What is Digg?549 Comments
- upbusbys, on 11/13/2007, -0/+10Why is it a bad idea, you should explain? Looks to me like it gives soccer fans the opportunity to get closer to the game than ever before. Plus, it could turn around the fortunes of an ailing club. Win win in my book.
- tonysusi, on 11/13/2007, -0/+10Brilliant idea! Welcome to Football 2.0.
- upbusbys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You can buy a controlling stake in Halifax town for around £0.5m, so it won't be a problem. After one day live it's looking like we'll exceed 50,000, so we may be able to target clubs higher up the pyramid.
- asellick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5lukychmz - this is such a dumb idea? such a dumb idea that it has made it on to the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6611729.stm
What clubs can you buy for 1.35 million pounds? - Err most clubs from League 1/2 downwards. - jimlo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is going to be revolutionary. 50,000 is a massive fan base for any club and just because you may support a team already taken over or worth more than 1.35M doesn't mean you can't get involved. English football needs a massive kick up the arse, so come all you left-sided championship managers and we'll stick a big two fingers up to the monster that skytv created and reclaim at least one club back for the fans...
- upbusbys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thank you for taking time to think about it. Fair enough if it's not for you. I'd reply to your points this way:
1. It doesn't, the main point is about fans getting closer to football than ever before. True, the club will have more money, and money does help bring success. Take a look at Chelsea, or clubs in lower divisions who can out-spend their rivals.
2. A collective decision can be made by 50,000 in a millisecond thanks to a database. It will also be representative, and also informed as professionals will advise the memebrs.
3. The history of English football, and the experience of the majority of clubs, might suggest otherwise. Only a handful turn in a profit.
4. '2' answers this one.
5. They won't have zero authority. Plus, it will also be interesting to see how players perform when they know they have the backing of the supporters. Remember, football has many examples where footballers won't perform for certain managers due to some sort of falling out.
6. That's a fair point. It will be important to find a club who sees this as an lifeline and opportunity.
The person who thought is up is very sober and never played Championship Manager! - onthepunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2sounds great. I hope its a lower league club that is struggling though, would hate to see an established team go down the swanny for this, but a little club could use it as a boost
- charliecharles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Will be a small team for that money to start with. but I guess if it gets up the league that would be a bonus.
- CaptainNoPants, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There's nothing wrong with the idea.
Gathering the necessary resources to actually get the idea off the ground will be difficult. - mark78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2lincoln city my club, has always been a community club, ealier this year a consortium promised to buy the club generating up to £2million of funds for the clubs development. The idea was to sell the club to two old chairmen, who were going to sell shares to private investors. Virtually every supporter of the club rejected the proposal. We didnt want to lose the history and heritage of a community club, how many clubs that are bought by consortiums actually sucseed? not many, mainly clubs who are outright bought by millions sucseed (the web-site says that 50,000 fans have more wealth than any millionare, hahaha he having a laugh? anywho...
halixfax, cambridge who ever can dream of the prem but it will never work, peterbough now owned by a millionarre, where are they not even in the league two play-offs, they spent £3million this year and achived nothing, money is nothing in the lower league - Minchinlad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The manager deserves more opportunity to dictate formation and tactics, but i suppose it will save a Lampard/England scenario where he's never dropped. I'm a Man Utd fan who has little chance of a season ticket but this although it'll never replace MU will give me an opportunity to take up a sort of second team. Huddersfield has my vote, great stadium, large town and not too far down the ladder. Why are those joining voting for the massive clubs its pointless, somewhere small where we can do some good please.
- Nailoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hello. You make some interesting comments mark78 and it's a good debate. One aspect that hasn't really been touched upon are the potential huge revenues that might be generated by this project beyond the £35 fee x number of punters. As the number of punters increases then an exponential increase of possible turnover (capital for club I nope, not cream for the creators) is possible. I'm no business guru but I reckon 50,000 people taking a very close interest in a website would be an excellent bargaining tool. That's just for starters, I imagine the eyes of the football world will be on the myfootballclub team so there a bound to be loads of other things for the marketing people to get their teeth into.
As someone else said I think it's a great idea for a seond club for people feeling disenfranchised by a lot of the ***** things happening in our beloved game today. Weybridge...the mighty Terras, get my vote.
The game needs a kick up the arse and I hope this is the tonic. Good luck - karlatkinson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why not join your clubs supporters trust instead?
