Jump to content

The Jags Foundation Elections


Norgethistle
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

Will these elections be repeated periodically eg every three/four years?

That isn't really an election question, so forgive me interceding. 

Elections to TJF Board are held annually. I believe a change to the TJF constitution/articles of association would be required to change that. 

As I recall it's not all 9 positions that are subject to annual election, you  want continuity on the TJF Board just as you do, IMO, on the Club Board. The old TJF Board decided by lot which individuals would be up for re-election in year one, year two etc. Subsequent events overtook that process :-) 

 

Edited by Tom Hosie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom may be able to confirm, but my understanding from the election info pack that Allan Heron put out to candidates is that, absent early resignations, three posts will come up for election on an annual basis, and the result in this election will be used to decide who will serve a 3, 2 or 1 year term at first instance. Each election held after this one would be for three year terms.

If there are additional vacancies, presumably they would be filled at the following election for the remainder of that term?

Edited by Woodstock Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

“absent early resignations” ????!!!

I’m simply making the point that sometimes in organisations such as these, individuals don’t serve their “full term” because they step down (e.g. due to ill health or other commitments). They are then typically replaced at the next scheduled round of elections if not sooner. Indeed, the resignation of the full current TJF Board is precisely why we’re having elections right now and for 9 positions rather than 3.

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Tom may be able to confirm, but my understanding from the election info pack that Allan Heron put out to candidates is that, absent early resignations, three posts will come up for election on an annual basis, and the result in this election will be used to decide who will serve a 3, 2 or 1 year term at first instance. Each election held after this one would be for three year terms.

If there are additional vacancies, presumably they would be filled at the following election for the remainder of that term?

That sounds about right. We drew lots to see who would be standing in the first round of elections and the subsequent years. I was down for the full three year sentence  term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

So, it’s a bit like a local councillor election ‘cycle’? 

Not really as local council elections are every 4(?) years. There will be annual elections to TJB with three positions up for election each year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

Yeah but I thought it was a refresh and they would still be interested with new blood.  These guys pushed the project and we could learn from their mistakes (as everyone makes mistakes) so to have a "Meet The Foundation" night then chuck it seems a shame.

I am sure that several of them still have something to contribute to the process, though clearly they’ve judged that fresh faces are more important given how the impasse was reached. Speaking purely personally I can think of ways that several of them could be particularly helpful as and when discussions with the Club are restarted. There are skills there (not least on fundraising) that both TJF and the Club could learn from.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Well Society received the majority shareholding in Motherwell FC from Les Hutchison for £1 in October 2016.

In its first year as the majority shareholder (2016-17) its membership increased from 1,400 to 1,630. How high do you think the turnover of the Society was that year (i.e. what was its "income" from subscriptions and fundraising)?

(a) £20k

(b) £50k

(c) £100k

(d) £200k

If you guessed (a) you are wrong. Because... they raised less than that! The Well Society only raised just over £19k that year.

A year before The Well Society took ownership of Motherwell, it had 1,102 members, but was only raising about £11k per annum. That year, it actually ran a deficit, presumably because there were costs being incurred in connection with the legal process of buying out the Club.

By 2017-18, The Well Society was turning over around £60kpa. In the space of the last 3-4 years, The Well Society has almost trebled its membership to over 3,000. But that's happened because:

  • the fan vehicle already owned the club (so people weren't signing up their money to go into a bank account that was doing nothing)
  • there was a clear and transparent reason to raise money (to enable the Club to repay an interest-free loan from Les Hutchison, and he was offering to match every pound raised for 3 years up to £500k)
  • being owners of the Club, the Well Society was able to leverage official communications and events to drive fundraising (for example, all the players and management became members, and you can literally join the Society on the Club website).

For The Jags Foundation to turn over £60kpa it needs just 500 people paying £10 a month (i.e. non-concessions under its current membership rates). That would put us, in effect, in the same sort of position Motherwell were in two years after they became a fan-owned club.

I am not satisfied with The Jags Foundation having about 500 members. I think, with some imagination and real engagement (especially on match-days but also through official Club channels) we can double or even treble that. But please, don't let anyone tell you that fan ownership isn't viable or credible on these numbers. If Motherwell could start this journey with less regular fan-vehicle income and roughly the same proportion of their support, then so can we.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impressive stuff from The Well Society.

While they had existed prior to Les becoming the majority shareholder in 2015, it only took him a year to transfer his shares to the fans. 

There is a lesson in there that 3BC could perhaps learn from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The Well Society received the majority shareholding in Motherwell FC from Les Hutchison for £1 in October 2016.

In its first year as the majority shareholder (2016-17) its membership increased from 1,400 to 1,630. How high do you think the turnover of the Society was that year (i.e. what was its "income" from subscriptions and fundraising)?

(a) £20k

(b) £50k

(c) £100k

(d) £200k

If you guessed (a) you are wrong. Because... they raised less than that! The Well Society only raised just over £19k that year.

