Labour must be desperate ...

[Herr Tubthumper]

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

Come on, get real. In theory yes. In reality most ordinary people have far more pressing needs for their hard earned money than buying shares so they can influence a board.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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. (a) 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. (b) 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).

a. Tax break

b. Indeed they do. Are you really suggesting that TB should give up part ownership of said companies ? It also raises the question of what company Labour want to give to the fans ? No director was forced on B&H Albion FC Ltd by arbitration - they don't have the power to do that.

 

[Brighton Mod]

... 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 reckon your right, its an attempt to grab headlines and votes, its going to backfire because it is ill thought out, undeliverable and a complete nonsense. Milliband should stick what he's best at.... thats talking a lot, but saying nothing.....

 

[The Large One]

The Football League's response...

The Football League has responded cautiously to the latest contribution to the debate on ownership of football clubs in England and Wales by warning against exposing supporter groups to increased financial risk.

Labour has today announced a proposal to give accredited supporter trusts the right to appoint and remove up to a quarter of a football club’s board of directors and purchase up to 10 per cent of the shares when a club changes ownership.

The Football League’s Chief Executive, Shaun Harvey, said: “As ever, we welcome dialogue with the political parties regarding football, as our clubs represent communities across England and Wales.

“Many of the individuals that choose to invest in football do so without expecting any financial return on their investment, as they too are supporters of their club. Instead, they do so for a variety of different reasons and we have to be careful not to create barriers that act as a disincentive to the next generation of owners and directors, as the game will only suffer as a consequence.

“It is also important to understand any proposal for supporters to have a legal right to purchase a stake in a club within the context of the obligations that come with it. For example, the average annual loss of a Championship club in 2012/13 was more than £13m with that shortfall having to be met by the club’s shareholders to enable it to continue playing football.

“Improved communications with supporters shouldn’t come at the cost of exposing those same supporters to unacceptable levels of financial risk. From personal experience and that of club directors that I speak with, there is no surer way of jeopardising a Saturday afternoon’s enjoyment than being responsible for it on a Monday morning.”

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I reckon your right, its an attempt to grab headlines and votes, its going to backfire because it is ill thought out, undeliverable and a complete nonsense. Milliband should stick what he's best at.... thats talking NOT a lot, but saying nothing.....

Corrected it for you.

 

[beorhthelm]

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!

and companies constant ask for customer feedback, suggestions and input. large corporations pay entire departments to do this for them, gathering information from a wide cross section of their customer base. you think having 1 single customer on the board is going to improve upon this? who likley has no idea about the minutiae of running a business? you think its going to be helpful for a small business with couple of directors to have one of their customers chipping in on every decision, and possibly looking bad for other customers (is he getting preferential deal?).

if Miliband want to do this, and he is elected, he of course can. but it will require changes to company law and this isnt something to be done lightly without consideration of the determental effects. i dont believe he'd do it anyway, its responce to a media story, capture some votes by saying "we'll do something". if you really want football to sort its self out to the benefit of fans, we need some far more drastic legislation than a supporter on the board.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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.

Oh dear Paddy ( that should really be Herr ! ) - you're so blinded by Labour spin. Comparing a PLC ( HSBC ) to an limited company ( like a majority of the 92 clubs ) is hardly like for like.

Ed 'I'm clueless' Milliband has as much chance of implementing this as he does his energy price freeze. Neither of which he's explained how he plans to legally implement.

 

[CheeseRolls]

a. Tax break

b. Indeed they do. Are you really suggesting that TB should give up part ownership of said companies ? It also raises the question of what company Labour want to give to the fans ? No director was forced on B&H Albion FC Ltd by arbitration - they don't have the power to do that.

a) So government can instigate change in private businesses via the tax system ? Doesn't that make your earlier point look a little silly ?

b) I was referring to Sir John Smith who was appointed a non-executive director in 1997 as a result of binding arbitration entered into by the club.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

a) So government can instigate change in private businesses via the tax system ? Doesn't that make your earlier point look a little silly ?

b) I was referring to Sir John Smith who was appointed a non-executive director in 1997 as a result of binding arbitration entered into by the club.

Sir John Smith wasn't forced on BHA - it was arbitration and thus agreed by the board at the time.

