|
Post by rab on Feb 11, 2024 10:44:50 GMT
……the lack of involvement… Yes indeed - that’s exactly the point. At any point, the club is vulnerable to a very small number of shareholders with historic Rovers connections, but who are not very involved with the club these days, selling to the wrong person(s). One of them was already prepared to do that. That’s a huge problem for the club - one that fan ownership would solve. I wouldn’t trust the board to block any share transfers, certainly not the one that you were on before the recent changes. Your posts are very disappointing Jordan. You appear to have taken up a crusade against fan ownership. We are all entitled to our views, but it’s a shame you’re not even prepared to give the people promoting it a chance to develop something. And if you’ve got a better plan, let’s hear it.
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 11, 2024 11:31:47 GMT
So I urge cautious realism and it’s interpreted as a “crusade against fan ownership” - the mind boggles!
My contributions are based on my own reflections and a working knowledge of how ARFC is structured and operates.
|
|
|
Post by mildrover on Feb 11, 2024 13:01:48 GMT
Jordan
At the meeting a few weeks ago you stated you were 50/50 regarding fan ownership ( by the way congratulations on winning the 50/50 draw yesterday!). We both agreed we were 100% against the Reilly consortium moves on the club. It would be useful to the debate if you could outline the concerns you and your friends from yesterday have regarding fan ownership at the Rovers and I and others could respond. I think this could move things forward.
Ronnie
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 11, 2024 13:27:03 GMT
Ronnie,
You are spot on. I am very much undecided, but since that meeting have reflected further and this has raised more questions than answers.
Those I had a chat with yesterday aren’t “friends” but normal, passionate Albion Rovers fans who are both impartial and thoughtful people who have the Club at heart.
The main concerns, potential issues, and stumbling blocks (for want of a better term) would be as follows:
1) Interest - I note much has been made about there being “significant interest” in fan ownership. To me, “significant” would suggest a few hundred. This seems wild at best, given we can’t get more than 250 through the gates on a regular basis. You’ll recall, Ronnie, that when we were in the dizzy heights of League One and you were on the Board, this was as big a problem as it is now. How, then, can we expect a game changing level of interest and the associated pledges required to really turn things around at ARFC?
2) Squad Fund - At the moment, this contributes £200 p/m to Sandy’s monthly wage budget. To me, this reflects (at least in part) the level of interest in pledge based funding of ARFC. That would suggest, for talking sake, 20 people giving £10 per month. Hardly Earth-shattering. No disrespect is meant to anyone who contributes/administers the fund, I’m merely stating facts.
3) Are we already fan owned? - Having spent time agonising over AGM invites/paperwork, I am now very familiar with who “owns” Albion Rovers. Put simply, no one outright, but a collection of fans and individuals with a strong emotional connection to the Club. I can tell you right now, and first hand, Paul Reilly had a 0% chance of acquiring the keys to Cliftonhill. Too many “big players” rejected his advances. Why? Well, as I’ve said in previous posts these individuals have successful careers/businesses. Their collective approach is in lieu of a costed, sensible, and sustainable plan from an individual/group is proposed, they won’t sell. Simple as that.
4) Examples elsewhere - Hearts and St Mirren are probably the two most “successful” examples of fan ownership in Scotland. They both have thousands making monthly pledges and this generates significant funds to really change things both off and on the park. We don’t have that support/level of interest. At our “level”, there have been some notable bad examples of fan ownership. Clyde and Edinburgh City being the most prominent. East Stirling tried it for a while, it didn’t work, now they’re being financed privately again.
These are just a few points.
Jordan.
|
|
|
Post by Nanook on Feb 11, 2024 19:27:12 GMT
Fan ownership will work for some clubs, and not for others. On its own fan ownership is not a cure all but it is an option that should be investigated and considered. The current situation is not sustainable - supporters, shareholders, Board members to some degree appearing to be at odds with each other. We need to be united in our support of Albion Rovers. Jordan, think you are giving the case against fan ownership when we do not know yet what might be on offer. Think we should see what is suggested then make our minds up. OK, so there are more supporters of other clubs than us, so what. There is a level of commitment among our support, that is what is important. The support just needs a reason to put their hands in their pockets.