- tonysusi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But this seems to be membership of a Trust with bells and whistles on! Picking the team, a real team is revolutionary. Also, doing transfers will be great. Will be interesting to see how they go about it.
- iamdexter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's great. Welcome to football :D
http://www.clarksshoes.us/ - dixie28, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Count me in - love it. It'll be rough and ready to begin with but it can be fine-tuned along the way. Tbh one of my main concerns is that the very thing that appeals to me about this [namely the idea of a true People's Club, owned by the supporters] might also be it's undoing. I'm not sure that total participatory democracy'd work from a footballing point of view. Even given that thousands of intelligent, well-informed fans know more than most professional managers I still think it's a shakey notion in the sense that it ammounts to asking the professionals to operate with their hands tied behind their backs. Having said that, anyone who's ever served on a Jury knows that many heads are better than one and that collective wisdom can achieve wonders.
The main point is that footie's been nicked off us by the money merchants and it's time to take it back. This idea is revolutionary and it's a breath of fresh air. The doubters have missed the point. Imagine the level and intensity of support a club operated along these lines would generate. Imagine the noise on the terraces. Imagine the sheer fun of it. The Peoples Club needn't replace the supporters' inherited or selected club loyalities it'd be a shared club as an added bonus. - Choppington, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If it gets Halifax into the Champions League I'm all for it. Get the right PR around this and it could really take off.
- abbeylad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Vote for Leyton Orient, got a new stadium owned by the council, (low overheads), and the chance of taking over the new olympic stadium. Barry Hearn bought the club for pennies and could settle for £1.5m easy.
come you o's - Pokerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When i read their website it says...
"As soon MyFootballClub has received membership fees from 50,000, the process of identifying the best club to purchase on behalf of its members will begin."
and "If the chosen football club isn’t purchased within 12 months, members will be refunded. "
Is this just a scam to get over a million quid in the bank and earn interest? - upbusbys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One point I'd make is if a club is losing £20K a week, that surely isn't a reason not to give it a go? Also, who's to say there won't be more than 50,000 members, and who's to say that in year 2 they don't agree to put in more than £35 each?
- bamberamber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just a quick question.... 50,000 x £35 is 1.75 mil, The 400k shortfall is for what exactly?
Just thought i'd ask so as to have a fuller idea ofhow this is supposed to work. - bamberamber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Interesting concept but i believe it to be fundamentally flawed.
Let's use the team i support (Cambridge United)
We have a reasonably wealthy board of directors, And even with their backing and financial help the club is losing i believe around £20,000 A WEEK ! ! ! !
So my first question would be what could 50,000 people do to help that situation? And my next question would be are they willing to fork out the 10 million a year losses out of their own pockets? that means that their initial £35 investment will need to be bolstered by further payments of £208 per year.
Then you have the issue of the ground, a fair few lower league teams are having to sell or have already sold their grounds and rented them back to keep the club from going bankrupt. Currently Cambridge are trying to work a way to buy their ground back.
he chances of the ground ever belonging to the club again are slim, So we are going to need to look into relocation, This involves purchasing a huge piece of land and then having a stadium built, A stadium is going to cost between 10 and 15 million pounds. so another £200-£300 per person.
So far i think i have worked out it's going to cost £35(initial investment) + £200-£300(new stadium) + £208 PER SEASON (operating losses)
Given that these are just our well known financial issues and i am sure there are plenty more how can you expect 1.35 million to ever be anywhere near enough? Yes i know not all clubs are in this sort of position but a lot of lower league clubs are money pits, People spend and spend and spend just to see their club go into administration and potentially die.
I think it's an interesting idea, but i don't see how 50,000 strangers are going to be able to match a team of directors that meet regularly and have face to face contact, 50,000 strangers that don't know the local companies for sponsorship deals and so on.
In my humble opinion it's not something i could see taking off and as a fan it's not something i would welcome happening to my club. - lysdexia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For £35 this will be a lot of fun.
