Would a fan takeover be realistic?

[king canary 7,604]

46 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

No chance a fan-owned club could compete in the EPL in the corrupt and broken industry that is football in England.

Unfortunately I think this would likely be the case. So the question would be, would fans be willing to stay self funding and likely stay at the level we've always been in exchange for owning their own club?

Portsmouth did it when they nearly went bust but in the end decided to sell out to a richer owner as they found fan ownership was very difficult. Luton have succeeded so far and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. AFC Wimbledon seem generally happy to have ownership even as they likely drop back to League Two.

Generally though I think fan takeovers are really only likely when the club is at rock bottom and there is a fanbase united in saving it. We're not remotely close to that.

[canarydan23 4,060]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

Unfortunately I think this would likely be the case. So the question would be, would fans be willing to stay self funding and likely stay at the level we've always been in exchange for owning their own club?

Portsmouth did it when they nearly went bust but in the end decided to sell out to a richer owner as they found fan ownership was very difficult. Luton have succeeded so far and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. AFC Wimbledon seem generally happy to have ownership even as they likely drop back to League Two.

Generally though I think fan takeovers are really only likely when the club is at rock bottom and there is a fanbase united in saving it. We're not remotely close to that.

Essentially a fan-owned club would have exactly the same limitations we currently have now. Except the teeth-gnashers couldn't get hard moaning about socialists or the stowmarket two or something like that.

[essex canary 496]

No shareholder wants to pump money in year after year. The playing side must be self-funding but no reason why fans can't own the infrastructure and probably a good idea if they do. If a fan does they should then always get some small advantage over those who don't. Equally fan ownership needs to be dynamic to allow new fans to participate and anyone who wants exit to be able to do so fairly.

Given that NCFC have to my knowledge got more individual shareholders than any other Club, it would have been good to have seen those principles developed throughout the years and promoting the outcome to the Government as best practice in the context of the Fan-led review.  

Who was in the crowd at matches at Carrow Road this time last year? The majority shareholder fans and their mates who may well not be shareholders. Such is our fan ownership.

[Badger 2,405]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Equally fan ownership needs to be dynamic to allow new fans to participate and anyone who wants exit to be able to do so fairly.

The exit could be a problem as it would remove capital from the club. To act prudently, the club would have to keep cash reserves to cover those fans wishing to remove their funding.

Alternatively, if the shares were sold on an open market, fans would have to accept that they could lose a large part of their initial and the shares could be bought up the cheap by someone (not a fan) seeking financial gain.

[canarydan23 4,060]

15 minutes ago, Badger said:

The exit could be a problem as it would remove capital from the club. To act prudently, the club would have to keep cash reserves to cover those fans wishing to remove their funding.

Alternatively, if the shares were sold on an open market, fans would have to accept that they could lose a large part of their initial and the shares could be bought up the cheap by someone (not a fan) seeking financial gain.

Don't this things generally come about through fan-owned consortiums taking over the club, rather than individuals buying shares on the open market?

[Badger 2,405]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

Don't this things generally come about through fan-owned consortiums taking over the club, rather than individuals buying shares on the open market?

I was trying to think of how fans could get their money out of the club as Essex Canary suggested: I can't think of a good way tbh.

I'm not sure how other clubs have arranged it.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

Who amongst our fanbase would have the nous to make it happen ?

[king canary 7,604]

57 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Don't this things generally come about through fan-owned consortiums taking over the club, rather than individuals buying shares on the open market?

Yes as far as I'm aware.

AFC Wimbledon are owned by AFCW PLC who are owned majority by 'The Dons Trust.'

So the equivalent would here would probably be the supporters trust being involved. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

56 minutes ago, Badger said:

I was trying to think of how fans could get their money out of the club as Essex Canary suggested: I can't think of a good way tbh.

I'm not sure how other clubs have arranged it.

I guess they'd have to sell their stake in the consortium/trust. And if they can't find a willing buyer then they're stuck.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes as far as I'm aware.

AFC Wimbledon are owned by AFCW PLC who are owned majority by 'The Dons Trust.'

So the equivalent would here would probably be the supporters trust being involved. 

You do know that the Trust own less than 1% of the shareholding so i cannot see them being representative of a fan control of our club.