Note you haven't answered the bit about TB giving up part of the club ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Oh dear Paddy ( that should really be Herr ! ) - you're so blinded by Labour spin. Comparing a PLC ( HSBC ) to an limited company ( like a majority of the 92 clubs ) is hardly like for like.

Ed 'I'm clueless' Milliband has as much chance of implementing this as he does his energy price freeze. Neither of which he's explained how he plans to legally implement.

It's like-for-like in the sense the resignations were legally driven and an example of how law can, and does, change things.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's like-for-like in the sense the resignations were legally driven and an example of how law can, and does, change things.

would this be where two HSBC directors have chosen to resign in protest over legislation to make directors have to prove they are innocent of any wrong doing? its hardly been driven by law, its their own decision, and quite different from imposing a director upon a board.

its not a positive event either, aside from the fundemental change to innocent till proven guilty, it means an awful lot of cautious candidates for directorships will shun them, while risk takers will stay or replace them. what this is, is a good example of poor policy driven out of popularist reaction to "do something" without considering the consequences properly.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Sir John Smith wasn't forced on BHA - it was arbitration and thus agreed by the board at the time.

When the club entered arbitration were they aware of the intention to appoint a non-executive director as part of this process ?
Did the board have any say in the choice of Sir John Smith ?

Note you haven't answered the bit about TB giving up part of the club ?

TB is not the sole shareholder in the club and in fact new members have recently joined the Board as a result of recommendations on good governance.

 

[El Presidente]

What am I missing here ?

It's not going to improve football?

 

[CheeseRolls]

It's not going to improve football?

Okay why ?

 

[beorhthelm]

two more thoughts - firstly, we already have a fan own the club and most the shareholders are fans are they not? so should we have to comply? secondly, if Labour want to change law, why not address the situation with priority creditors?

 

[El Presidente]

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.


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

But in this case it's not the Labour party having due consideration for the welfare of the staff, the fans, or indeed a class struggle, it's a cynical grab for votes which has been poorly thought through in terms of what it delivers and how it would be delivered.

 

[dingodan]

Want a change? Pass a Law.

What a load of rubbish. If you want more fans involved in the running of their football clubs, then encourage it. Make the case. Convince those you have to convince.

I'm fed up with these loser politicians and their plans to coerce everyone and everything into being how they think it should be.

If you have a good idea, and if it really is a good idea, then you shouldn't need to use force to achieve it.

 

[El Presidente]

Okay why ?

1: Because who is going to choose the fans representative? Should it be STH, anyone who has been to a match in the last five years, members of the official supporters club? Do these people have to have any formal qualifications in terms of experience at board level? There will be an almighty bun fight over who is chosen. Once attending board meetings whoever is the fans rep will be bound by board decisions, and given that they relate to companies and their potential share values, they will be restricted in terms of what they can and cannot say at meetings with fans.

2: If fans are going to be given the opportunity to buy up to 10% of the club, it is only going to attract middle class or wealthy individuals who have the spare cash to throw away, this is not spreading ownership amongst the whole fanbase, just the richest x%.

I'm totally in favour of greater democratisation of the game, but think that Labour's proposals are populist lip service to a far wider issue.

 

[spring hall convert]

Laughable, populist, desperate, vote grabbing, claptrap.

This actually makes me really angry. Do they think people are that stupid?

And in the grand scheme of things it really isn't that important. They really have got far bigger things to be focusing on. No wonder UKIP's polling 20% if this is the alternative.

 

[London Irish]

1: Because who is going to choose the fans representative? Should it be STH, anyone who has been to a match in the last five years, members of the official supporters club? Do these people have to have any formal qualifications in terms of experience at board level? There will be an almighty bun fight over who is chosen. Once attending board meetings whoever is the fans rep will be bound by board decisions, and given that they relate to companies and their potential share values, they will be restricted in terms of what they can and cannot say at meetings with fans.

2: If fans are going to be given the opportunity to buy up to 10% of the club, it is only going to attract middle class or wealthy individuals who have the spare cash to throw away, this is not spreading ownership amongst the whole fanbase, just the richest x%.

I'm totally in favour of greater democratisation of the game, but think that Labour's proposals are populist lip service to a far wider issue.

Most of your objections seem cheese-pairing quibbles though.

Would be interested to hear what your democratic alternative is though, if you have one? And to hear from you why they wouldn't be vulnerable to the same cheese-pairing about practicality of implementation.