I voted for Accrington Stanley as the purchase target. They are, potentially, the biggest club in the world. 'Mon the Stanley! - charliecharles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mark78,
1. Not the only reason, but a major factor. Which clubs are top of the premiership? In general, the richest clubs. Compare the top 20 teams in Europe to the list of the 20 most wealthy. They're almost exactly the same;
2. At least every decision will be mulled over. Maybe 50,000 people voting on a decision can do it better. It's worth a try. And they'll be taking into account the recommendations of the manager, if you look at the bbc website. How many times have fans shouted at managers and complained about decisions?;
3. This misses the point completely. "Long term finance" implies repayment of interest and principal, which means less money available for the club - which is why everyone was against the Glazers taking over at Man U. This is the equivalent of equity, and would not need to be repaid by the club. Think of it as more of a gift to the club, rather than a loan - the club should generate more money through the site going forward, and get more support (I bet attendance would go up), which will also lead to more money through merchandising etc;
4. They'll have idenitified their targets long before the end of the transfer window. That's just when the deal's done and announced. Online voting can be done relatively quickly;
5. Why? The manager will prepare reports on players to the members, and if they under perform and the manager doesn't stick up for them, then they'll be out. The manager can still have a big influence over how things are run, and the players can't complain about formation and tactics etc. because he won't have decided on those things;
6. Why? The club could become a well supported rich club, and go up the leagues. Who wouldn't want that. Ultimately, if the experiment fails, well then your club could have bought some good players in the meantime it couldn't otherwise have afforded, and got a new fan base and a lot of publicity.
Don't be so negative. - biggieyeo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think its a cracking idea gives us real fans a chance to own a bit of a club pluss we have all dreamed of owning a club also its only £35!!sounds like fun to me
- Minchinlad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its not just the money its passion. People with money involved gain a interest. Take replica Kits as an example of the multiplier effect, a lot of members will purchase one even at £40 a pop boosting funds still further. In a similar vein what about increased attendances at least in the short term. The positive feeling created about the club could provide one promotion but after that the skys the limit, as long as there's no Risdale and the members trust it will work. Although i have just joined so it might be blind optimism speaking.
- Eyeballs99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I actually have got no problem with the amount of money that we will have to pay, Nor Have I got a problem with paying £35 a year and the site makers with the idea taking some money from it for a job well done.
I think the biggest issue for me is, Who is actually owning this club? If its going to be the first 50k worth of people then this is fantastic news, I don't believe anyone should then be allowed to enter after that, This would not be fair on everyone who had faith in the first place to take a chance on it and can only see that as added extra money to line pockets. £35 a year would be plenty for buying players etc for a lower league team so we would not need to have anyone else join us. Plus I believe that if only the first 50k of people are allowed for own this club then I think people would be more inclined to purchase extra merchandise like Football shirts, Programmes etc, I know I would.
This is a absolute must is clarifying this issue as I believe this will put a lot of people off if just anyone can join after the 50k, As nobody would really own a share of a football club.
- si23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1An idea like this to me is brilliant. After looking at BBC I stumbled across the news article regarding this idea. After doing some more research I found potential worries however this didn’t stop me from registering.
A very good idea and I will be sure to tell all I know!
Just to say I didn’t make a preference on the club of my choice however maybe a conference/league one team may be suitable. - lcmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whats going on here? Nearly everyone is on +0 diggs.......
- dixie28, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm wit minchinlad here - go for a little club n make a difference. Small is beautiful. I'm a third generation Evertonian and that'll always be my first club [once a blue - always a blue] but I'd follow a small club with a different set-up too. If this is done right I reckon there'd be a load of supporters of different clubs, some small some big, that'd be up it. There's thousands and thousands of footie fanatics who hate what money's done to the game [overpaid players whose first loyalty is to their back pocket, seedy agents, club owners who don't give a flying f about football, payola n backhanders, soulless megastadiums with piped muzak, foreign mercenaries edging out local lads, fixture lists chopped n changed to make Murdoch more money, expensive new kits rolled out every five minutes, ticket prices that price people out of the game, sponsors logos everwhere you look, all that]. If . . .
- crazyknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Read the FAQ. £7.50 covers running costs of the site, £27.50 goes to the fund.
- nffcmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is there an annual fee of £35?
I assumed that there was a one-off payment of £35 (£27.50 for club purchase + £7.50 website etc costs), then an annual fee of £7.50.......... - terinea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Regarding services I'm sure between the 50,000 supporters/share holders they can provide cheap/free services to get the club off and running. For starters I'd help out with any IT services etc!
- rbotterill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This will not work!
I'm not against the idea, and I have signed up and asked friends to do the same. But I just don't think that they will get the money required to buy a club.