[yellowrider120 762]

12 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

We are a fan owned club. Wynnie has been going since the mid-fifties. Delia has been going since the late 60s. Michael Foulger is a lifelong fan.  And as far as I have ever been able to ascertain all the shareholders are fans too. Even down to me, Duncan and Jellytot.

What Norwich fan in their right mind would allow themselves to be pictured with an Ipswich scarf / rosette on may I ask? If memory serves me correctly, said incident was several years after 'the late 60's. 

[king canary 7,604]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

You do know that the Trust own less than 1% of the shareholding so i cannot see them being representative of a fan control of our club.

Yes, the idea would be that they would work with fans to acquire a greater shareholding and become more representative. However it wouldn't have to be them- someone else could set up a group with the explicit aim of acquiring shares in the name of the fans. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes, the idea would be that they would work with fans to acquire a greater shareholding and become more representative. However it wouldn't have to be them- someone else could set up a group with the explicit aim of acquiring shares in the name of the fans. 

Wasn’t that the point of the Trust? Or (likely) have I missed something? 

[king canary 7,604]

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Wasn’t that the point of the Trust? Or (likely) have I missed something? 

No you're correct, having just looked at their website. I'm not sure how far they've got though. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

No you're correct, having just looked at their website. I'm not sure how far they've got though. 

I think they’re something like the 11th biggest shareholder (they do post on Twitter when they climb the ladder, but I can’t be arsed to trawl through and find the last update). It’s a long ladder. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,914]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

Are you sure that this would do it? It hasn't worked for Fulham and Everton have spent more.

If it works, I think we should commit to putting a few thousand each in every 2 or 3 years to keep us there.

You know as well as I do that it won't be enough🙄 But just the fact that you need 25,000 people with £18k each should have been enough to wake people up. I doubt we would find 250 people to put in that sort of money. 

Fan funded clubs will survive in the Championship and below but it's not possible in the Premier League 

[shefcanary 2,400]

25 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I guess they'd have to sell their stake in the consortium/trust. And if they can't find a willing buyer then they're stuck.

As I understand it from the experience at Chesterfield (my friend is a shareholder in the trust) there would be some kind of closed market, whereby a nominee shareholder was created; outgoing shareholders would sell their shares to the nominee, who would then offer to prospective new incoming shareholder.  The issues here are: who controls the nominee, who sets the sale price of the share in a closed market, how do you manage the process of advertising potential new shares being available, how do you vet the new shareholder.  To name but a few. 

Not impossible, but it does mean sometimes the shareholders are focussed on the corporate side of things whilst executive management drifts and disciplinary issues emerge (as happened at Chesterfield where the Manager was kicked out eventually after improper behaviour).

[Commonsense 621]

10 hours ago, CrankyCanary said:

From what I remember only Energy drink Leipzig and 1899 Hoffenheim aren't majoritively Fan owned in the Bundesliga at least. The only two in Bundesliga that aren't. 50+1 rule just in case you don't know it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50%2B1_rule

You clearly don’t remember very well, since the article you refer to quotes Bauer Leverkusen and Wolfsburg as exceptions. 50+1 has some advantages but it doesn’t really mean that fans own the club or have a final say. In the UK even a club like Portsmouth which became fan owned following its meltdown found that you can’t sustain the model all the way up the leagues. It wouldn’t enable us to reach the Premier League, let alone compete in it.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I'm afraid we would end up an oasis in the middle of a football desert.

Edited April 26, 2022 by keelansgrandad

[Google Bot 3,275]

7 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It'd be disastrous. Who could fans scapegoat when the team failed to deliver never-ending back to back wins on the pitch?

Cue "North of the Wensum out!" chants. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

35 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

As I understand it from the experience at Chesterfield (my friend is a shareholder in the trust) there would be some kind of closed market, whereby a nominee shareholder was created; outgoing shareholders would sell their shares to the nominee, who would then offer to prospective new incoming shareholder.  The issues here are: who controls the nominee, who sets the sale price of the share in a closed market, how do you manage the process of advertising potential new shares being available, how do you vet the new shareholder.  To name but a few. 

Not impossible, but it does mean sometimes the shareholders are focussed on the corporate side of things whilst executive management drifts and disciplinary issues emerge (as happened at Chesterfield where the Manager was kicked out eventually after improper behaviour).

I guess the issue there, as has been mentioned, is the implications on reserves and how much has to be held back on a "just-in-case". You'd need a big store of liquid cash to cover the event that a chunk of shareholders decide en masse they want to sell and willing buyers cannot be immediately found.

