Labour must be desperate ...

Westdene Seagull · Oct 17, 2014

... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29652317

I'm all for fan representation but how do they really think they can force private limited companies to select their board members to at least contain a fan or indeed for a private company to be forced to part with some of the ownership to the fans ? Milliband clearly has lost the plot ! What next, forcing Tesco to appoint shoppers to the board :facepalm:

El Presidente · Oct 17, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29652317

I'm all for fan representation but how do they really think they can force private limited companies to select their board members to at least contain a fan or indeed for a private company to be forced to part with some of the ownership to the fans ? Milliband clearly has lost the plot ! What next, forcing Tesco to appoint shoppers to the board

I've just been interviewed by the local media up here in the land of whippets, and have said something similar

My initial views is that the policies are populist and more geared to winning some votes than dealing with football governance, I'm also not convinced they are workable or practical.

Taking each policy in turn

*fans will have the right to elect up to 25% of every club's board - and a minimum of 2 board members

1: This would appear to give a fans voice, but could make a difference for smaller clubs. However I'm not certain it would work for United, as the club is registered in the Cayman Islands and has its shares traded in New York. Similarly City are controlled by Abu Dhabi.

I can imagine fans of Bury, Oldham and 'Dale being happier, but the smaller clubs tend to have a closer link to the fans anyway.

2: Who would choose the fans representatives on the board? There is a danger the fan directors may lack the governance and analytical skills required to make an effective board contribution OR be so overawed at being in the boardroom that they become institutionalised and marginalised.

*whenever 30% or more of a club's shares change hands, the fans' trust will have the right to take up to 10% of the shares that are being bought, until they own a maximum of 10% of the club

Again this appears good in theory but would struggle to be applied in practice. The current market value of United is £1.65 billion, so in theory fans would have to find £165 million if the Glazers sold a chunk of the club. Even a club such as Newcastle is valued at about £400 million so again it's unrealistic to expect fans to be able to quickly find £40 million for what is a minority investment that would give limited power, and almost certainly no dividend.

Fans can rightly compare English football to that in terms of Germany (where no one can own 51% of the club) and Spain, where the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona are fan owned. But these models have been around for many years. I cannot see the owners of Premier League clubs (40% of whom are overseas), giving up their rights and powers to fans.

The Birdman · Oct 17, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29652317

I'm all for fan representation but how do they really think they can force private limited companies to select their board members to at least contain a fan or indeed for a private company to be forced to part with some of the ownership to the fans ? Milliband clearly has lost the plot ! What next, forcing Tesco to appoint shoppers to the board

They should concentrate how not to bankrupt the country also how to keep developing industry in the north and midlands to provide jobs and help close the North South divide and maybe they will build up North some of the 200.000 houses they are threatening to build in the South East if they get elected. Don't interfere in Football!!

Westdene Seagull · Oct 17, 2014

The Birdman said:
Don't interfere in Football!!

Unless it's to overrule the no standing rules or no drinking within sight of the pitch rules ! :thumbsup:

CheeseRolls · Oct 17, 2014

If a labour government leans on both the FA and the football league and makes this a condition of league membership, to be phased in over a given time period, why is this such a pipe dream ?

Big businesses adopt these structures all of the time, whether it is for a joint venture, or an overseas subsidiary, in a country that demands that a certain part of the business is locally owned. The holding company structure is not impacted. What am I missing here ?

yxee · Oct 17, 2014

They're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Don't like how the free market operates? Make a law!

DavidinSouthampton · Oct 17, 2014

Perhaps they could either:
1. ..... wait for it..... legislate for it, or
2. Discuss/negotiate with the premier/Football league about it.

With comments on here elsewhere about the German model, why not? The german model seems to do them quite well.

beorhthelm · Oct 17, 2014

CheeseRolls said:
What am I missing here ?

that you cant do these things retrospectivly. for the FL to change rules, all members would have to agree. to force them would require legislation and international bodies forbid politicial involvement in sport - FIFA and UEFA would cry. i dont care for them, but as soon as they start bleating Miliband would drop this.

on the other hand, clubs might well like the idea of a a cash infusion for the sake of 10% ownership. the two "fans" on the board would at worst be a nuisance as they couldnt change anything. they wouldnt be allowed to release any additonal financial information unless company law was changed, so this sounds like empty and pointless promise to be seen to do something popularist.

CheeseRolls · Oct 17, 2014

yxee said:
They're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Don't like how the free market operates? Make a law!

I have to disagree and question do you know how government works ?

