BHA Supporters' Trust

[The Large One]

Two points: Firstly, I'm sceptical about the benefits it will bring if a supporters trust is actually established. Secondly, I'd be enthusiastic if the trust was given some financial clout on the board.

First: Understood, but you are not going to find out if you don't try.

Second: Not sure what you are saying here. The Trust isn't given financial clout on the board - the Trust NEEDS financial clout to get on the board.

Obviously, the board will be approached first before the Trust is set up, then we can see what we're dealing with, but the more sceptical and stay-away people are, the more guaranteed it will be that the Trust will have little, if any, say. Of course, if one has no money to invest, that's a different matter.

 

[The Large One]

Look, this is important, like.

 

[Simster]

Look, this is important, like.

Yes, just not quite as important as Chappers' "Uck off" thread.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

As I said earlier on, the Supporters' Direct website lists the Albion as one of the "Clubs to have approached us".

http://www.supporters-direct.org/englandwales/query.asp

There's not much we can do until whoever has approached Supporters' Direct reports back to us.

Does anyone know who it was?

 

[The Auditor]

As I said earlier on, the Supporters' Direct website lists the Albion as one of the "Clubs to have approached us".

http://www.supporters-direct.org/englandwales/query.asp

There's not much we can do until whoever has approached Supporters' Direct reports back to us.

Does anyone know who it was?

would it have been Paul Whelch?....his name was given to me as a contact when I was asking about this about this time last year

 

[London Calling]

Two things really.

1. At a Sol meeting about 3 years ago chaired by Paul Whech the Albion's Accountant stated the club were definately interested in a supporters trust, he was happy for the statement to be minuted.

We were asked for our views at the meeting.

I cannot recall if Paul volunteered for such work?

2. As someone who works with a range of community and social groups. The strenght of the Supporters TRust will be determinate on the involvement of the supporters. I know that sounds obvious but if just let a few known names slip onto the board, the FINancial side of the Board will play slip service, yawn a few times, pat the reps on the head and the Trust will be useless.

But alternatively, if the Trust establishes an electoral system, with yearly elections for Trust members and we actually turn out and vote and agree a course of principles and perhaps a manisfesto. Our reps can say well actually "Bollocks to that suggestion our 10,000, 20,000 members etc says we want to do this."

A Trust can be strong and it can control.

In addition we should also look at othere Community Trusts such as Coin Street and the Paddington Trust, which has large public support and involvement. Are multi-million entities andactually own land and buildings. I would suggest our Trust also deals in real estate to build up revenue, to employ good experienced and committed staff and enable resources to be pumped into our ideals, such as Players funds or sports facilties for disadvantage kids etc

LC

 

[Lord Bracknell]

From the Supporters' Direct Handbook:-

2.7.4 Negotiating board representation

The normal way of becoming a director of a football club that is a Private Limited Company is to invest in a shareholding, but many companies have people on the board for other expertise they have or particular skills they possess. At a football club, one such ‘skill’ is representing supporters’ views. It is important to remember that you don’t need to own a single share to be on the board of a football club, though it is the norm. Even so, at clubs with a majority shareholder, other directors may be business associates of that shareholder who don’t necessarily own shares themselves. However, when it comes to owning shares, as would apply to an individual or a Trust, there is usually an ‘asking price’. Where an individual or controlling group owns a club, there is often a reluctance to dilute or share their power with others. This will, however, vary according to the financial health of the club concerned, or perhaps the individual or Trust.

In desperate times, a club or owner may be willing to make an advantageous offer to a Trust. Also, (but more rarely), the club may be far-sighted enough to see that there are advantages beyond the financial in bringing the fans “on board”, and make an offer even when there is no immediate crisis.

Trusts with the ambition of boardroom representation should emphasise to the club the non-financial as well as financial advantages. These are many. The relationship between club and supporters changes from “us and them” to “we’re all in this together”. It makes fans less likely to blame the board for adversities, because of the element of partnership. Communication both ways is improved, and greater understanding among supporters of the constraints under which the board operates leads to fewer demands for increased expenditure to “buy” success. Issues of sustainability move up the agenda. Also, a reservoir of talent, goodwill and effort on a voluntary basis becomes available to the club, which can augment the limited professional resources the club may be able to afford.

When supporters are on the board, issues such as anti-racism, equal opportunities and access for the disabled can be highlighted more easily. The club can become a flagship for these issues within a high-profile industry, thus strengthening the bonds between the club and the whole community, not just the fans. This can lead to new partnerships with the Local Authority, to the benefit of both. At Northampton Town, a new council-built stadium was delivered on this basis. (See section 2.6.4 earlier for details).