|
|
|
Post by mildrover on Feb 12, 2024 8:42:24 GMT
Ronnie, You are spot on. I am very much undecided, but since that meeting have reflected further and this has raised more questions than answers. Those I had a chat with yesterday aren’t “friends” but normal, passionate Albion Rovers fans who are both impartial and thoughtful people who have the Club at heart. The main concerns, potential issues, and stumbling blocks (for want of a better term) would be as follows: 1) Interest - I note much has been made about there being “significant interest” in fan ownership. To me, “significant” would suggest a few hundred. This seems wild at best, given we can’t get more than 250 through the gates on a regular basis. You’ll recall, Ronnie, that when we were in the dizzy heights of League One and you were on the Board, this was as big a problem as it is now. How, then, can we expect a game changing level of interest and the associated pledges required to really turn things around at ARFC? 2) Squad Fund - At the moment, this contributes £200 p/m to Sandy’s monthly wage budget. To me, this reflects (at least in part) the level of interest in pledge based funding of ARFC. That would suggest, for talking sake, 20 people giving £10 per month. Hardly Earth-shattering. No disrespect is meant to anyone who contributes/administers the fund, I’m merely stating facts. 3) Are we already fan owned? - Having spent time agonising over AGM invites/paperwork, I am now very familiar with who “owns” Albion Rovers. Put simply, no one outright, but a collection of fans and individuals with a strong emotional connection to the Club. I can tell you right now, and first hand, Paul Reilly had a 0% chance of acquiring the keys to Cliftonhill. Too many “big players” rejected his advances. Why? Well, as I’ve said in previous posts these individuals have successful careers/businesses. Their collective approach is in lieu of a costed, sensible, and sustainable plan from an individual/group is proposed, they won’t sell. Simple as that. 4) Examples elsewhere - Hearts and St Mirren are probably the two most “successful” examples of fan ownership in Scotland. They both have thousands making monthly pledges and this generates significant funds to really change things both off and on the park. We don’t have that support/level of interest. At our “level”, there have been some notable bad examples of fan ownership. Clyde and Edinburgh City being the most prominent. East Stirling tried it for a while, it didn’t work, now they’re being financed privately again. These are just a few points. Jordan. Jordan Thanks for this. These are mainly points about the figures around the Rovers and I agree they are not encouraging: 120 season tickets, 150 at the game on Saturday and so on are not brilliant. I am not sure if I said there was significant interest in fan ownership and to get to a feasible number like 200 plus would need a lot of work and promotion of the idea. You are correct fan ownership does not work in all cases but it has in some and I feel there are enough members of our fan base willing to explore the possibilities . We are not fan owned. We have a fair number of fans who own shares but they own very small numbers and do not have the influence they could as members of a group who may own several thousand shares and could have a meaningful say in the running of the club. I feel the days of believing that fans do not have the capabilities of running their own club are over. Even among our relatively small pool there are people who have the emotional attachment and skills and aptitudes to do at least as good a job as a few 'football people' or people with emotional ties around shares that in many cases didn't personally invest in and rarely take an interest or involvement in the club. Ronnie
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 12, 2024 12:29:54 GMT
And as I’ve said before, exploring all options available to help the Club is something we should all commit to doing.
At every AGM since I’ve had shares, the outcome of votes has been determined by the room and not by poll votes. Fans have, essentially, picked the Board and made some key decisions, too.
I’m disappointed in your last sentence, Ronnie, particularly the thinly veiled attack on some of the Club’s more prominent shareholders. A number of them have invested thousands of pounds in ARFC over the decades; others have had close members of their families run the place and keep the doors open.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Feb 12, 2024 18:57:59 GMT
"Even among our relatively small pool there are people who have the emotional attachment and skills and aptitudes to do at least as good a job as a few 'football people' or people with emotional ties around shares that in many cases didn't personally invest in and rarely take an interest or involvement in the club."
