As you will be reporting in depth I will only make light reference to what was in the Independent; whereby a trust will be able to remove up to 25 per cent of the board. If any of the Charlton board start to cosy up to you with invites to cocktail parties, swanky restaurants and trips to the theatre I know you guys have the willpower to desist!
Umm, not sure. As ever, the devil is in the detail.
Point One. What is a "Football Club"? Well, in Charlton's case (while it's less complex than it was!) it's Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Staprix NV which, in turn in 95% owned by RD. So, supporters would be, merely, on a board of a subsidiary and would have no ACTUAL power. Anything contentious and they would be out-voted by RD and his fellow board members. Let's face it if Katrien disagreed with RD she'd be out the door.
Point Two. But what would their responsibilities be? The supporter directors, let's call them Mr Mug and Ms Dupe, would be OBLIGED by law to be responsible for the actions of the company. They would be lining themselves up for any sanctions that could be applied to them under relevant legislation. Mr Mug and Ms Dupe could be held personally liable for losses resulting from illegal acts, acting beyond their powers, or failing to use sufficient skill and care. (Would they actually have "sufficient skill?) They could become personally liable for company debts if they allowed the company to trade while it was (or was likely to become) insolvent. Some types of conduct can lead to disqualification from being a director. They might also be fined or face criminal prosecution — for example, for failing to keep proper accounting records, for fraudulent behaviour, or for serious health and safety shortcomings. While they would not generally be responsible for the actions of other directors, if another director of a company was able to commit fraud because of their lack of action they could also be in breach of their duties to the company. Do Mr Mug and Ms Dupe really want to put themselves in that situation while having no power and no reward?
Point Three. "When a stake of more than 30% in any club in England or Wales changed hands, the purchaser would be obliged to offer 10% of those shares to the supporters’ trust at the average sale price. A supporters’ trust would have 240 days to raise the money to buy the shares. The obligation to sell shares would cease once a trust owned 10% overall." That's the proposal but what does that mean in practice? Let's look at Charlton again. Let's assume the club is in dire financial straits - not too difficult to imagine! It could easily go to the wall while the Supporters Trust spent its statutory eight months trying to raise the funds to buy shares. Not a happy thought. Would the Govt, insist that the 240 period was initiated whatever the circumstances? Or, alternatively, raising the 10p needed for the total £1 needed to buy the club would be very easy. But presumably the "real" owner would then want the Trust to cover 10% of the (huge?) debts that were being taken on? How could that potential liability ever be funded?
Agree the devil is the detail, its very ambitious and this needs to be digested fully. On face value it could be a very radical change, and one that many football fans thought wouldn't come - of course it may not come to fruition, but to some extent this is a victory for fans who want to see change.
Myself and Ken had a long chat with him at the Summit this year as well as making comments when he spoke. Previously myself and a fair number of the others representing Trusts when we met him at the HoP were keener on ownership that didn't involve financial risk (I think a fair number of fans have been burnt this way in the past) and perhaps begin with something more achievable like a veto on changes that affected the heritage of clubs, and or extended ACV in some way.
Efford has made an effort here, and he has involved football supporters Trusts throughout. In my view the landscape is changing and the rise of the Trust movement as a whole is beginning to make politicians stand up and take more notice of fans views.
@pettgra strictly Dutch mate.. (or should that be Belgian). At least we might get a few more interested in standing for the Trust Board.
Pleased to read this news, as has been said it may come to nothing but as a member of the trust, anything like this being put on the agenda by the potential next goverment has to be seen as a step forward.
This bit from the Guardian was 'news' to me (we shall see I guess........)
The sports minister, Helen Grant, will point to an expert working group that is due to be convened with representatives from supporter’s trusts to examine the practical obstacles to greater fan ownership.
“The government is completely committed to helping supporters have better engagement with the clubs they support and more of a say on how they are run,” she said.
“This is exactly why we have been working with Supporters Direct and the football authorities to establish an expert working group on the matter.”
