Fan Ownership

[jordancampbell]

I think the point I’m trying to make is that having meetings and being particularly secretive about their organisation, attendees, and “special guests” is what I find at odds with the idea of fan ownership.

I broached the subject, as a member of the Board, with Ronnie Boyd at a recent tri-party meeting and there appeared to be some contempt that I’d even asked or was aware. To me, that suggested only some are meant to know about said gatherings and what exactly is discussed at them.

[samtennentjnr]

I just think the stance makes no sense Jordan. Its obviously not something that is indented to stay a secret but like anything like this and I'm sure like anything the board does you have to flesh out your idea and even just check its feasibility before proposing it to someone or else its dead on arrival.

Again to be totally frank there is only one person who I wouldn't want to know about any meetings due to his track record of making them a shambles, but here we are.

I complete accept you dont think fan ownership is the way forward thats a totally legitimate view, but to paint this as a shadowy secretive coup is a total bad faith argument.

[jordancampbell]

I agree with some of the principles of fan ownership, but really struggle how to see a Club of our size could make it work whilst enjoying success on the park, too.

There would also need to be a proper assessment of any debt question, who would take this on?

There are other bigger issues. Our home attendances and season ticket sales have stagnated somewhat. Indeed, those paying “full price” has dropped. The squad fund, although a welcome boost to the manager’s budget, is hardly going to be a game-changer in our attempts to get out of the LL. Even the Open Meeting the Board held less year was poorly attended and suggested a real apathy and casual indifference.

Quite how, then, we can expect hundreds to make a monthly pledge and make a real, tangible difference to our fortunes is truly beyond me.

[samtennentjnr]

Feb 8, 2024 11:30:11 GMT jordancampbell said:

I agree with some of the principles of fan ownership, but really struggle how to see a Club of our size could make it work whilst enjoying success on the park, too.

There would also need to be a proper assessment of any debt question, who would take this on?

There are other bigger issues. Our home attendances and season ticket sales have stagnated somewhat. Indeed, those paying “full price” has dropped. The squad fund, although a welcome boost to the manager’s budget, is hardly going to be a game-changer in our attempts to get out of the LL. Even the Open Meeting the Board held less year was poorly attended and suggested a real apathy and casual indifference.

Quite how, then, we can expect hundreds to make a monthly pledge and make a real, tangible difference to our fortunes is truly beyond me.

All valid questions that it makes sense to have a meeting or two to discuss before going all out publicly with any proposals.

[scottgkc16]

Feb 8, 2024 8:55:51 GMT jordancampbell said:

Feb 8, 2024 2:08:45 GMT scottgkc16 said:

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.

Don't need a dictionary jordan, i think it should be you that should be reading one instead of using words you have no knowledge of yourself. If you did then maybe you would have known what the word "Clandestine" actually implies.

[jordancampbell]

As I’ve said, Scott, it probably wasn’t the right word for the point I was trying to get across.

Thanks for taking the time to copy and paste the actual definition, much appreciated.

Interesting that you’re taking time to correct my word use, but not adding anything of value to a very important debate.

[scottgkc16]

Feb 8, 2024 13:00:31 GMT jordancampbell said:

As I’ve said, Scott, it probably wasn’t the right word for the point I was trying to get across.

Thanks for taking the time to copy and paste the actual definition, much appreciated.

Interesting that you’re taking time to correct my word use, but not adding anything of value to a very important debate.

It is a very important debate one that your clearly against, your not adding anything of value either and have been completely negative from the onset , is that because you weren't invited to said meeting. I can relate to why it wasn't an open meeting also with so many times in similar situations details are being leaked before they are ready to release important details.

[jordancampbell]

You’ve clearly not read the entire thread, Scott, if you think I’m against the debate - quite the opposite, in fact.

I’m completely in favour of an open, honest, and transparent discussion around the complexities of fan ownership and how, exactly, we’d expect it work within our clear limitations.

[cliftonbill]

Time to draw a line under this increasingly tetchy debate, chaps. We all want the best for ARFC, so let’s look forward to debating the pros and cons of fan ownership at future open meetings.

[mildrover]

Feb 8, 2024 11:30:11 GMT jordancampbell said:

I agree with some of the principles of fan ownership, but really struggle how to see a Club of our size could make it work whilst enjoying success on the park, too.

There would also need to be a proper assessment of any debt question, who would take this on?

There are other bigger issues. Our home attendances and season ticket sales have stagnated somewhat. Indeed, those paying “full price” has dropped. The squad fund, although a welcome boost to the manager’s budget, is hardly going to be a game-changer in our attempts to get out of the LL. Even the Open Meeting the Board held less year was poorly attended and suggested a real apathy and casual indifference.

Quite how, then, we can expect hundreds to make a monthly pledge and make a real, tangible difference to our fortunes is truly beyond me.