I can see 50,000 people registering and then the request for £35 going out, but how will the money be collected? What payment methods will be used? Direct Debit, Visa etc??? I would think that out of 50,000 people only 20% would actually hand over the money.
I feel that this would also be the case over the next years. This system relies on EVERY member paying up on time each year. Just not possible when dealing with 50,000+ anonymous people. That's why only millionaires buy football clubs.
However, it's still worth a punt at £35! - PowerBoi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I dnt mind payin £35 a year, the £27.50 the nxt year im assuming will go in2 a transfer fund and 1.35mil transfer fund for a league 2 or conference side wood b huge so id expect 2maybe reach the championship after a possible 5-6years, im still not 2keen on new people joining after we got our 50000 2gether, we payed for the club hence it shud b ours, if people wanna join after that perhaps they shud start up a 2nd website 2buy another team for the people who missed out or were 2 nervous 2 invest in ours, i think we will need a vote on weather 2 admit new members that sounds fair 2me?
- shiola, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's GO TIME ladies!
- charliecharles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Reference to an "Annual salary" of GBP375,000 are way off the mark. This is the sum which will be generated to run the website. To do this, there will need to be:
i. an office - where we will have to pay rent and service charge, rates, utility bills, service charge etc.;
ii. staff - and IT staff are not cheap;
iii. insurance;
iv. disaster recover;
v. funds to build and develop the site and continue to improve it; and
vi. legal costs in setting up the site - eg. drafting the Ts and Cs etc.
All of these things, obviously, cost money. And they will be paid for from the GBP375,000. There are also more than "one or two" people involved in the website, so it's by no means only Mr. Brooks who will benefit - for example, another person involved in the site did interviews on Radio 5 live, for Australian TV, an American podcast, news 24 and BBC1 news this week-end.
As for the site not being updated over the week-end - do you feel you're not getting value for money here or something? I keep emphasising that we haven't asked anyone to pay any money to date. And I can assure you that we are all working hard behind the scenes to get this off the ground - there's more to doing this than just making sure we update the league table every five minutes.
I can understand the speculation, but what's so frustrating is that these questions have been asked, and answered, on numerous occasions (see above). Furthermore, Will Brooks actually came up with the idea, and is going to a lot of time and trouble to put it into effect - so he's entitled to some reward - and if there are 500,000 people who join, and the site is therefore incredibly successful, then the people behind the website deserve a share in that success.
We have been far more upfront with where the money is going then most organisations - if you go and buy something in a shop, the shop don't tell you the mark up that they're making so that you can then chip away at it. Why are people so obsessed with trying to find fault with the wesbite? Why can't you just think to yourself that it represents good value, and should provide a lot of entertainment? - mickhazza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+150000 people to make up 20k a week, how many of the 50000 will buy club merchandise or even buy a matchday ticket, your comments i feel would be proved wrong
- liverpool1975, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1great idea.give the power back to the people but i would have to say that the manager will have to have a certain amount of control otherwise it will make his job next to impossible.My own preference would be for a club down the leagues and with the possibility of growth.All the best with it and my 35 quid will be in the post as soon as things are sorted.and being from ireland i,m sure if it gets off the ground we,ll have to get on to ryan air and get cheap flights sorted for ourselves.
- malrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I also agree this is a superb idea, having been a number of roles in a non-league club, program editor for 5 years, secretary for 3 years, kit man, and even making tea for the players and officials. People get a real buzz from being closer to your team. I personally believe the best way forward would be to buy a semi professional club, say conference north or south level or even one step lower.
Then you would have more money to develop the club as a whole and move it forward.
The bonus of so many investors is that most weeks members will want to watch the club and will increase the gate and therefore increase the revenue of the club. even 1% of members visiting each week will give 500 extra people through the gate and for semi-professional football this is a huge revenue increase.
Success breads interest and starting lower will get a chance to get a couple of years under your belt with some success rather than starting high and trying to play the big boys straight away.
Overall excellent idea and hope it comes off. - Fmanager, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0That's a single vote, you are right. But what happens, if someone would like to buy the club?
The members say Yes. Than the owner of the club (the trust) gets the money. But the owner of the trust are the members. So the actual members (who paid the 35Ł in that year) get the money for the club (maybe 50000 member or 100 000 or just 8000. Or I misunderstood?? It's not so good, that I can lose my share in the trust and I lose the club.