Ronnie, you are so right in your assessment about the current lack of investment in the club by the existing main shareholders,this strikes at the heart of our predicament. If you stand still in football then you are going backwards. Hopefully there are people out there who don't necessarily attend many games but have an affinity for the club who are willing to invest in shares.
|
|
|
Post by rab on Feb 12, 2024 21:00:07 GMT
Ronnie, You are spot on. I am very much undecided, but since that meeting have reflected further and this has raised more questions than answers. 1) Interest - I note much has been made about there being “significant interest” in fan ownership. To me, “significant” would suggest a few hundred. This seems wild at best, given we can’t get more than 250 through the gates on a regular basis. You’ll recall, Ronnie, that when we were in the dizzy heights of League One and you were on the Board, this was as big a problem as it is now. How, then, can we expect a game changing level of interest and the associated pledges required to really turn things around at ARFC? 2) Squad Fund - At the moment, this contributes £200 p/m to Sandy’s monthly wage budget. To me, this reflects (at least in part) the level of interest in pledge based funding of ARFC. That would suggest, for talking sake, 20 people giving £10 per month. Hardly Earth-shattering. No disrespect is meant to anyone who contributes/administers the fund, I’m merely stating facts. 3) Are we already fan owned? - Having spent time agonising over AGM invites/paperwork, I am now very familiar with who “owns” Albion Rovers. Put simply, no one outright, but a collection of fans and individuals with a strong emotional connection to the Club. I can tell you right now, and first hand, Paul Reilly had a 0% chance of acquiring the keys to Cliftonhill. Too many “big players” rejected his advances. Why? Well, as I’ve said in previous posts these individuals have successful careers/businesses. Their collective approach is in lieu of a costed, sensible, and sustainable plan from an individual/group is proposed, they won’t sell. Simple as that. 4) Examples elsewhere - Hearts and St Mirren are probably the two most “successful” examples of fan ownership in Scotland. They both have thousands making monthly pledges and this generates significant funds to really change things both off and on the park. We don’t have that support/level of interest. At our “level”, there have been some notable bad examples of fan ownership. Clyde and Edinburgh City being the most prominent. East Stirling tried it for a while, it didn’t work, now they’re being financed privately again. These are just a few points. Jordan. 1 - ‘Significant interest’ clearly refers to the interest expressed by our own fans. Your figure is fanciful. We probably have about 200 diehards; we wouldn’t get all of them signed up, but should seek to get as many as possible. It all depends on what proposals emerge. 2 - Can’t see any relevance here at all. I don’t contribute to the squad fund but I’d pay a lot more than £10 a month into a share scheme. 3 - We’re not fan owned. Nowhere near it. You have no special insight as to who owns the club as we can all see it clearly through the returns to Companies House. We have 8-9 big shareholders who matter most in terms of being able to exercise control, should they choose to do so, but few of them do much about anything. Sure they may have a strong affection for the club (and they were right about Paul Reilly, and making Robert Watt persona non grata) but they have taken no active part in the club for years and allowed things to drift. More dynamism on the part of shareholders in future (whoever they happen to be) is sorely needed. 4 - You said you’d done your research, but it’s pretty rubbish research. You are factually wrong about Edinburgh City - fan ownership only started there after a previous owner ran up unsustainable debt and then left them to step in to try and clear up the mess. You have half a point about Clyde, but with no ground, any type of ownership would struggle. It actually worked very well at East Stirling - they stabilised the club and later decided to hand over to someone with more resources, which only shows that fan ownership can also be a stepping stone to something else. And you avoid mentioning the success of 100% fan owned Pollok and Clydebank, clubs we can wave to in the future as they overtake us. The current ownership structure doesn’t work. It had led to stagnation which, as pointed out elsewhere, means falling behind. Unless it changes, why should we expect anything other than more of the same? So, I ask again, if fan ownership is not the answer to arresting our decline, then what is?