A year before The Well Society took ownership of Motherwell, it had 1,102 members, but was only raising about £11k per annum. That year, it actually ran a deficit, presumably because there were costs being incurred in connection with the legal process of buying out the Club.

By 2017-18, The Well Society was turning over around £60kpa. In the space of the last 3-4 years, The Well Society has almost trebled its membership to over 3,000. But that's happened because:

  • the fan vehicle already owned the club (so people weren't signing up their money to go into a bank account that was doing nothing)
  • there was a clear and transparent reason to raise money (to enable the Club to repay an interest-free loan from Les Hutchison, and he was offering to match every pound raised for 3 years up to £500k)
  • being owners of the Club, the Well Society was able to leverage official communications and events to drive fundraising (for example, all the players and management became members, and you can literally join the Society on the Club website).

For The Jags Foundation to turn over £60kpa it needs just 500 people paying £10 a month (i.e. non-concessions under its current membership rates). That would put us, in effect, in the same sort of position Motherwell were in two years after they became a fan-owned club.

I am not satisfied with The Jags Foundation having about 500 members. I think, with some imagination and real engagement (especially on match-days but also through official Club channels) we can double or even treble that. But please, don't let anyone tell you that fan ownership isn't viable or credible on these numbers. If Motherwell could start this journey with less regular fan-vehicle income and roughly the same proportion of their support, then so can we.

Exactly this.

The Jags Foundation is merely starting out its journey compared to the Well Society. Yet it already has 500 members. Compare our home attendances with Motherwell a very well established top 6 premiership club (in Europe, again) and that 500 figure is actually quite good.

Can it grow, it most definitely can, especially once the fans know the money is going to benefit the club the way they see fit. Motherwell are laying a hybrid pitch this season, donating a substantial amount of season tickets, and allowing fans on low incomes to effectively take a zero percentage pay back on securing a season ticket. Motherwell as a club are getting so much right towards their fan base, and a lot of this is due to the fans having not only a voice but control of their club.

 

If you’ve not voted yet, cast your votes. We have the opportunity to do similar 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Looking at the club who have most recently moved to fan ownership, Greenock Morton, and their society has 927 members according to its website. Now with our fan base compared to Morton's I don't see why we can get get past that.

I am positive we can.

MCT started in 2019 with a view to have fan ownership, they accomplished that in June 2021 (Which included getting full due diligence) they now bring in £10000 a month in subscriptions. 
 

Thats £120k a year we don’t have.

Use your vote, and if not already joined the foundation then sign up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Source?

Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting of Morton Club Together Ltd

 

An extraordinary general meeting of MCT will be held in the Douglas Rae (Hospitality) lounge at Cappielow Park, Sinclair Street, Greenock at 7:00pm on Tuesday 7th June 2022. There will be one item on the agenda:

 

1) The MCT board seeks permission under Article 4.4 to reduce it’s shareholding to a level below 75% of the total shares in Greenock Morton FC Ltd.

 

We are seeking permission to sell groups of shares in the club to individuals and companies who have expressed an interest in investing in the club. In doing so, we will maintain majority ownership (our ownership will not drop below 50.1%). In this way, we can secure additional and ongoing funding for the club and for the first team budget.

 

In an example of this proposal, if an individual or company purchased 5% of the available shares, we would require them to match your MCT contributions. So if MCT continues to contribute around £180,000 per year, the individual or company purchasing that 5% share would be required to contribute £18,000 each year. In the ideal scenario, every £1 each MCT member contributes becomes a £1.80 contribution to the club budget. 

 

To confirm, we will continue to maintain majority ownership and continue to be a community owned club, owned by you, our MCT members.

 

We are recommending to the membership that you approve this motion. 

 

Please sign up here if you're able to attend in person at Cappielow.

 

If you are unable to attend this meeting in person, please reply to this email to advise us and a Zoom link will be sent to you.

 

If you wish to vote by proxy due to your unavailability, please reply to this email and let us know your vote be 5pm on Monday 6th June 2022.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 12:09 PM, fifexile said:

IIRC 50+1 is the model for all Geman clubs and is enforced by the German Football Federation 

In general yes, but there are some exceptions. Leverkusen & Wolfsburg were initially started as works teams for Bayer and VW respectively. This historical deviation from the 50 + 1 rule is still in place. Also the likes of RB Leipzig have such a financial structure in the background that it is very difficult (and expensive) to become a member with voting rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, German Jag said:

In general yes, but there are some exceptions. Leverkusen & Wolfsburg were initially started as works teams for Bayer and VW respectively. This historical deviation from the 50 + 1 rule is still in place. Also the likes of RB Leipzig have such a financial structure in the background that it is very difficult (and expensive) to become a member with voting rights.

Thanks for clarifying GJ. In practice do you feel that the two ex-works teams you name have an advantage by not being included in the 50+1 rule? Trophies and titles would indicate not but that's a narrow view of success!

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...