This means that there is a club with 1,5$ assets without any debt. But this project works not. The team is not good enough, always in league after 4years. Than people won't pay the 35Ł. They lose their share in the trust. Finally, just Brooks is the only one in the trust. Than he can decide what to do with the club. He sells the club, and gets 2M Ł. Can this happen? - skippingstones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0then by all means, don't join. i, however, think you're just terrified of the myfootballclub 2 - 1 arsenal fa cup result. and let's all please stop talk of the premiership for a while. it would be phenomenal if we could just get a non-league team into league 2 or league 1. if that happens then this will all be a huge success and a huge victory for football and its fans... then we can go from there.
- burusu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+075% of the members of the trust have to agree to sell the club. The club can only be purchased if it is for sale. Given that the people signing up are by definition interested in "membership for the masses", I doubt that 3/4 of them would agree. However, if they did, you would be correct (I assume) that members in that year would receive the proceeds. You are only a member of the trust if you are paying "dues" that year. No 35 pounds, no voice and no potential (but far-fetched) profits. It is best to think of your share as a "membership" and not "ownership". You final scenario is possible, but quite pessimistic. If our team disappoints and membership falls, then revenue falls and the value of the team falls. It is conceivable that there might only be 10,000 Diehards (or 1,000) left in the membership after 10 years. Their trust could then agree to sell the team and divide the proceeds. It would be a sad day for football but not the consequence of some master-plan by the nefarious Mr. Brooks and his minions. I predict that, if the worst happens, Mr. Brooks will be the subject of so much abuse that he will be entitled to the proceeds.
- KingCafego, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You assume the club would be a Premiership club from the start. That isn't going to happen. What will happen is that this operation will be taking over a smaller club with a group of investors willing to offer a consistent source of funding year in and year out. That will give the club in question and their supporters a fighting chance to survive in a sport where survival has always been an issue in the lower leagues. That alone is deserving of support. I'd love to see us take control of a club like Halifax and give those fans a solid future. There is nothing wrong with pumping money into a club that desperately needs it.
If this club ends up making it to the Premier League, then I would be thrilled. But even if it doesn't, the very fact we've contributed to the overall health of the sport in England by stabilising a lower-level club would be just as rewarding for me.
I don't believe the management issue will prove to be a detriment to this club. The manager/head coach will have an influence over the membership by offering advice as to the tactics, transfers and best options for the playing side on matchday. I think time will prove the majority to be very careful in going against the manager's advice on these issues. - gooner123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I am an Arsenal season ticket holder pay £885 per year. Arsenal is my team. As a football fan I don’t see how this scheme is hugely beneficial on an individual point of you in terms of what you get for your 35 pounds. What you get is really nothing you get basically meaningless votes which count for next to nothing because what is one vote worth in 500,000 members to start with anyhow you would need more than a few million members to have any hope of lasting in the premiership. As a supporter of Arsenal although you don’t vote your vocal support on a match day is far more valuable to the team than voting on tactics.
I see this as just pumping more money into another football club and more money going out of the supporter’s pockets. Think about it, if somehow this club did become massive to be a big club in the premiership obviously you need top quality players like Beckham who demand 200k per week yes per week!! Our 1.4m will be gone in no time!!! Kiss goodbye to your 35 pounds for one player to have it all. So you will be pumping more money into these players’ pockets for kicking a ball around a park. So now you call this scheme everything that is good about football now then do you!!!
This scheme is taking more money out of supporters pockets by selling it to the supporter in just a more attractive way, and taking your money and giving to a few rich people, eg the founders of this scheme, the player, his agent and the few rich people. This is what football is NOT ABOUT!! Don’t let these people make you believe that its everything good about football it isn’t.
You are paying 35 pounds per year membership for a few meaningless votes a season.