.
This is a very good summary Jordan of some of the several challenges facing the club. As former directors I’m sure we could come up with more. Fan ownership if it comes to pass will not be the answer to all of these but it is worth looking at and may just be the vehicle to energise fans and the wider community into seeing the Rovers as something worth cherishing and saving. What I think is obvious is that the present structure of the club isn’t really working and leaves us open to charlatans, speculators and shareholders who wish to make a few quid.
Actually I thought the turnout of 58 at the open meeting was encouraging. Least said about the meeting itself the better.

Ronnie

[jordancampbell]

As far as I know, the only shareholder with any significant amount of shares who agreed (in principle) to sell to Paul Reilly was Robert Watt.

He had his own reasons for this and those must be respected. In fact, I was in regular communication with Robert throughout the later part of last year and he was always honest to a fault about his position and reasoning.

It saddened me to see so much mud-slinging aimed at Robert after his comments at the Open Meeting. Many forget just how instrumental both Robert and Frank (Meade) were in ensuring ARFC kept the gates open during some very challenging times. Speaking your mind - no matter how unpopular your views may be - is not a crime.

To me, anyway, there was never a real, tangible risk of “speculators” getting a hold of the keys at any point. Being a former Director, you will be aware of the part in the AoA which makes it mandatory any share transfers be ratified by the Board, Ronnie. This is just another reason why it would be particularly difficult for shares to end up with any Tom, Dick, or Harry (Paul) who had sinister designs on Cliftonhill.

On a separate note, and from my vantage point today, I noted just how poor the crowd was. It could be, potentially, our lowest attendance for quite some time and it was on a Saturday when Celtic weren’t playing. It is a damning indictment on the town the Club represents and goes to show just how little interest there is in Albion Rovers from the people of Coatbridge. Granted, Broomhill had virtually no travelling support, but that is no excuse and doesn’t tart up the reality. If we can’t get people through the gates (despite a number of attempts over recent decades) how can we ever expect hundreds to buy into the concept of fan ownership and monthly pledges?

Jordan.

[sam]

Paul Reilly was an embarrassment at the ‘open’ meeting. If the money people behind him saw his performance I’m pretty sure he would get booted into the long grass.
However what happens if another snake oil salesman turns up who’s a bit more savvy when it comes to promoting his ‘company’.
I get that there are clauses in the AoA but if you’re cute enough I’m pretty sure you can convince anyone to hand over the keys to the castle.

Regardless of personal opinions surely you can’t disagree that every avenue should be explored to stop the likes of Reilly and his ilk taking over and destroying our club.
The fan ownership thing might turn out to be wishful thinking but there is surely nothing wrong in exploring it…. god forbid it turns out to be something to behold

[jordancampbell]

I genuinely think people underestimate the strong emotional connection the “big players” (those with sizeable amounts of shares) have to Albion Rovers Football Club.

Do I believe, for a second, the majority of them would sell their lot to a speculator without any fully costed, sensible plan? No. Most of those who have larger amounts of shares are successful in either their respective careers or in business. They’re no fools.

Before being elected to the Board in 2021 (and, admittedly, being somewhat ignorant to the nuances of the Club’s structure) I was on occasion critical of those who held onto shares and, to the untrained eye, contributed zilch to ARFC. However, after three years of exposure to the inner workings of the Club, there are valid and perfectly sensible reasons for the lack of involvement from some quarters. They are committing no crime by retaining shares. I think some of them would openly admit that, despite being relatively successful, they also don’t have the financial wherewithal to invest and be “game changers” for the Club.

I am all for exploring options, but viability of said options must be at the forefront of the minds of those who meet to discuss them. I spoke to a few very loyal and sensible regulars today and all said that, despite not posting on here, they agreed with my concerns around these private meetings and fan ownership at large. It would seem, however, that dissenting voices aren’t particularly welcome from some quarters.

[martin666]

Jordan I personally think fans ownership is the way to go, it will surprise certain people how much interest there is in this 👍

[galstonrover]

The hard part is converting interest into genuine financial commitment. I was heavily involved with MyFC back in 2008, and whilst this was at the extreme edge of fan ownership and the model itself has no direct relevance here, the key element of its eventual failure was failing to keep people interested and engaged after making an initial commitment.

I don't know enough about the structure of Albion Rovers but will be interested to see what option the group that have assembled take. From a fan perspective I think the most exciting proposition would be operating as an IPS with democratic membership (I assume this is a valid operating model in Scotland) similar to Exeter. At the time of their buy out following relegation I believe their Supporters' Trust was well established with access to raise significant finance but even they struggled until the windfall of the two Man United FA Cup games.

It feels to me that it would be a challenge to get 200 people to regularly contribute and even this would be unlikely to keep the club competitive and Cliftonhill open. The more likely initial workable model for Albion Rovers to me feels like a minority fan ownership with the Supporters Trust working alongside interested investors. A challenge then could be to get to 50+1 model.

Interesting times but like many on here I think that some sort of fan ownership is essential to help take this club forward.