[shefcanary 2,400]

13 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I guess the issue there, as has been mentioned, is the implications on reserves and how much has to be held back on a "just-in-case". You'd need a big store of liquid cash to cover the event that a chunk of shareholders decide en masse they want to sell and willing buyers cannot be immediately found.

Indeed, although I am sure there are mechanisms that can be drafted in any shareholder agreement that allows for the management of such cashflow issues - compromise on the part of the departing shareholder would have to be signalled up front.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

No you're correct, having just looked at their website. I'm not sure how far they've got though. 

Formed in 2002 and have a membership of only a few hundred and have taken 20 years to acquire either by purchase or being donated to them less than 4,000 shares so quite a mountain to climb at that rate. Sorry for the pun.

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You know as well as I do that it won't be enough🙄 But just the fact that you need 25,000 people with £18k each should have been enough to wake people up. I doubt we would find 250 people to put in that sort of money. 

Fan funded clubs will survive in the Championship and below but it's not possible in the Premier League 

I think fan funding could make a pretty good chunk of the money needed for ground expansion, especially if on the generous terms that were offered for the bond scheme. But, I suspect we could borrow it more cheaply from a bank for a building project.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

7 hours ago, CrankyCanary said:

And? Their one of the most successful teams, in the wealthiest sports league in the world. The city their from is about the same size as Colchester and smaller than Norwich. They would on paper have at least as much stacked against them than we do.

The NFL has a wage cap and NFL owners don't put money into their clubs, they take out profits - that's the difference.  Owning an NFL club is a licence to print money.

[Midlands Yellow 3,977]

Odds on it would be fantastic. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,914]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I think fan funding could make a pretty good chunk of the money needed for ground expansion, especially if on the generous terms that were offered for the bond scheme. But, I suspect we could borrow it more cheaply from a bank for a building project.

3 years ago there was a possibility of that but interest rates are only going one way and the whole world is turning to **** so I doubt it now.

We're not Tottenham Hotspur (who borrowed cheaply) and people still remember what happened with Ipswich. Much as I love my club I wouldn't lend it a penny at the moment. 

Not the club's fault but I think we've missed the boat. I think that the plan was to sell the crown jewels and pay for a new stand but Covid took that money.

We've had this discussion before and the answer is that there isn't an answer. To progress we need another 4 or 5 thousand seats above the City Stand and 3 for 2 standing in Lower Barclay and possibly River End. The investment required wouldn't yield a return for probably 10 years and if it goes wrong it doesn't bare thinking about. I'm glad it's not my decision. 

The only way it becomes feasible is if Andrew O turns out to be as good as some of us think he is. Sadly we've been relegated and he's been injured. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by dylanisabaddog

[Badger 2,405]

36 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

3 years ago there was a possibility of that but interest rates are only going one way and the whole world is turning to **** so I doubt it now.

I agree with interest rates at the levels that we might expect in a few months. Most economists that I have read think that this will be short-lived however (although a few more voices recently talking about the return of stagflation). I reserve the right to change my mind (as economists always do 😀) but I think that interest rates will be normal again in two or three years. It would probably take us that time to draw up plans and get planning permission etc.

[dylanisabaddog 4,914]

20 minutes ago, Badger said:

I agree with interest rates at the levels that we might expect in a few months. Most economists that I have read think that this will be short-lived however (although a few more voices recently talking about the return of stagflation). I reserve the right to change my mind (as economists always do 😀) but I think that interest rates will be normal again in two or three years. It would probably take us that time to draw up plans and get planning permission etc.

Sell everything. Buy gold. 

[BigFish 1,986]

As @nutty nigel points out we are effectively owned by fans and this is the fundamental behind the self funding model the club follows. Perhaps the OP should have said different fans, although that doesn't really shift the dial on the club's finances. Would still need to break even unless those fans were willing to not only buy the club but also cover any loses that might arise. Would you put your house on the line for City?

Running a football club is no fun, and is harder than people make out. Which is why fan consortiums either eventually sell out to financiers or accept bouncing about the lower leagues. Governance might also be an issue, would it be one man one vote or would blocks develop over time taking us back to where we are now with fans arguing amongst themselves. That said if it was that rather than going out of business everyone would take that. But face it the club is well enough run to avoid that or even administration.