The biggest flaw to this is there is no way it can be a success at premiership level. Managers of premiership clubs are very intelligent people. Arsene Wenger is an exceptionally good tactican. I mean very good. No top manager will come to our club if they have to be dictated to as to what players they can field. Games at the top level change fast things happen very fast tactics have to be adjusted in game very quickly. If our team was playing Arsenal and Arsenal come out the blocks quickly immediately our head coach has to change and go against all our votes he will be required not just to change the game tactically he will also have to adjust our style of play to suit the occasion, which can be totally different to our votes. Think about the arguments this will cause amongst all our club members. Football games our won and lost on big decisions and big moments and it needs a top manager to do this and we need a top manager at our club and they wont come if they are told what to do. - cgc3103, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0An interesting point I don't think anyone has made yet is that despite the fact that The Wisdom of Crowds effect can lead to accurate decisions it is only applicable to continuous not categorical data sets. To be clearer, Derren Brown recently got 50 people to guess how many marbles were in a jar. When the estimates from all 50 were added and then averaged the answer was the exact number of marbles in the jar. This seems impressive and is cited by Will Brooks as evidence that the many (50 000 myfootballclub members) can make wiser decisions than the few (club board members). However this effect only holds true when the decisions are completely free and not categorised, i.e. not split into a finite number of choices.
For decisions regarding myfootballclub there will no doubt be a limit to the choices presented to us and these will be categorised. e.g. Pay team coaches: a - £20k per annum, b - £25k per annum or c - 30K per annum. The choices available have therefore been chunked or categorised for the sake of simplicity. However the very chunking of these options limits the choice of the voters. Who decides what the options are that the members get to vote on? The outcome of votes can therefore be influenced by the options put up to be voted on.
I think in order to keep things completely fair in this regard a panel should be selected from existing members to decide which options are presented to the larger membership for voting. This panel could be randomly selected and changed each week or month to allow all equal input to the decision making process.
Any thoughts? - gameboy666, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0also signed up, very excited..........and also have a few queries / concerns / ideas...........
1) If the club do go 'massive' and there are 0.5M people signed up then the running of the site is funded to the tune of £3.75M. I'm now accepting that 375K on 50K people may be realistic, but I struggle to see the direct correlation between additional members and running cost. We really need to know what, if anything the founders of this project expect to / can make out of this personally. I'm sure we aren't expecting you to pay yourself minimum wage but there will be a limit after which an awful lot of people will turn their noses up and say con/scam. There must be total transparency, this idea really appeals to people who hate those that get fat on the general footy fans passion for the game - I just pray this doesn't turn out to be a better disguised way of doing so!
Lots of comments above about the ownership of the 'website' seem to be along this train of thought.
2) If our £27.50 a year is effectively a donation to the club can we get Gordon Brown to give us tax credit (or whatever it's called) on our donations ;)
3) Is there any way that the trust can be set up so that you get one vote for EACH year that you are a paid up member? If this is possible then I think that it'll help a great deal with many people who see glory hunters joining later as a major future problem for this idea and having an equal say with a first payment as those who have been chipping in for years. You'll really feel like you belong after a couple of seasons and have earned any success (like supporting a lower league team for their one time shot at a big 3rd Round FA Cup tie - I've been daydreaming about an FA Cup 3rd Rnd replay score of Myfootballclub 2 - Arsenal 1!)
i.e. 5 votes if in for your 5th season and perhaps if you can't afford one year your votes 'earned' get halved (only whole number of votes - round down, so 2 in 6th yr if don't pay up) and go to zero if fail to pay up in second year.
If on the other hand you go down the route of limiting membership then I just think that you'll be cutting off your own nose........there must be a limited time span for this to have a reasonable amount of success if it is to have a long term future so don't stiffle it, you'll be limiting other revenue streams in the same way by doing this. Also when some drop out you need fresh blood in to maintain things.
4) A couple of years ago i was thinking of trying to create a subscriber game where people had to make a weekly decision and spent time thinking of what happens if people can't/don't/forget to vote - I think it is important that no 'default' decision making is incorporated into this game, i.e. if you can't/don't/forget to vote on something either only the other cast votes count, or your vote is given to the actual manager to use his judgement (maybe the first orf these is better?).
5) With all the press coverage of lack of access to tickets to big matches, i think the order of priority should be a) club season ticket holders, b)myfootballclub owners, c)general club members - although I'd guess you'll never get to c)!
6) Somebody previously wrote that it needs to be a 100% takeover - and without further reassurance about the 51% route then I agree that only a 100% bid can work, otherwise surely we are just giving free money to the owners of the other shares as the value of their portion of the club increases!?!
7) £35 is definitely a sensible cost, and I think that you should say from the start that this will rise with inflation each year. This also then limits the 'running' costs (i.e. the cash not directly going to the club) to an inflationary increase and is also fair if the above 1 vote per year as a member idea above is possible.