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 12, 2024 23:32:21 GMT
Ronnie, You are spot on. I am very much undecided, but since that meeting have reflected further and this has raised more questions than answers. 1) Interest - I note much has been made about there being “significant interest” in fan ownership. To me, “significant” would suggest a few hundred. This seems wild at best, given we can’t get more than 250 through the gates on a regular basis. You’ll recall, Ronnie, that when we were in the dizzy heights of League One and you were on the Board, this was as big a problem as it is now. How, then, can we expect a game changing level of interest and the associated pledges required to really turn things around at ARFC? 2) Squad Fund - At the moment, this contributes £200 p/m to Sandy’s monthly wage budget. To me, this reflects (at least in part) the level of interest in pledge based funding of ARFC. That would suggest, for talking sake, 20 people giving £10 per month. Hardly Earth-shattering. No disrespect is meant to anyone who contributes/administers the fund, I’m merely stating facts. 3) Are we already fan owned? - Having spent time agonising over AGM invites/paperwork, I am now very familiar with who “owns” Albion Rovers. Put simply, no one outright, but a collection of fans and individuals with a strong emotional connection to the Club. I can tell you right now, and first hand, Paul Reilly had a 0% chance of acquiring the keys to Cliftonhill. Too many “big players” rejected his advances. Why? Well, as I’ve said in previous posts these individuals have successful careers/businesses. Their collective approach is in lieu of a costed, sensible, and sustainable plan from an individual/group is proposed, they won’t sell. Simple as that. 4) Examples elsewhere - Hearts and St Mirren are probably the two most “successful” examples of fan ownership in Scotland. They both have thousands making monthly pledges and this generates significant funds to really change things both off and on the park. We don’t have that support/level of interest. At our “level”, there have been some notable bad examples of fan ownership. Clyde and Edinburgh City being the most prominent. East Stirling tried it for a while, it didn’t work, now they’re being financed privately again. These are just a few points. Jordan. 1 - ‘Significant interest’ clearly refers to the interest expressed by our own fans. Your figure is fanciful. We probably have about 200 diehards; we wouldn’t get all of them signed up, but should seek to get as many as possible. It all depends on what proposals emerge. 2 - Can’t see any relevance here at all. I don’t contribute to the squad fund but I’d pay a lot more than £10 a month into a share scheme. 3 - We’re not fan owned. Nowhere near it. You have no special insight as to who owns the club as we can all see it clearly through the returns to Companies House. We have 8-9 big shareholders who matter most in terms of being able to exercise control, should they choose to do so, but few of them do much about anything. Sure they may have a strong affection for the club (and they were right about Paul Reilly, and making Robert Watt persona non grata) but they have taken no active part in the club for years and allowed things to drift. More dynamism on the part of shareholders in future (whoever they happen to be) is sorely needed. 4 - You said you’d done your research, but it’s pretty rubbish research. You are factually wrong about Edinburgh City - fan ownership only started there after a previous owner ran up unsustainable debt and then left them to step in to try and clear up the mess. You have half a point about Clyde, but with no ground, any type of ownership would struggle. It actually worked very well at East Stirling - they stabilised the club and later decided to hand over to someone with more resources, which only shows that fan ownership can also be a stepping stone to something else. And you avoid mentioning the success of 100% fan owned Pollok and Clydebank, clubs we can wave to in the future as they overtake us. The current ownership structure doesn’t work. It had led to stagnation which, as pointed out elsewhere, means falling behind. Unless it changes, why should we expect anything other than more of the same? So, I ask again, if fan ownership is not the answer to arresting our decline, then what is? 1) Ok, Rab, if I am being fanciful with that amount of fans, surely the proposal is made even more difficult? 2) Of course that’s relevant. It’s the only pledge-based ARFC associated initiative that is running at the minute…and the figures are hardly encouraging. The other, which is more of a “game”, is the lottery and the jackpot is only so high because of perhaps over a years worth of rollovers. 3) We’re not fan-owned in your eyes, Rab. If you were to be truly objective, I’m sure even you would concede that some of the “big players” are fans even from a distance. At least three of those with over 1,000 shares have invested capital directly into ARFC over the decades whether through sponsorship or out of their own back pocket. Some of the others perhaps don’t have the personal wealth or finance required to invest, but is that a crime? Robert Watt should never be “persona non grata” at Cliftonhill in my view. The amount of hours he put in to improve the fortunes of the Club in the 90s and early 00s is truly astonishing. There are others who still come to games who perhaps should be persona non grata instead, but do a mighty good job of deflecting eyes elsewhere. 4) Ok, perhaps Edinburgh City isn’t the best example out there, that I will concede. But let’s look at the others. Pollok - are you actually aware of their plight at the moment? They’ve had to sell all of their big players and are in dire straits. Clydebank are, by all accounts, a bit of a sleeping giant. The town has a proper affinity with them. Their crowds regularly top 500. If Shire were such a good example, why surrender control again? Makes 0 sense.
