Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2024 11:58:17 GMT
No need to lock the thread.. Just don't click on the link if you find it tiresome or boring.. Freedom of speech is good providing you're not insulting or abusing anyone.
|
|
|
Post by tonythejambo on Feb 18, 2024 15:35:38 GMT
Until it’s been sounded out as a real possibility then I think we should all wait until we know if it’s an option before asking more questions or commenting on the idea
|
|
|
Post by tommysermanni on Feb 18, 2024 18:32:29 GMT
Just for clarity I never said the thread was tiresome or boring. I did say it was divisive and until more information is forthcoming it's also pointless.
The last thing ARFC need right now is a fragmented fan base.
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Feb 18, 2024 19:01:38 GMT
Can`t get more divisive than asking some folks to attend meetings and not others.....
|
|
|
Post by Prof on Feb 18, 2024 21:59:47 GMT
Oh dear, cheer up guys. We're unbeaten in the League this Year BTW😁😁😁
|
|
|
Post by weerabwatt on Feb 18, 2024 22:38:28 GMT
Ronnie, just saw your post of yesterday, asking for my thoughts.
I am unsure as to how fan ownership would benefit The Rovers, given the relatively low numbers who attend matches and other events associated with the club. If my memory serves me well, Darren Young lamented the lack of support that the club was getting, even in its halcyon days when in the first division. At the start of the second season at that level, on the occasion of the very first home match, the attendance against Brechin City was recorded as 228 souls, which included a few from the Angus area, I presume. If, during the club's most recent successful period, that is the level of interest, it does not bode well for a potential sea change and resurgence of interest.
Using Clyde FC as an example, they currently have 389 'owners', paying £60 per season, which works out at £23,340 per year. That figure is available on their website. I understand that they can pay monthly, or annually, whichever suits each individual. I have just checked the list of current 'owners', they are scattered far and wide, with a decent percentage of them in the USA, Canada, Australia, England, Ireland and Wales. It is a matter of public knowledge, that over and above the 389 worthies who contribute as above, there is one significant benefactor who has committed to providing the club with significant funds (no strings attached), to enhance the playing staff. Hence the fact that a virtually new team took to the field on Saturday, compared to what they had prior to the January transfer window.
As ARFC has a turnover of between £200,000 and £250,000 per annum, achieving the same level of support/donations that Clyde currently has would amount to approximately 10% of Rovers turnover. Further sources of income, to the tune of approximately £200,000, would then be required for the club to stand still in financial terms. I cannot see anywhere that major savings can be made in the day to day running of the club, that would reduce the need for an additional £200k.
During this season, the club has had the benefit of the SPFL parachute payment of £40,000. The Rovers were also invited, as club 42 in the SPFL, to take part in the Viaplay League Cup at the start of this campaign, earning about £25,000 of sponsorship money, and probably about £15,000 of gate receipts. As the parachute payment for year 2 reduces by 50%, and the invite to participate in the Viaplay Cup for next season will go to a Highland League club, income next season will be down by about £60,000 before a ball is kicked. Prior to dropping into the Lowland League, SPFL status ensured a reasonable level of income from SPFL sponsorship cash, which now comes to an end. One victory at Round 3 of the Scottish Cup, can result in a money spinner, as can be seen with Clyde, The Spartans and Dumbarton this season. However, the Rovers now need to negotiate Rounds 1, 2 and 3 to have any chance of the big bucks. Not a given, unfortunately!
I understand at the start of the current season, that every penny that was available was given to the management in an attempt to bounce straight back up from the Lowland League. I am unaware of what sum was committed to the playing budget, but the league position indicates that it was insufficient to achieve the desired outcome. I do know what the Berwick Rangers playing budget is/was over this season and last season. It was not an inconsiderable amount, possibly on a par with, or more than Rovers budget, and they too have also struggled in the LL.
The elephant(s) in the room regarding fan ownership are, in my opinion;
1) would the current shareholders be willing to hand over the club,
2) who would be responsible for the current debt of the club (and how much is it),
3) would the current shareholders allow the use of Cliftonhill going forward (or is there another suitable location).
