|
Post by Rovergrant on Feb 7, 2024 18:51:09 GMT
Now if that was individuals - BOD or otherwise meeting with Paul Reilly all hell would break loose.....
|
|
|
Post by mildrover on Feb 7, 2024 19:00:28 GMT
Meeting at Cliftonhill re: fan ownership taking place tonight I believe. Not really in the spirit of inclusion and transparency to have such gatherings behind closed doors, is it? I do hope those concerned are keeping the Board of Directors and others who are involved at the ARFC (directly or indirectly) abreast of the discussions - although I doubt it. You were at a meeting 2 weeks ago Jordan when I updated the board about necessary background work being done into the possibility of fan ownership. Short memory obviously. Ronnie
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 7, 2024 19:21:52 GMT
I was, Ronnie, as you allude to.
There was, I felt, some discomfort that I’d even mentioned those two words at the time.
I also said that all options should be considered, and I stand by that, but the manner in which it’s being discussed - in a closed forum with selected individuals - flies in the face of the principles of the very aim of the group, no? Inclusion and transparency it most certainly ain’t.
|
|
|
Post by rab on Feb 7, 2024 19:41:12 GMT
Meeting at Cliftonhill re: fan ownership taking place tonight I believe. Not really in the spirit of inclusion and transparency to have such gatherings behind closed doors, is it? I do hope those concerned are keeping the Board of Directors and others who are involved at the ARFC (directly or indirectly) abreast of the discussions - although I doubt it. Jordie, I considered you to be one of the better directors during your time on the board, but having stood down you seem to have adopted the role of sh!t stirrer. It’s quite right that meetings take place without making all the details public at this stage so they can work out exactly what they want to do, get the details straight and iron out any problems - THEN go public. It wouldn’t make any sense to announce something until it has been properly thought through. Also, I understand there was a joint meeting recently between the club and the two trusts and an update was given on developments - and that you were at the meeting, so your post is a bit puzzling. I’m assuming that you are, in principle, in favour of fan ownership. It’s great that these meeting are taking place and hopefully it will lead to something concrete.
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 7, 2024 20:11:07 GMT
Hi Rab,
It’s the clandestine nature, the hand-picking of members of this “group”, that I find puzzling and at odds with all the principle of fan ownership would stand for.
For what it’s worth, and having carried out my own research on the topic, I don’t think fan ownership is anywhere near workable at a Club of our size.
It seems to only really succeed at Clubs who have at least 1,000 fans pledging monthly. At Clubs similar to our size (Clyde, Edinburgh City, Stirling Albion) it has caused a myriad of issues. I’d be interested to know:
1) The amount of people those involved in the group think we could get to pledge monthly 2) The average amount that would be pledged 3) What tangible different to the Club this would make in the long run?
|
|
|
Post by rab on Feb 7, 2024 20:46:11 GMT
I think you’ll find that fan ownership applies more commonly at clubs of our level or below - check out the list of UK fan owned clubs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teamsYour examples aren’t very convincing. Fans at Edinburgh City only took over when things were already dire to try to stabilise things. Clyde have no ground and will struggle whoever is in charge. Stirling Albion seem to be doing quite well. Of course fan ownership doesn’t guarantee good governance. It depends on how the club is run. But in Rovers case it would ensure that we are not vulnerable to takeover attempts by the likes of Paul Reilly, who nobody (other than Robert Watt) judges to have good intentions. If not him, then it might be someone else in the future. Preventing that from ever happening would be a very tangible, welcome outcome. As for a myraid of issues, well, I think we have these already. What’s the alternative? The only things I can think of are that we wait for a sugar daddy to appear (unlikely) or that we continue as we are now, with nothing much changing unless our major shareholders decide to sell to someone who may or may not have good intentions. I hardly think this is all ‘clandestine’ when the idea was floated, gained a universally positive response and then was put in motion. I don’t know for sure, but I guess people were invited on the basis that they might be able to contribute something positive. Whether all the right people are included is a matter for debate, but in general it seems to me that the right approach has been adopted, before going public later. Those 3 questions you ask at then end are all legitimate ones, and will no doubt be part of what this group seeks to answer (although I think I’ve partially answered point 3).
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 7, 2024 22:24:04 GMT
Thanks for the link to the list, Rab, it makes for interesting reading.
A school of thought exists which suggests that Albion Rovers is already fan-owned and there is *some* truth in such an assertion.
If you look at a the list of active shareholders on Companies House, I’d guess that 60%+ of the individuals are known to you. Why? Well, you’ll meet them at games both home and away following ARFC. They’ve either been ‘passed’ shares by other shareholders or inherited them following the death of another long-standing fan. We are, in essence, a minority fan-owned Club.
I’d actually go so far to say that, if pure objectivity is applied and bias removed, we are almost completely owned by fans. The issue, in my eyes anyway, is that they’re not the “right” ones in the view of the some.
I’d be really interested to see the expected amount of monthly contributors and the expected average donation, too. Say, for talking sake, it’s 100 fans @ £20 p/m. Honestly, what real, tangible difference do we expect that to make?