Infact it should be a general condition - never to be allowed to be changed - that members cannot vote to increase the annual cost, if it can then each year the cost can be increased (only need 51% to pass it) until ultimately only a few hundred are left paying £10,000+ who can then agree to sell the club and pocket the cash!
8) If we struggle to get 50K to actually pay up then we should go for an even smaller club, but I think that if by Christmas we haven't got a team then interest could evaporate fairly quickly - better to go v.small and get going on a very small scale to overcome teething probs and build from there.
I actually voted for Oxford, being a local and possibly suitable team, but now think we need to go a couple of tiers down from that - too many problems with a big fan base otherwise, although we'll need a decent sized ground to house our 500,000 future owners. Can you hire out Wembley once a fortnight? ;)
9) Has anyone spoken to the Football League / Premier League / Uefa / Fifa for their thoughts on this, is it against their rules and can/will they look to block a takeover of this nature?
10) I think we need absolute clarity that all revenue (all sponsorship, advertising, etc) generated by the club / website / etc is invested into the club and not going to individuals who started the idea - see point 1.
11) and I'm still very excited ;) - Ellisguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0As its taking time to get to the 50000 needed and all of us already registered having to be patient i dont understand why we should allow anyone else to jump onboard after they see what a great idea it is. I say 50,000 and its our club let the glory hunters find there own club !!
- burusu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I don't think our club will be meeting Arsenal in the Premiership anytime soon. Let's say we buy a Conference Team and in Year 1 we improve and top the standings in Year 2. Year 3 we manage to stay up in League 2. Year 4 we make the playoffs and lose. Year 5 we win promotion. Year 6 solidify position. Year 7 lose playoffs. Year 8 promotion to League 1. Year 9 stay afloat. Year 10 lose playoffs. Year 11 promotion to Championship. Year 12 hover. Year 13 lose playoffs. Year 14 promotion to Premiership. I think this time-line is wildly optimistic and probably unrealistic (but exciting). By 2021 we'll have a track record and we'll have worked out some of the kinks.
You seem to assume that the membership "dues" are the only revenue stream. I assume that the club will earn money just like every other team, including Arsenal: tickets; replica kit; sponsorship; etc. Likewise, they will have the same expenses: salary; improvements; etc. The membership dues are just a bonus, as if a "Daddy Warbucks" owner were to spend 1.5 million pounds of his personal fortune each year.
Yes, this scheme is taking money from supporters' pockets by selling it to the supporter in a more attractive way - that is precisely why it could work. "Ownership" is attractive. Personal involvement is attractive. Group dynamics are attractive. Yes, you are right that some people will make money. The selling owner(s) will profit. The website owners will profit. The players, agents, and "coach" will profit. I don't think that we are in Glasgow looking to buy Queen's Park (promoted!) and even they pay their staff and they receive revenue from Hampden. Nor are we in Leipzig asking after Red Star, although I appreciate their effort. I expect profits to be reasonable and to be quite clear to all members. Members will not profit monetarily and should not be led to believe that they will.
Finally, I think you may misunderstand the members' instructions to the manager (or perhaps I misunderstand). I'd expect the manager to present his preferred lineup and tactics. These would likely be approved, but perhaps not. In any case, he would be obligated to "do what he was told" at game time. I don't think he'd be getting feedback in real-time via his laptop during the game. He could change tactics and personnel as needed. Of course, the membership could fire him if he got out of control or could not satisfactorily explain himself. Would Wegner agree? Non. Thankfully, we don't need him to coach for us next year in the Conference. Would Jimmy Quinn? Someone should call Cambridge United and ask him. - Fmanager, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Because everything is all about money. The club won't have chance to reach champhionship or Pl with 50000 people, 1,4M Ł. But if we can buy a club, sponsors will join us. If we reach 500 000, than more and more sponsors will come with higher sum of money. Than we can buy better players and can reach another level and so on.
With annual 1,4M, we will be in conference, or maximum league2. I think the goal is to reach champ, pl. This can reach with only money, I think.
The club value will go up, if more and more people join us. The club will be well-known all over the world and this will give a huge value to the club and popularity.
But you are right: How can others join? Because we take risk now, and they just want to come when everything works. I was thinking about this sooner (a few comment higher up). -
Show 51 - 100 of 549 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is