Governments are able to achieve massive amounts without introducing laws. Sometimes it can be the threat of legislation, sometimes it can be by subtle changes to the tax regime, or a reallocation of grant money. Manchester City, Chelsea or anyone else for that matter can not relocate their business elsewhere, if they don't like the incumbent government and it's policies. The owners can look to sell up, or reduce their investment, but this is not as strong a negotiating stance as say relocating a manufacturing plant abroad.

CheeseRolls · Oct 17, 2014

beorhthelm said:
that you cant do these things retrospectivly. for the FL to change rules, all members would have to agree. to force them would require legislation and international bodies forbid politicial involvement in sport - FIFA and UEFA would cry. i dont care for them, but as soon as they start bleating Miliband would drop this.

on the other hand, clubs might well like the idea of a a cash infusion for the sake of 10% ownership. the two "fans" on the board would at worst be a nuisance as they couldnt change anything. they wouldnt be allowed to release any additonal financial information unless company law was changed, so this sounds like empty and pointless promise to be seen to do something popularist.

I Googled boardroom split just those two words and the first three results returned, were all about football clubs. Spurs, Bristol Rovers and Dundee. These ranked above Osram, RBS and Rio Tinto. Board members can and do make their feelings known when they believe that the board is following the wrong strategy.

The second part of the policy addresses the sale of clubs and there have been a number of recent cases, where supporters groups, have been overlooked on financial grounds, which have proved detrimental to the club. Go read up on recent happenings at Hereford and Coventry to see how this works.

Peteinblack · Oct 17, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29652317

I'm all for fan representation but how do they really think they can force private limited companies to select their board members to at least contain a fan or indeed for a private company to be forced to part with some of the ownership to the fans ? Milliband clearly has lost the plot ! What next, forcing Tesco to appoint shoppers to the board

Why is the idea of fans, workers or shoppers on company boards so outrageous?

Corporate bosses in Britain have far too much power - and often pay themselves too much, while saying they can't afford decent wages for their staff, who then have to claim social security benefits and tax credits to survive.

We are supposed to be a democracy, yet we get the chance to vote for a bunch of clones once every 5 years - we spend 8-10 hours per day at work, for 30-40 years, but have absolutely no say in what goes on in our workplaces.

Many workers and customers would have some good ideas for improving things, but are not consulted in what goes on; the companies in which they work or shop are run as the personal fiefdoms of the CEOs and boards of directors.

Those who work in a company (and so ultimately create the wealth) or shop in Tesco, and thus keep it in business, ought to have representation on the boards.

Big business in Britain has far too much power over people's lives, and often treats its employees and customers with contempt. I'm sick and tired of hearing that we can't do certain things (or must do certain things), because it suits big business, regardless of whether it serves the interests of the rest of us.

Saying that ordinary people should have no representation on company boards is just another form of anti-working class snobbery.

Westdene Seagull · Oct 17, 2014

Peteinblack said:
Why is the idea of fans, workers or shoppers on company boards so outrageous?

Corporate bosses in Britain have far too much power - and often pay themselves too much, while saying they can't afford decent wages for their staff, who then have to claim social security benefits and tax credits to survive.

We are supposed to be a democracy, yet we get the chance to vote for a bunch of clones once every 5 years - we spend 8-10 hours per day at work, for 30-40 years, but have absolutely no say in what goes on in our workplaces.

Many workers and customers would have some good ideas for improving things, but are not consulted in what goes on; the companies in which they work or shop are run as the personal fiefdoms of the CEOs and boards of directors.

Those who work in a company (and so ultimately create the wealth) or shop in Tesco, and thus keep it in business, ought to have representation on the boards.

Big business in Britain has far too much power over people's lives, and often treats its employees and customers with contempt. I'm sick and tired of hearing that we can't do certain things (or must do certain things), because it suits big business, regardless of whether it serves the interests of the rest of us.

Saying that ordinary people should have no representation on company boards is just another form of anti-working class snobbery.

Let's turn that around and say you personally own your own company ( and a majority of football clubs are private companies ), how would you feel if you were forced by the government to have one of your customers as one of your directors ? Or indeed to sell part of your company to said customer ?

Lord Bracknell · Oct 17, 2014

I dare say that the Archer / Stanley regime imagined that there was absolutely no way that fans could change (or even influence) the key strategic decisions that the Board of Directors had made.

Peteinblack · Oct 17, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
Let's turn that around and say you personally own your own company ( and a majority of football clubs are private companies ), how would you feel if you were forced by the government to have one of your customers as one of your directors ? Or indeed to sell part of your company to said customer ?