Take it from me, an ex-Director of ARFC in both the SPFL and (very unfortunately) the Lowland League - a reality check is needed if there is a real belief fan ownership will generate enough cold, hard cash to catapult us back in to League Two. The budgets of many of our peers in the Lowland League and in League Two are beyond your wildest imagination. The likes of Bo’ness, Broomhill (yup!), East Kilbride, Linlithgow Rose, Tranent, and Berwick Rangers are outspending us and it is no secret. Further down the pyramid, Clydebank, St Cadocs, Beith, Darvel, Cumnock, Pollok etc. are spending big and harbouring ambitions to match. What I will say is that we have a leveller in Sandy Clark to some extent. But if those around you are outspending, there is only so much one man can do.
In essence, I honestly don’t know what the future holds for Albion Rovers and that scares me. What I do know, however, is that any notion we’ve got a God-given right to be in the SPFL needs to be re-examined. At the end of the day, it all comes down to who ‘fling’ the most coin at an attempt to get out of this circus of a league we currently find ourselves in.
|
|
|
Post by rab on Feb 7, 2024 23:31:01 GMT
I agree we have no automatic right to be in the SPFL, and I don’t think most fans think that we do. You’re also right to highlight that other clubs at our level and below can outspend us. Interestingly, three of those - Berwick, Clydebank and Pollok - are fan owned (the latter two being 100% fan owned).
The motivation behind fan ownership isn’t that it will get us back into the SPFL. It’s about preventing a situation where a bad actor might be able to buy out shareholders and pretty soon we wouldn’t have a club at all. Paul Reilly has at least done us a favour by highlighting this.
That’s why it’s wrong to criticise people who are trying to do something to make sure the club can’t fall into the wrong hands. To suggest they are operating ‘secretly’ simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
And, as I’ve asked, if fan ownership isn’t the way forward, what’s the alternative?
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 7, 2024 23:40:16 GMT
It is a bit clandestine, though, isn’t it?
To meet, in private, and not include a significant amount of fans doesn’t seem very inclusive or transparent as I’ve said in an earlier post.
|
|
|
Post by scottgkc16 on Feb 8, 2024 2:08:45 GMT
It is a bit clandestine, though, isn’t it? To meet, in private, and not include a significant amount of fans doesn’t seem very inclusive or transparent as I’ve said in an earlier post. So are you saying that the meeting which was held was for an unauthorised illicit purpose then with participants taking part in illegal activities 🤔
|
|
|
Post by cliftonbill on Feb 8, 2024 6:36:01 GMT
It is a bit clandestine, though, isn’t it? To meet, in private, and not include a significant amount of fans doesn’t seem very inclusive or transparent as I’ve said in an earlier post. I wasn’t at the initial meeting, Jordie, but I can’t for the life of me see what’s wrong with a small group of Rovers fans meeting to discuss the feasibility/logistics of fan ownership at ARFC, prior to ‘going public’ to take the initiative forward. ‘Clandestine’ implies there was something vaguely sinister or underhand about the initial meeting. You don’t really believe that, do you?
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Feb 8, 2024 8:26:57 GMT
Maybe the word` clandestine` Bill, was a bit ott....but what was the criteria to be invited to this meeting....maybe `cronyism` would have been a more appropriate description?
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 8, 2024 8:55:51 GMT
It is a bit clandestine, though, isn’t it? To meet, in private, and not include a significant amount of fans doesn’t seem very inclusive or transparent as I’ve said in an earlier post. So are you saying that the meeting which was held was for an unauthorised illicit purpose then with participants taking part in illegal activities 🤔 Dusted down the dictionary for that one, Scott? Perhaps clandestine was a bit OTT, but it does not take away the attempt to convene these meetings privately, amongst a small group of fans, therefore keeping it exclusive to a chosen few. Very much at odds with the principles of fan ownership.
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Feb 8, 2024 9:26:41 GMT
Two questions.....what was the criteria to be invited to attend this meeting....and who sent out the invites?
|
|
|
Post by samtennentjnr on Feb 8, 2024 10:50:30 GMT
I wasnt at the meeting but to be 100% open and honest i've been a part of a group discussing this.
Is it not understandable that a group of people trying to pull something together to even start a process like this meet to dicuss what it is that is actually being proposed before having a larger public meeting to discuss these plans? 100 in a room with no plan would just be a complete waste of time and get us nowhere.
Fan Ownership would take all of us here who love the club - why would gatekeeping help in anyway. To suggest this is some sinister plot is bizarre.
Lets be frank the reason that these things have not been discussed so openly and publicly until a solid plan is forged is because the last time such an open meeting was held it was completely railroaded by a man who is trying to destroy our club. Although looking at some posts from last month on P&B from a "clyde" fan the information has already got to him.
The debate about fan ownership is one im happy to get into in detail later - but I agree with Jordan that it is no magic bullet. The idea isnt that suddenly we as fans soley generate all income for the club but to get the club onto an even keel and try to make it self sufficient. Easier said than done I know. But what is the alternative sit around and wait for us to be picked off by a speculator?
|
|