher level or compete in the latter stages of cups
  • Get a winning team on the park
  • Play exciting, entertaining and enterprising football
  • Upgrade the stadium/facilities for better matchday experience
  • Increase the number of fans  
  • etc. etc.

Never thought I would say this but if this is a serious plan...I'm out too (after 40 years +)

 

 

To be fair, "recurring themes" could mean one person harping on repeatedly about some things. It doesn't have to mean that those things will get prioritized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When moving to fan ownership it needs to be decided first and foremost how decisions are going to be made going forward. Will it be a board of directors who are representative of the fans or will it be a chair and board purely looking out for their own self interests? The way the club is run whether for profit or as a carbon neutral entity can be debated later. What is needed is a decision on how fan ownership moves on as that is what Colin weir wanted for his shareholding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fawlty Towers said:

The whole thing seems to be going round and round in circles. Is it a case of asking the questions over and over until you get the answer you want? Surely it should be up to the fans who want to be involved to get together and form a properly constituted organisation and then the shares are handed over as Colin Weir wished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, scotty said:

The whole thing seems to be going round and round in circles. Is it a case of asking the questions over and over until you get the answer you want? Surely it should be up to the fans who want to be involved to get together and form a properly constituted organisation and then the shares are handed over as Colin Weir wished.

Agreed. We were told that the three programme pages this month would be dedicated to answering fans questions. Two down and all I see is waffle. Perhaps nobody has asked any questions.

Four Zoom meetings. They have engaged with 24 fans. I have absolutely no idea what they are doing or where this is going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BowenBoys said:

Agreed. We were told that the three programme pages this month would be dedicated to answering fans questions. Two down and all I see is waffle. Perhaps nobody has asked any questions.

Four Zoom meetings. They have engaged with 24 fans. I have absolutely no idea what they are doing or where this is going.

Is it 6 fans per zoom meeting or more (or less)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Right from the outset the decision was made to actively seek the views of those that we know are sceptical, or even hostile, to the notion of fan ownership. It’s only by understanding properly those concerns that we can begin to address them.”

Clears calendar for a call

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Is it 6 fans per zoom meeting or more (or less)? 

From programme notes 7 Nov.: "...around half a dozen in attendance each meeting..."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BowenBoys said:

From programme notes 7 Nov.: "...around half a dozen in attendance each meeting..."

I’m assuming these calls take at least an hour, so 2 a week ontop of day jobs and working group meetings (which will probably be in the evening) seems reasonable, and that’s what they’ve done. Now I’m the biggest skeptic of this but more than that a week is not doable. Outside COVID a town hall meeting could be called with an online for Nomads, but were in a COVID situation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

“Right from the outset the decision was made to actively seek the views of those that we know are sceptical, or even hostile, to the notion of fan ownership. It’s only by understanding properly those concerns that we can begin to address them.”

Clears calendar for a call

I think last week, somebody from the working group came on here and invited fans to make contact if they wanted to join a meeting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lenziejag said:

I think last week, somebody from the working group came on here and invited fans to make contact if they wanted to join a meeting. 

And they have reached out 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

The purpose of the initial calls was to make sure any recurring messages were captured in the wider consultation, to make that as useful as possible.

We do not expect to engage with everyone through a series of calls with 6 people a time! 

There will be a final round of these calls next week, and after that a wider consultation will be launched to a wider audience by a different medium than Zoom call.

As I have said before, feel free to PM me on here and I am very happy to have you included on those calls.  If not, you should have greater substance available to you soon for you to consider.

Sandy

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

I had a zoom call tonight, answered a lot of my questions and quelled my concerns. I’d encourage you to reach out yourselves for a call

Thanks for letting us know Norgethistle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was involved in a Zoom call yesterday.

Long and short:

(a) the Working Group is a serious group of people

(b) their pitch can be a wee bit sentimental, but I get that they'll engage 3 fans for every fan that finds it a bit twee

(c) they've clearly been doing some serious work on the corporate governance side with the Club

(d) they've been taking preliminary decisions which won't all be popular but which are, in terms of ensuring the Club has options in the future, are extremely sensible

(e) the extent of the work they and the 3BC lawyers especially seem to have done now re-enforces how laughable the original timescale of three months was

(f) it's not going to be a quick process, and will probably be driven more by the winding-up of Colin Weir's estate than anything else, but realistically the transfer is the only show in town now

(g) main obstacles to making a success of this are engagement levels and (longer-term) alternative revenue streams

(h) people need to be patient in the transition: it's not realistic to expect the fanbase to replace the existing expertise and corporate structures overnight. If fan ownership is to work, it requires the current Club board to have a role and even if you think they've been a bit shit at times, try not to lose sight of the bigger picture.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Was involved in a Zoom call yesterday.

Long and short:

(a) the Working Group is a serious group of people

(b) their pitch can be a wee bit sentimental, but I get that they'll engage 3 fans for every fan that finds it a bit twee

(c) they've clearly been doing some serious work on the corporate governance side with the Club

(d) they've been taking preliminary decisions which won't all be popular but which are, in terms of ensuring the Club has options in the future, are extremely sensible

(e) the extent of the work they and the 3BC lawyers especially seem to have done now re-enforces how laughable the original timescale of three months was

(f) it's not going to be a quick process, and will probably be driven more by the winding-up of Colin Weir's estate than anything else, but realistically the transfer is the only show in town now

(g) main obstacles to making a success of this are engagement levels and (longer-term) alternative revenue streams

(h) people need to be patient in the transition: it's not realistic to expect the fanbase to replace the existing expertise and corporate structures overnight. If fan ownership is to work, it requires the current Club board to have a role and even if you think they've been a bit shit at times, try not to lose sight of the bigger picture.

Thanks for sharing this @Woodstock Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×