Is that definitely true? Some say he is a Charlton fan, although he certainly did not seem to be at the time of the Vallley Party, when he was a councillor
He is a Millwall supporter but a sport and football fan before that, and an excellent and extremely accessible and active local MP. I've had a few dealings with him and he is a very fair and level headed bloke.
The real issue is to force commercial entities to sell 10% of the equity to the customers / fanbase. Was always in favour and wished that the CAFC shareholder fanbase was more organised before it was wiped out a few years ago. But @razil you can't have equity involvement without financial risk. And you can't have board level representation if you cannot adhere to responsible corporate behaviors. The German experience might educate us as to how this might work in practice? I would suggest that a pilot scheme me ght work and CAFC with its history and M.Duchatelet's political vision might be a good place to start.... But.... All I will say is that it will take a lot of work, cash and maturity for it to add value in our context. Right now CAFC is going fine without fans having an official role!
Is that definitely true? Some say he is a Charlton fan, although he certainly did not seem to be at the time of the Vallley Party, when he was a councillor
remember him mocking how many votes the Valley party would get. Is this a character the Trust should be getting involved with?
Is that definitely true? Some say he is a Charlton fan, although he certainly did not seem to be at the time of the Vallley Party, when he was a councillor
remember him mocking how many votes the Valley party would get. Is this a character the Trust should be getting involved with?
A long time ago. As @Riviera says, he has a great reputation as a local MP, and he lived up to that reputation when we needed him over my Mums blue badge. Seems like a good guy. Would love to meet him and ask if he has bought Steve Dixon all those beers he lost in the bet re VP votes.
However after listening to him this morning, and reading @cafcfan s excellent appraisal above, I wonder whether the bigger problem is that he may not yet fully understand the business of football. It would be good to meet him and discuss how his plan might practically work in our case.
Hot air and bluster. The Sky / Premier League combo is far too rich and powerful for government to take on. I also wonder how many MP's get regular hospitality at football matches over a season. In any case are there any votes in it ?
Hot air and bluster. The Sky / Premier League combo is far too rich and powerful for government to take on. I also wonder how many MP's get regular hospitality at football matches over a season. In any case are there any votes in it ?
Ask Greenwich Council re their views about hospitality at football matches.
So days after the Labour announcement comes the Government's own version. What a coincidence.
Now call me churlish, and accuse me of rushing to judgement, but my heart sank a little when I read
"The Supporter Ownership and Engagement Expert Group will be chaired by Joanna Manning-Cooper, who is a member of the Portsmouth Supporters Trust and currently director of marketing and communications for Rugby World Cup 2015."
But it sank like a stone when I saw this photo from the press conference. At the risk of boring everyone to tears I will repeat; nothing of substance will ever change regarding fan influence and ownership until the FAPL is abolished and the revenues brought back under the control of English Football. And that is exactly why he is there. The elephant in the room. To make sure it doesn't happen.
I met Clive this morning to interview him for the next edition of TNT, I must admit his proposals could change football and fan participation radically - more in TNT out before Millwall game
Comments
If any of the Charlton board start to cosy up to you with invites to cocktail parties, swanky restaurants and trips to the theatre I know you guys have the willpower to desist!
Point One. What is a "Football Club"? Well, in Charlton's case (while it's less complex than it was!) it's Charlton Athletic Football Company Ltd, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Staprix NV which, in turn in 95% owned by RD. So, supporters would be, merely, on a board of a subsidiary and would have no ACTUAL power. Anything contentious and they would be out-voted by RD and his fellow board members. Let's face it if Katrien disagreed with RD she'd be out the door.
