maineflyer 0 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What would be the point of whoever invests most getting most voting rights? That way we're just back to where we were with an owner, only with a vote thrown in. OMOV. Who said they would get most voting rights - I thought I said the exact opposite. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,516 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 There would also be investing shareholders who could choose to invest in and gain a return from that investment but who could not control the club by sole virtue of the size of their investment. Well thought-out posts, MF. Out of interest, in the quote above, do you see that return being in the form of dividends or just capital growth? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 What would be the point of whoever invests most getting most voting rights? That way we're just back to where we were with an owner, only with a vote thrown in. OMOV. Could there not feasibly be a cap on number of votes each individual could hold? I do think that those who contribute more or longer deserve a bigger say. This seems to me to work better if shares depreciate and it would mean someone who had been contributing for 10 years would have say about 6 or 7 times the influence of a newbie. If you invest one year only, then ten years later you would only have say 35% of the voting rights as a new investor for one year and a twentieth of the votes of someone who invested 10 years solid. You need some incentive to keep going... If your investment only gave you votes for one year then a someone investing for 10 years solid would be no better off than a first timer and that could put them off continuing (especially if things aren't going their way) - and also put people off putting up a lot of money in the first place if it ceases to count and becomes worthless at the end of each year. But in the end we're not talking about someone having 51% of the votes - and there could be covenants to prevent this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I think all football clubs should steer clear of dividends, it just leaches money out of the clubs - money that is mostly from the fans pockets. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Well thought-out posts, MF. Out of interest, in the quote above, do you see that return being in the form of dividends or just capital growth? I'm wading in your pond here and I have to say I don't really know in this sort of setup. It seems unlikely a football club could provide much of a return in any form and yet plenty seem to want to make the investment for emotional or other reasons. Dividend would be easiest to operate but who amongst the membership would really be too interested in approving a dividend to investors? I'm not sure how you determine the value of 'investment units' other than by finding an acquirer who is willing to pay you a certain price. I'd go for a dividend but I'm sure I haven't thought this through fully. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Could there not feasibly be a cap on number of votes each individual could hold? I do think that those who contribute more or longer deserve a bigger say. This seems to me to work better if shares depreciate and it would mean someone who had been contributing for 10 years would have say about 6 or 7 times the influence of a newbie. If you invest one year only, then ten years later you would only have say 35% of the voting rights as a new investor for one year and a twentieth of the votes of someone who invested 10 years solid. You need some incentive to keep going... If your investment only gave you votes for one year then a someone investing for 10 years solid would be no better off than a first timer and that could put them off continuing (especially if things aren't going their way) - and also put people off putting up a lot of money in the first place if it ceases to count and becomes worthless at the end of each year. But in the end we're not talking about someone having 51% of the votes - and there could be covenants to prevent this. I think it should be as simple as this - one member, one vote. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I think it should be as simple as this - one member, one vote. Which is the Barca model and it seems to work for them. That isnt to say that what cal is suggesting doesn't have merit though. One member one vote might work but might not. It might not incentivise people to invest in the first place. At our company voting rights are accumulated but a cap is put on those rights at 9.5% which could be done. One member one vote is fine by me but then it also very much depends on who is appointed to actually manage the club thereafter. If the members vote in someone who is useless then someone investing 10 million wouldn't be overly happy that someone investing 100 had the same right to choose. Obviously this works in both directions because someone with 10 million invested could be an idiot and the fact he only has one vote could be a good thing as he doesn't get to effectively overpower the vote. Both sides of that equation need to be evaluated, the advantages and disadvantages of both scenarios. I just hope that things start to move swiftly after this GersPride conference because these are all questions that need to be answered before the fans/investors will part with their hard-earned. And time could very well be of the essence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I see Newcastle United Supporters Trust have started a campaign titled 'Yes We Can' (that's Obomba's champagne slogan you thieves) to buy the club from Ashley. There's lots of info about their plans & the model they're using on their website. - The Ultimate Protest: Confirmation of launch of the Yes We Can Campaign Campaign Overview 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJBlue72 0 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I am a member of the RST and would like to see this happen , all supporters groups should join together as one to make 1 super supporters group to unite all Rangers fans worlwide. I personally would be willing to put in an extra �£200 a season on top of my season ticket as thats all i can spare just now but i would add more through out the season if possible. I think this is a real possibility , how can we go to this meeting then ? can anyone turn up ? i am an RST Member and Season Ticket Holder surley i am allowed in ...alright maybe not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,402 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Anyone can go as long as they pay their fiver... Babysitting today so not been online properly but will work my way through some of these very interesting posts tomorrow. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.