All in all, the club has a mountain to climb to get back into the SPFL. If fan ownership is the solution, and it became a reality, I would certainly be interested in committing a few shillings at the start, as long as I was not tied to repaying the current debt. You will needless to say remember that when Frank Meade left the BOD, the club had north of £90,000 in the bank, and when I left a few weeks later, there was still somewhere of the order of £70,000 remaining. Once bitten, twice shy, as the old saying goes.
I will look on with interest as to how this issue unfolds.
Robert Watt
|
|
|
Post by rab on Feb 19, 2024 9:22:32 GMT
This has been repeated countless times, but here goes again. Fan ownership would benefit Rovers by ensuring we are never again vulnerable to a takeover by Paul Reilly or any other similarly unsuitable character. That alone makes it worth doing.
As for how much fans might be able to contribute directly, who knows, but how much finance do the top 9 shareholders currently contribute to the club (as opposed to their historical contributions)?
Some of your questions appear to be for the board of directors to answer - why don’t you ask them directly, or seek an EGM if you don’t get answers? For the first time in a long time, we have a board of some substance, which is great for all of us (but doesn’t change the takeover risk).
Perhaps you can now confirm that you have now decided not to sell your shares to Paul Reilly? After announcing that you were prepared to sell to him, you’ve said nothing since then about changing your mind.
|
|
|
Post by weerabwatt on Feb 19, 2024 13:08:53 GMT
Hi Rab, always interested to see or hear your point of view.
For as long as I can remember, the annual accounts of ARFC have confirmed that the most significant source of funds has been the £££££££'s received from the SFA and SPFL. For the year to June 2022 (the most recent available), that figure was just short of £102k, something like 40% of the usual turnover of the club. Having fallen into the abyss that is the Lowland League, that funding, except £20k that comes from the SPFL next season (for one more year only) will cease. Of course, there is always the dream of a Scottish Cup run and a visit to Celtic Park or Ibrox, if we can negotiate the earlier rounds, for which ARFC get a few crumbs from the SFA table.
As there are no other areas of expenditure where significant savings can realistically be made, the loss of the SFA and SPFL funding will inevitably have to come from the playing budget. From those same accounts, the wages figure was £134k. Given the league performances this season, and assuming that the BOD had allocated £134k, or similar, to the playing budget again, it is unimaginable what the situation will be a year from now, if the funds available to Sandy Clark are only about £60k, or less. God help us. I dread to think what fan ownership will look like, if it doesn't come with significant extra funding, and I don't mean a couple of thousand here and there.
Regarding the top 9 shareholders contributions, David Shanks has consistently helped the club financially by supplying materials from his and his family's timber businesses. The Reilly family, in the form of massive amounts of sponsorship donations have, it could be argued, kept the club alive for about 20 years or so. The Shanks and Reilly families have supported annual dinners by purchasing tables and buying up auction items for inflated sums. Nobody can question their support. None of the others have made any financial contribution to the club, as far as I am aware. If you are including me in the 9, I will let others educate you.
Asking the current BOD questions is a difficult one. At the recent Caley Braves match, I was one of the last half dozen or so to reach the exit from the playing pitch. In front of me as I approached him stood the new chairman who, when he saw me coming, decided to do a 90 degree turn and look into space rather than engage with me. Frank Meade was about 15 yards behind me, as he had been playing with kids who were having a kick about. Astonishingly, Mr Cameron continued to look for alien spacecraft, or possibly divine intervention, rather than having a chat with Frank, a man who might just be able to give him assistance and/or advice. Shocking.
With regard to a BOD of substance, I have it on good authority that the two most recent appointees have been recorded as MIA, due to their apparent reluctance to attend any matches. They may have other more important things in their lives, but both being unavailable on Saturday's as well as midweek evenings, sends out the wrong signals, in my humble opinion.
As I have said to several others privately, I was fully aware on the evening of 22nd August 2023, having been in contact with the biggest shareholders, that there was little to no chance of Paul Reilly getting enough support to takeover the club. I decided to sign up, knowing that the conditions of the contract would not be met. I have to say that what he was proposing had a lot to recommend it, but we will now never know whether it was for the benefit of the club, or not. I think that it may have been.