Point Two. But what would their responsibilities be? The supporter directors, let's call them Mr Mug and Ms Dupe, would be OBLIGED by law to be responsible for the actions of the company. They would be lining themselves up for any sanctions that could be applied to them under relevant legislation. Mr Mug and Ms Dupe could be held personally liable for losses resulting from illegal acts, acting beyond their powers, or failing to use sufficient skill and care. (Would they actually have "sufficient skill?) They could become personally liable for company debts if they allowed the company to trade while it was (or was likely to become) insolvent. Some types of conduct can lead to disqualification from being a director. They might also be fined or face criminal prosecution — for example, for failing to keep proper accounting records, for fraudulent behaviour, or for serious health and safety shortcomings. While they would not generally be responsible for the actions of other directors, if another director of a company was able to commit fraud because of their lack of action they could also be in breach of their duties to the company. Do Mr Mug and Ms Dupe really want to put themselves in that situation while having no power and no reward?
Point Three. "When a stake of more than 30% in any club in England or Wales changed hands, the purchaser would be obliged to offer 10% of those shares to the supporters’ trust at the average sale price. A supporters’ trust would have 240 days to raise the money to buy the shares. The obligation to sell shares would cease once a trust owned 10% overall." That's the proposal but what does that mean in practice? Let's look at Charlton again. Let's assume the club is in dire financial straits - not too difficult to imagine! It could easily go to the wall while the Supporters Trust spent its statutory eight months trying to raise the funds to buy shares. Not a happy thought. Would the Govt, insist that the 240 period was initiated whatever the circumstances? Or, alternatively, raising the 10p needed for the total £1 needed to buy the club would be very easy. But presumably the "real" owner would then want the Trust to cover 10% of the (huge?) debts that were being taken on? How could that potential liability ever be funded?
Just too many question-marks at the moment.
Myself and Ken had a long chat with him at the Summit this year as well as making comments when he spoke. Previously myself and a fair number of the others representing Trusts when we met him at the HoP were keener on ownership that didn't involve financial risk (I think a fair number of fans have been burnt this way in the past) and perhaps begin with something more achievable like a veto on changes that affected the heritage of clubs, and or extended ACV in some way.
Efford has made an effort here, and he has involved football supporters Trusts throughout. In my view the landscape is changing and the rise of the Trust movement as a whole is beginning to make politicians stand up and take more notice of fans views.
@pettgra strictly Dutch mate.. (or should that be Belgian). At least we might get a few more interested in standing for the Trust Board.
This bit from the Guardian was 'news' to me (we shall see I guess........)
The sports minister, Helen Grant, will point to an expert working group that is due to be convened with representatives from supporter’s trusts to examine the practical obstacles to greater fan ownership.
“The government is completely committed to helping supporters have better engagement with the clubs they support and more of a say on how they are run,” she said.
“This is exactly why we have been working with Supporters Direct and the football authorities to establish an expert working group on the matter.”
I've had a few dealings with him and he is a very fair and level headed bloke.
Was always in favour and wished that the CAFC shareholder fanbase was more organised before it was wiped out a few years ago.
But @razil you can't have equity involvement without financial risk. And you can't have board level representation if you cannot adhere to responsible corporate behaviors.
The German experience might educate us as to how this might work in practice?
I would suggest that a pilot scheme me ght work and CAFC with its history and M.Duchatelet's political vision might be a good place to start.... But....
All I will say is that it will take a lot of work, cash and maturity for it to add value in our context. Right now CAFC is going fine without fans having an official role!
However after listening to him this morning, and reading @cafcfan s excellent appraisal above, I wonder whether the bigger problem is that he may not yet fully understand the business of football. It would be good to meet him and discuss how his plan might practically work in our case.
Now call me churlish, and accuse me of rushing to judgement, but my heart sank a little when I read
"The Supporter Ownership and Engagement Expert Group will be chaired by Joanna Manning-Cooper, who is a member of the Portsmouth Supporters Trust and currently director of marketing and communications for Rugby World Cup 2015."
But it sank like a stone when I saw this photo from the press conference. At the risk of boring everyone to tears I will repeat; nothing of substance will ever change regarding fan influence and ownership until the FAPL is abolished and the revenues brought back under the control of English Football. And that is exactly why he is there. The elephant in the room. To make sure it doesn't happen.