As those customers were keeping me in business through buying my goods, and might be able to offer advice to make the company better, I would welcome it. Indeed, I wouldn't wait for the government to compel me through legislation, I'd do it anyway as a matter of principle; I'm not a megalomaniac!

This country is becoming a dictatorship of big business and arrogant corporate bosses, where we keep having to bow down to the relatively small number of people who own and control finance and industry.

I really can't fathom why it's so outrageous that a customer or worker shouldn't have a seat on a company board!

After all, through much of the public sector now, 'service users' sit on consultative bodies to make suggestions as to how the service can be improved, so why not for private companies too?

Westdene Seagull · Oct 17, 2014

Peteinblack said:
As those customers were keeping me in business through buying my goods, and might be able to offer advice to make the company better, I would welcome it. Indeed, I wouldn't wait for the government to compel me through legislation, I'd do it anyway as a matter of principle; I'm not a megalomaniac!

This country is becoming a dictatorship of big business and arrogant corporate bosses, where we keep having to bow down to the relatively small number of people who own and control finance and industry.

I really can't fathom why it's so outrageous that a customer or worker shouldn't have a seat on a company board!

After all, through much of the public sector now, 'service users' sit on consultative bodies to make suggestions as to how the service can be improved, so why not for private companies too?

I think you're confusing PLCs with LTDs - so if you owned say a company employing a couple of people and turning over say £500k a year you would be happy to have the government FORCE a director ( who you may not need ) on you and FORCE you to sell up to 10% of your business to a customer even if you're only selling your 'shares' to a family member such as your wife ?

It would be like the government forcing [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] to appoint HB&B as a director and selling 10% of NSC to Ernest !

halbpro · Oct 17, 2014

El Presidente said:
I've just been interviewed by the local media up here in the land of whippets, and have said something similar

I think you've got your numbers on buying shares slightly off, as you can't buy 10% of the club in one lump, unless 100% of the shares are being sold. So, using United, if 30% traded (which would be interesting given it's on the stock market), then fans could buy up to 10% of that, 3% or £49,500,00 (which I agree is still impractical).

CheeseRolls · Oct 17, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
I think you're confusing PLCs with LTDs - so if you owned say a company employing a couple of people and turning over say £500k a year you would be happy to have the government FORCE a director ( who you may not need ) on you and FORCE you to sell up to 10% of your business to a customer even if you're only selling your 'shares' to a family member such as your wife ?

It would be like the government forcing [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] to appoint HB&B as a director and selling 10% of NSC to Ernest !

It might suit your argument to imagine the government deploying crack troops to storm football club boardrooms all over the country to force them to adopt new board members, but there are many forms of government coercion that companies and indeed football clubs willingly comply. Ask yourself why so many independent businesses have decided to invest in Women's football, when there is no clear commercial case for doing so in the short term. Is this some as yet unexplained case of collective madness or an outbreak of mass altruism ?

I think you are the one that is confused over corporate structure. Our own club has separate companies for the stadium and the football club for example and many other clubs have holding companies, which are separate entities. It is not that long ago as a club that we had a board director imposed on the club as a result of arbitration (Archer versus Knight).

beorhthelm · Oct 17, 2014

Peteinblack said:
Those who work in a company (and so ultimately create the wealth) or shop in Tesco, and thus keep it in business, ought to have representation on the boards.

you might like to ask the Co-op how well thats worked out for them.

Peteinblack said:
Saying that ordinary people should have no representation on company boards is just another form of anti-working class snobbery.

ordinary people can buy shares and vote for directors on the board to represent them.

Herr Tubthumper · Oct 17, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
Let's turn that around and say you personally own your own company ( and a majority of football clubs are private companies ), how would you feel if you were forced by the government to have one of your customers as one of your directors ? Or indeed to sell part of your company to said customer ?

If these are the rules which the country and/or industrial field has democratically decided on then that's life.

As an aside, the monopolies and merger commission can already force businesses to sell off parts to rivals. Some associations and industry regulatory bodies already have rules on board membership, in fact HSBC have just had two members resign due to a forthcoming change in specific banking legislation. If there is support from football fans to implement Miliband's proposal then a way could be found.

Herr Tubthumper · Oct 17, 2014

beorhthelm said:
you might like to ask the Co-op how well thats worked out for them.

You might like to ask the John Lewis group how well thats worked out for them.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Labour must be desperate ...

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

New member

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

On fire

Well-known member

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page