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 13, 2024 8:52:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by samtennentjnr on Feb 13, 2024 9:15:19 GMT
Jordan - agree with a lot of your points being things that should be considered.
I wouldnt agree that we are fan owned I think my main issue with the current issue with the club is that we are not owned by anyone the majority ownership of the club lies in dead shares etc.
I maybe have a slightly less romantic view of fan ownership - to me it represents an opportunity to get the club onto an even keel and maybe even address some of the structural issues around shares etc. - I understand this is complex and time consuming etc.
If we were able to do this then the club could be run much more efficiently and would actually be a much more attractive option for investment. Majority fan ownership doesn't necessarily need to be for the long term but it would allow us to get to a point to make the club more attractice to any potential new owners and most importantly have a say on who they are!
Different scale but this is what happened at Wrexham.
I undestand your point that alot of our shareholders have an emotional connection to the club and I believe that. Unfortunately as we have seen that can be tested when money is being thrown around.
I understand too all these horror stories of Fan Ownership you are posting but its not as if we are in a fantastic situation at the moment is it? This structure of the club is unsustainable.
|
|
|
Post by rovers on Feb 13, 2024 12:17:25 GMT
Current ownership structure isn't attractive for any investors, small or large. And is open to Rielly-types, whether or not majority shareholders will sell is another matter but another Rielly type allows the name of the club to be trashed as happened with "Coatbridge Shamrock".
Therefore exploring alternative options to ownership should be done and is being done.
I agree, fan ownership isn't an end in itself but should allow for more ARFC interested folk to get fully behind the club and get it moving and into the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by rab on Feb 14, 2024 11:40:35 GMT
We can continue trading blows Jordan, but we clearly won’t change each others’ minds. Pollok have spent a fortune upgrading their ground to senior standards since moving from the juniors - clearly they didn’t adjust their playing budget accordingly and are now paying the price. They (like Edinburgh City) will need to cut their costs, at the expense of their league position. My bet is that we’ll see both of these clubs in the Lowland League before too long. Fan ownership, like any other model of ownership, is neither the ‘right’ nor the ‘wrong’ model. It always depends on the quality of those running the club. Fan ownership usually emerges as an issue when there is a crisis at a club and supporters are looking to head off disaster or extinction. In our case, we’ve had years at the bottom end of League 2, followed by relegation to non-league and a takeover attempt which would have led to the demise of the club. And, incredibly, this was backed by at least one major shareholder, who tried to persuade the others to follow him (‘persona non grata’ were RW’s own words about how the other major shareholders reacted to him). Results and performances like last night can cheer us all up and make it great to be a Rovers fan. But you cannot argue that the current structure at the club has been working well. It has taken us to the lowest point in our history. I’m for ANYTHING which improves our situation but, in the absence of any other plan (which I keep asking about and get no response), fan ownership is, you might say, the only game in town.
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Feb 14, 2024 16:28:04 GMT
My mind isn’t yet made up, Rab, I just fail to be convinced as things stand and doubt it would work.
Perhaps the “Steering Group” and those who are actively trying to work out the logistics may be in a position to share their findings with us all soon on this very forum.
I don’t buy into the claim that we’re at the lowest point in our history, if I am honest, and I’m not just saying that as I was part of the Board who took the Club down. The pyramid system (relegation from the SPFL) has only been in place for 8 years of our 142 year history. We’ve survived in the Senior Scottish football for that long as a result, and for no other reason.
I’m of the opinion that the situation we find ourselves in now all started when we won the League by overspending and took out a really questionable loan. We managed to draw Celtic and Rangers within the space of 3/4 years (both televised on Sky) and ended up with nothing to show for it. Christ, we were still paying off industrial photocopiers which were redundant and not fit for purpose as recently as 2023 thanks to a truly bizarre deal struck back in those days. Pair all of this with a Board full of fans (I include myself in that, btw) and a real lack of proper financial expertise/limited commercial operations…and here we are.
What ARFC needs? A mix of people with ARFC at their heart and talented, proven, and successful businesspeople who have deep pockets. Sadly, I think we also need to put nostalgia and sentimentality to one side and consider where we play our football. Cliftonhill, as dear as it is to us all, is nearing the end of its long life.
|
|