Suffice to say, I still have my shares, which will pass to my grandson in due course.
|
|
|
Post by rab on Feb 19, 2024 15:26:34 GMT
I find your explanation of why you signed up to PR implausible, given your post of 2 December: ‘I…decided to accept an offer for my shares. I know of others who have also done so’. But you now say you knew on 22 August PR had no chance?
And I’m surprised you still seem to find merit in what he was proposing. I’ve seen a few charlatans in my time (including as a director elsewhere); you can spot them a mile away. But you didn’t need much experience to see that he would have been a disaster for Rovers. Every Rovers fan could see it. Did he ever give you proof about funds? Or backers? Or the links to high rolling financiers in Dublin and Boston?
At least you have now confirmed, in a roundabout way, that you are no longer selling your shares to him.
I’m very well aware of the massive support the Reilly family have provided to Rovers over many decades. ‘Reilly Family’ are the 11th biggest Rovers shareholders with 780 shares, according to the Companies House returns (so they’re not in the top 9). I was addressing the criticism that Rovers fans might not contribute much towards running a fan owned club and comparing that with the contribution that the top 9 shareholders CURRENTLY make (as opposed to what they have done historically, which was a lot in almost every case, but on an ongoing basis appears to be very little).
So, you now have it in for the current chairman, just as you have had for previous ones. Given your post of 2 December, it’s hardly surprising that you were ignored. Bobby Cameron is the most credible chairman we’ve had for years. Now that the entire board from last year’s AGM has been replaced, I think it’s fair to give the new board time to see what they can do for the club.
|
|
|
Post by weerabwatt on Feb 19, 2024 20:57:35 GMT
Rab,
Firstly, I don't particularly give a toss what you think of my reasons for signing up. I reserve the right to decide what I believe may be in the best interests of the club, or in this case, to at least find out what was on offer to the club. As I had no preconceived notions regarding Paul Reilly, his offer to the club was intriguing, especially given the state the club had fallen to. Unlike yourself, I accept that others may have different opinions to mine, and in a democratic world they are fully entitled to voice them, whether they be shareholders or fans.
The deadline for signing up was 5pm on Monday 21st August, and it became crystal clear on the evening of 22nd August that enough of the shareholders were unwilling to even give him the time of day, far less sign up. Why educated people would not engage with PR, to at least gauge whether there was any merit in his proposals, then make their minds up after taking legal advice, still baffles me.
If there was an alternative plan to 'save' the Rovers, I could understand, but 6 months on, the silence from the 'big' shareholders is deafening.
You seem to think that you speak for ALL of the Rovers fans. You may speak for a particular element, the makeup of such I do not know, but what I do know is that many people have distanced themselves from your outburst at the open meeting and on this forum. Many good Albion Rovers people have been in touch with me by phone and email, or simply came up to me at games, to let me know how they feel, and to show their support, or at least to acknowledge that something needs to be done before the club ceases to exist. Believe it or not, one such gent sent me an email today at 14.06 precisely. I have had no contact from him since November 2019. Those people are unfortunately less willing than me to post on the forum and they wish to remain anonymous. For good reasons.
You are incorrect regarding the level of shares under the control of the Reilly family. They have another tranche of shares registered in the name of another member of their wider family. Fact.
Regarding me apparently 'having it in for the current chairman', you conveniently forget that in your earlier post you suggested that my questions appear to be for the BOD to answer. My response to that was to point out that Bobby deliberately avoided contact with myself and then Frank Meade 10 or 15 seconds later, when there were no other people present. Methinks that you are clutching at straws in an attempt to discredit me.
As for the current BOD, we are at an interesting juncture in the history of ARFC and time will tell what they bring to the party.
|
|
|
Post by rab on Feb 19, 2024 22:42:42 GMT
Aye Rab, me and all the other main shareholders and the bulk of the fanbase are all wrong about Paul Reilly and you’re right. Your gullibility about him is astounding. I don’t need to discredit you - you’ve done a good job of that yourself.