The Trust can also provide a boost to the Football in the Community Scheme, both financially and in terms of voluntary personnel. At Luton, Swindon and Northampton among others, the benefits of this are already apparent. As for the financial and commercial benefits, gates tend to increase where Trusts are involved at boardroom level, and with them sales of merchandise increase proportionately. At Northampton, average gates have more than doubled since the Trust came in, even when results are poor. The Trust also brings an additional revenue stream through voluntary fundraising, which is incentivised and stimulated when shares are made available for purchase by the Trust.

It is therefore very much in the interests of the club to involve the Trust at shareholder and director level, whether or not it is in crisis. These arguments should be promoted both privately and publicly. As illustrated at Rotherham United, they can and do prevail even in what appeared unpromising territory. (See box in section 1.12 earlier in this Handbook).

There have been instances where an “associate” or “honorary” directorship has been offered to a Trust or supporters’ club. These offers should be treated with caution, but not dismissed out of hand. In some instances, they prove a stepping-stone to a full directorship, but more often than not it is a token gesture designed to head off the demand for a proper position. It can create an invidious situation for the individual concerned, involving responsibility without power. Some have found that they are excluded from all or part of board meetings, and denied important information. They can be unjustly blamed by Trust members and other supporters if things go wrong, when they have had no power to effect change or influence decisions. This can be the worst of both worlds.

If such a position is offered, Trusts are advised to make sure that they know how and at what cost it can be converted into a full directorship later. If the club fail to answer this question, it is an indication that they may have no real intention of allowing the Trust a proper directorship, and might be indulging in tokenism.

Lastly, it is essential that a Trust director is democratically elected and not hand-picked by the club board. Clubs often raise the fear that an unsuitable, unrepresentative or indiscreet person could be elected by a “packed” meeting. This can be effectively answered in two ways: firstly, by always holding the election by postal ballot; and secondly, by restricting the candidacy to those who have already served the Trust as elected officers or committee members. For longer–established Trusts, a minimum time in an elected position, say two years, can be stipulated. But there is no substitute for democratic election, and the position of the director is weakened both in the eyes of the club and Trust members if they are simply “appointed”. If the club is reluctant for an election to be held, or to accept its results, the signs are that they are looking for a “yes-man” rather than an effective director.

Some of the arguments often used against having supporter directors are:

• Confidentiality – the club board discusses matters of great importance and commercial confidentiality, and can't trust an elected supporter director to honour this, as they report back to the people who elected them.

This argument is a common one, but the ways to respond include:

A Trust director is a legal director of the club, and is therefore bound by the same rules as every other director. The fact that they are elected is irrelevant in this regard. Whilst the members might demand certain information, it's up to the Trust to manage expectations of what is and isn't publicly available to members. As for the supporter director revealing confidential matters, there is no reason why they are any more likely to do this than an existing director. Supporter directors will only publicise information in the public domain. Other things, such as player wages, are subject to normal practice of confidentiality. If the club board doesn't buy that argument, Trusts have to campaign on the grounds that they are being treated like unruly children who can't be trusted, when the board makes far less stringent checks on wealthy individuals who might be invited to invest and join the board. Trusts need to press their professionalism and probity, and stress they are a serious organisation that could bring added value to the management of the club.

• The club can't allow specific stakeholders to be represented on the board, as legally, the board is there to represent all shareholders, not just fans or a small group of shareholders.

If that argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then no director would be allowed to have any shareholding. The key is a good balance on the board, between shareholders and non-shareholders, executive and non-executive, and so on. It is standard practice to ensure that companies have a balanced board to ensure decisions are made in the best possible interests of the company, rather than the interests of one group. Independent directors also bring the skills and experience from whatever walk of life they have operated in to the benefit of the club. In addition, the best interests of shareholders are served by a solvent company. That means more people coming into the club as customers. Arguably, a better dialogue between club and supporters could have this effect.

• The Trust doesn't have any shares, or doesn't own enough to justify board membership. Alternatively, the Trust hasn't put in as much money as other directors.

The arguments above suffice again here – Trusts not having a shareholding could be seen as a benefit, rather than hindrance. Or, Trusts can argue they represent the supporters, who contribute a significant proportion of the club’s finances every year.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

What percentage of shares does a Supporters Trust have to collectively own before it can be represented on the board? Or does it vary from club to club d'ya reckon?