Happy to be corrected on the Reilly shares - who’s the other one in addition to the 780 listed under ‘Reilly Family’? Good news that they’ve got more shares than I thought as they are longstanding friends of the club and have been for decades, and I would always trust them to vote the right way.
My only regret at the open meeting was not being even more forthright. I didn’t intend to say anything at all, but when PR stood up, it was clear he was trying to hi-jack the meeting and nobody else seemed prepared to stand up to him. It was in the context of me & others thinking PR had a chance of taking over (thanks to people like you) and this leading to the death of the club, so I am not in the least apologetic about that.
I at least agree on your final sentence and wish the board well.
|
|
|
Post by weerabwatt on Feb 20, 2024 0:05:11 GMT
Rab, again you don't seem to be able to get the facts right. You seem to be obsessed by the thought that I think that I am right and that I also think that PR's offer was absolutely acceptable. Inaccurate on both counts.
I will say once again, those vehemently opposed and anti PR, did not have the slightest piece of information pertaining to his offer, but they still refused to consider engaging with him to elicit what info they required to make a reasonable judgment. The main thing that seemed to energize those involved from his very first approach 2 years ago, and his sudden re-emergence last year, was the crazy suggestion of changing the name to Shamrock Rovers. That was dropped from the agenda when I told him in no uncertain terms, there was NFC of that being acceptable to any ARFC shareholder or fan.
I have no background in legal matters regarding company takeovers, and I would reckon that you don't have much, or any, either.
The BOD at the time were not equipped to consider his proposal. Professional people, should have been engaged to assess what he was offering. If the advice was to refuse the offer, then so be it. If the advice was that consideration should be given to his offer, then the issue should have been put to an EGM, for the shareholders to decide the outcome.
None of that happened!
We still do not know the details of what was on offer!
We are where we are, and if fan ownership is the panacea for the club's current situation, then I hope you step up to provide the club with your expertise and the invaluable guidance that would bring. Needless to say, all of the other main shareholders and the bulk of the fan base will have your back. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by rab on Feb 20, 2024 8:27:54 GMT
those vehemently opposed and anti PR, did not have the slightest piece of information pertaining to his offer, but they still refused to consider engaging with him The BOD at the time were not equipped to consider his proposal. Professional people, should have been engaged to assess what he was offering We knew enough from Reilly’s public statements, subsequent behaviour at the open meeting, dubious business and personal record, and Alice In Wonderland plans, to be able to make a judgement without needing to waste further time and expense in the way you are suggesting. The other shareholders and the BoD at the time were entirely right to dismiss him. I’m privileged to have been a director at a fan-run club where the fans took over and ousted the people who were steering it towards the rocks. In the event that Rovers become a fan owned club, I’m sure we’ll all do our best.
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 20, 2024 23:04:49 GMT
I was stuck for something to do tonight, so decided to jump in the car and head to Hamilton to take in Clyde v Forfar. I’d be astounded if the Bully Wee avoid bottom spot on tonight’s showing, they are now eight (8) points adrift from Stranraer in position 42.
The atmosphere could be described as hostile at best, toxic at worst. It would appear that their support is emboldened and entitled by the fact they “own a share” of the Club - the abuse their BoD faced at full-time was shameful.
Robert (Watt) makes some really salient points in his posts over the past few days. I think when a Director of almost 20 years continues service speaks up and gives his views, we should take notice and reflect on his contributions. Robert’s contribution to the survival and growth of ARFC is unquestionable and his posts are always informed, thoughtful, and considered.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Feb 21, 2024 9:32:52 GMT
Clyde supporters have always been entitled and hostile and happy to vent. The only thing that changes is the target. This is a long term trend, not just a supporter ownership issue.
They did have a wonderful club, and they had a ground, now they don't, and not for a long time, I think that that is their biggest current issue and whatever debt is building up through that.
Of course, we should listen to folk with experience. That does not mean that there will not be the odd ding dong.
Get the discussion proper going when whatever report is put in front of us. Supporter ownership sounds good to me in theory, but at the minute, it is a theory. I await the report, then the discussion, and in due course the decision.
|
|