Trickiest aspect IMHO would be the issue of confidentiality. Stuff discussed at board level is sometimes by it's very nature, company confidential. Any Supporters Trust representative would be bound by that, while having a duty to keep the Trust in the picture. Interesting area aye? (In practical terms, reckon the representative would be asked to attend for some of the meeting, and asked to leave for other parts).

 

[London Irish]

It must happen. The club's current idea of raising funds from supporters is just to rattle a tin under our noses whilst warning us of the dire consequences if we don't contribute (the dire 'Alive and Kicking' campaign). The people like Norman Cook who have put the most in have all got 'worthless' bits of paper but at least their contributions are acknowledged - the great unwashed have nothing to show for their investment.

What you slag off as the dire Alive and Kicking campaign is actually the FIRST funds (£300,000-odd) that will go towards establishing the supporters trust. That was a commitment made at the time by the current board.

So all of us who contributed have already, in effect, bought shares in the Albion on behalf of all the supporters. So would you kindly stop pissing on the Alive and Kicking campaign, Brovian. It's already achieved something for the nascent Albion Supporters Trust. Thanking the people who contributed to that would be more appropriate.

It would be great for preparatory work on the Supporters Trust to be advanced, I've read that the Supporters Club have done some limited work on it.

The timing of setting it up has to coincide with a major share issue by the club, as share issues are expensive things and not the kind of thing the club can do at the moment when we are so short of money. But the stadium will change all that, as we have seen over the last few days, people will be falling over themselves to buy a piece of the club. Hopefully the supporters trust can then piggy-back on the back of one of these share issues and establish a percentage shareholding in the club. We have £300,000 already - it's a nice start.

I hope all those who whinged about contributing to the A&K fund will open their wallets when the Supporters Trust comes calling for donations - sceptical old me reckons it will be the same people putting in again

Those who belittle the influence a supporters trust will have on all the snake oil salemen that Dick Knight will have to study the credentials of closely as they seek to grab a piece of us, of course have a point. Those looking to buy into the Albion now so many years after our dire struggles to survive will be doing so as a business proposition, and businessmen are not known for their love of democratic movements like supporters trust.

But this warning can never be used for doing NOTHING. Having some shareholding representation gives you certain rights and advantages - the activist shareholders movement that has made life uncomfortable for big companies in recent years shows a model for how we can exert some small influence.

The reality is, if businessmen take charge of the club who don't have the track record of someone like Knight, we are going to have to be on our toes BIG TIME. And a Supporters Trust will be a very useful part of our armory in the future.

 

[rool]

I hope all those who whinged about contributing to the A&K fund will open their wallets when the Supporters Trust comes calling for donations - sceptical old me reckons it will be the same people putting in again

Whilst 300,000 is a fair donation it falls way below what was asked for and it does seem that only a small minority of fans donated towards it (1500 x 200 plus other events) which means that the majority of fans, including myself, were not comfortable with the idea for some reason or another. Describing them as whingers just because they didn't see it the same way as you do is hardly going to endear them to the cause and not a line I expect the club to take.

 

[rool]

Whilst 300,000 is a fair donation it falls way below what was asked for and it does seem that only a small minority of fans donated towards it (1500 x 200 plus other events?) which means that the majority of fans, including myself, were not comfortable with the idea for some reason or another. Describing them as whingers just because they didn't see it the same way as you do is hardly going to endear them to the cause and not a line I expect the club to take.

 

[rool]

whoops, sorry

 

[London Irish]

Whilst 300,000 is a fair donation it falls way below what was asked for and it does seem that only a small minority of fans donated towards it (1500 x 200 plus other events) which means that the majority of fans, including myself, were not comfortable with the idea for some reason or another. Describing them as whingers just because they didn't see it the same way as you do is hardly going to endear them to the cause and not a line I expect the club to take.

Of course the club wouldn't say that - they have to be diplomatic, I don't

I repeat - I'm just hoping that when the Supporters Trust does launch and comes calling for funds ("handing out the begging bowl" even, to recall that twattish phrase), it will satisfy your criteria and "comfort" for donating that A&K so clearly didn't.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

What you slag off as the dire Alive and Kicking campaign is actually the FIRST funds (£300,000-odd) that will go towards establishing the supporters trust. That was a commitment made at the time by the current board.

So all of us who contributed have already, in effect, bought shares in the Albion on behalf of all the supporters. So would you kindly stop pissing on the Alive and Kicking campaign, Brovian. It's already achieved something for the nascent Albion Supporters Trust. Thanking the people who contributed to that would be more appropriate.

Reckon slagging off the 'dire' A&K is by inference slagging off the non-dire people who contributed to it. While some of us have a natural aversion to throwing money into an unaccountable black hole (I know of at least one total sweetie who has set up a standing order to pay into the fund) I totally respect those that did. On one level, I'd seriously locve to be that pure of heart and dammit downright trusting. OK, I've generated the odd bit of dosh by buying/selling stuff, but in no way as much as more people who could less afford it. Part of me says that asking the same 5000 souls for 2.5 Million quid or whatever it was, was the club taking the piss one step too far, and a Supporters Trust would go a long way towards addressing these natural and proper concerns. In future it'll be 'OK DK, the fund has raised X pounds, please provide a proper detailed breakdown of what it's going to be spent on'. Which can only be for the good, especially with the GetRichQuick merchants now beginning to hover.

 

[The Large One]

When Alive & Kicking was launched, the board called a meeting to the 'Friends of the Albion', the businesses who sponsor games, match balls, and generally dip their hands into their pockets regularly for the club. I was invited as a Forty Notes representative.

While there was no real aversion to the launch of the campaign, and a general understanding of the reasons behind it, there was also talk of some of the businessmen wanting to put money into the club (figures of £10,000-£15,000 were mentioned), but wanting something in return. Hence, small share issues and supporters' trusts were mentioned.

I don't know what happened as a result of subsequent meetings between the club and the businessmen in question, but what was apparent was the desire by a fair number of people to be able to do something along the lines which a fully set-up Supporters' Trust could oganise and develop.

My point is, I believe the interest is there. As to what sort of money can be raised in order to get a seat on the board, I've no idea.

 

[Brovion]

Two things:

Firstly I wasn't 'slagging off' the people who'd contributed to the A and K fund by inference or otherwise. Far from it. However it IS dire because it was supposed to raise 2mil and it got, what, about 300,000? That is pathetic. So why has it failed to reach even 25% of it's target? Well I'd guess because there are a lot of people like me, DtG, Munster Monch etc who didn't contribute directly for a number of reasons. For me it was the 'international capitalist' approach - big investors had their loans turned into shares, small investors got told they were making donations and got a thank-you note. If you were happy with that, fine, thank you for the part you played in helping to save the club (absolutely no sarcasam inntended). I DID however 'raise my game' in other respects. Specifically I spent nearly £200 at a Race Night and Auction and EVERYONE gets Albion-related birthday presents from the club shop, even if it's just (as for my wife) a mug which I'd put the earrings in. Good heavens I even bought a replica shirt for myself which I never wear (as I think replica shirts on middle-aged men look incredibly naff, especially the striped ones, but that's another story!)

So I feel I'm doing my bit. I would have been inclined to contribute directly to a scheme if, to my mind, it had been done 'properly' in the first place and not just with woolly talk about it being the 'first step'. Little Bradford (Park Avenue) of the NPL have a Share scheme, why couldn't we do it? Certainly I would contribute directly to a Supporters' Trust that raised money to invest in the club, which brings me to my second point. Simster said we'd have to get the shares on the back of a rich benefactor would would make some available. Why? The club could do an Issue which could be bought by the S.T. Also there is no legal level at which shareholders have to be on a board, but frankly I don't see the point in board level representation. Firstly at the moment the board is already full of Albion fans, and secondly if we were owned by a larger corporation it would just be a fob-off. Better that the S.T. owns the club, or at least a large part of it. (No, I don't think we can raise that much money either)

 

[Curious Orange]

I am definitely interested in putting some of my hard-earned into a Supporters Trust. My view is that the aim of the Supporters Trust should be to own a sufficient portion of the club to ensure that one person cannot just do as he pleases. It wouldn't necessarily need to run the club, but have the clout to ensure it is run properly.

We all think of the Albion as "our club", but at this moment in time it isn't. Lets make it our club.

 

[The Auditor]

What you slag off as the dire Alive and Kicking campaign is actually the FIRST funds (£300,000-odd) that will go towards establishing the supporters trust. That was a commitment made at the time by the current board.

So all of us who contributed have already, in effect, bought shares in the Albion on behalf of all the supporters. So would you kindly stop pissing on the Alive and Kicking campaign, Brovian. It's already achieved something for the nascent Albion Supporters Trust. Thanking the people who contributed to that would be more appropriate.



.

ah thats good.... wasnt my imagination that the Alive & Kicking money would be converted into Supporters trust shares at the appropriate time

 

[Curious Orange]

 

[Curious Orange]