Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
They all look like commercial/market interests to me, I don't see any benefit to the customers having a direct voice on that.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Fan representation on the Board
- Thread starter milo
- Start date
They all look like commercial/market interests to me, I don't see any benefit to the customers having a direct voice on that.
Because it's at the bottom of the proposal (literally the last item), when you write proposals, you put your priority items at the top not the bottom
- For what's it's worth, and I've said it multiple times, I'd welcome fans "earning that seat" by equity investment (with the caveat it goes strait to squad investment), and AGAIN they diluted the point by referencing the ESL fines (nothing to do with equity) that the club has already stated the owners will pay (so why fudging bring it up here other than posturing, which seems to be their thing)
Let me walk you through the main problems with that letter
- Still no clarity on if the Trust is trying to actually help the club or is simply managing fan grievances
- Absolutely nothing that says the Trust is interested in the success of the club
- Nothing on the qualification expectation of the representation, sure a lot of people on this thread said "hey, I know someone who would be qualified", really? you have any idea how many people get referred to me for jobs that aren't qualified to tie their fudging shoes by people who should know better? and this person will do this for free as well? or do we not know?
Actual points they brought up
#1 - Name of the Club? = really, someone thinks we will change the name of the club? this smacks of the fear mongering of pub fans
#2 - Location of Club stadium? = fudging help me, we just spent a fudging billion pounds, is moving an option? again this is absolute idiot pub talk "ESL & no relegation = we are now an American franchise that will move from city to city" more fear mongering flimflam
#3 - club colours and crest? = ok, but we have spent a significant amount of money trademarking our brick, is this again a current burning issue?
First three points are fudging non issues under ENIC/Levy, interesting that might change (1 & 3) if we did what fans want which is sell (e.g. far east investors and red)
#4 - Competitions the club plays in = ESL reference, again I'm not sure how any vaguely qualified representative on a board looking at the financial implications of in/out would have made any different decision
#5 - Location of home games? = wtf? is this some reference to point #2 again?
#6 - Sale of physical assets = ok, fair, protecting from club stripping
#7 - Changes of articles of association? = ?
#8 - Dividend policy = lump with points above, seemed to be aimed at owners taking money out of club, something ENIC has NOT done in 20 years
#9 - Strategic plan? = this is a dump all, hey if we forgot something, we could claim it was under strategy
So if I review that
1,2,3,5,6,7,8 -> all non issues now and historically with ENIC (we could talk about the stadium decision initially but that is gone/done)
Next part of the document is a power grab
Final part is equity statement diluted by the mandatory bitch on ESL to issue already addressed.
If you believe this was truly written by highly qualified people with best interests of club & fans (both, not just addressing fan entitlement), please help me understand what I missed. Because this could have been written in a pub post match by idiots parroting every narrative against the club.
It was for an MBO - so more like VC than normal lending. Whilst the NED was constantly fuming about the waste of his time, I'm sure the extortionate fees charged went some way to making him feel better about it.
glasgowspur
Luka Modric
We could sell the stadium, all the players, leave the league and drop down to the amateur status and play on the local rec ground.
Lewis and Levy get their pay off and the trust get the opportunity to build us back up to where we should be.
We keep the name, the traditions and sense of belonging to the community.
I mean it is pretty easy to do.
JerusalemMan
Chris Perry
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
I wouldn’t want them anywhere near a budget meeting for example but I see no issue with having fan representation on the board even if it is only to pay lip service. Not all of the items on their agenda will be valid, but some of them would be reasonable concerns I would argue. People continually say football is a business like any other but it really isn’t. Football clubs are very active in the local communities which they are situated in for example and do a lot of good work that goes unnoticed sometimes. It’s just funny that whenever a post about the trust is posted you immediately get the same people getting angry at them. Typically it’s the staunch pro-ENIC posters who don’t want the trust to have any kind of say or a platform and get annoyed at them.
I often hear “I don’t want them on the board as they don’t know how to run a company or have any idea about finances” etc which isn’t an opinion I entirely disagree with, but Levy has been in and around football for nearly a quarter of a century and he still thinks it’s a smart move to sack a manager that wins big games for fun the week before a cup final and hires a total rookie with no PL or any other managerial experience so can the trust really but that much worse?
You could do many things, doesn't mean you will, also doesn't mean it's a priority item. I'd ask anyone, how the fudge after the last 18 months the first items on your priority conversation list with the club would be the name of the club and stadium location?
Honestly it is a poorly written proposal, the way that should have been put together is more about themes
- Preservation of club assets & heritage
- Fan concerns
- On field success and club ambitions
And you could cover stuff under there, instead there is no real strategy to the ask, no gives or value, just demands
I wouldn’t want them anywhere near a budget meeting for example but I see no issue with having fan representation on the board even if it is only to pay lip service. Not all of the items on their agenda will be valid, but some of them would be reasonable concerns I would argue. People continually say football is a business like any other but it really isn’t. Football clubs are very active in the local communities which they are situated in for example and do a lot of good work that goes unnoticed sometimes. It’s just funny that whenever a post about the trust is posted you immediately get the same people getting angry at them. Typically it’s the staunch pro-ENIC posters who don’t want the trust to have any kind of say or a platform and get annoyed at them.
I often hear “I don’t want them on the board as they don’t know how to run a company or have any idea about finances” etc which isn’t an opinion I entirely disagree with, but Levy has been in and around football for nearly a quarter of a century and he still thinks it’s a smart move to sack a manager that wins big games for fun the week before a cup final and hires a total rookie with no PL or any other managerial experience so can the trust really but that much worse?
I'll leave the last bit alone but
No inherent problem with fan representation as a concept, however you contradict yourself with the budget statement, they are asking for exactly that, being deeply involved in the budget, core fiscal decisions, frankly have extraordinary powers that most directors themselves don't have, for what in return?
I would fudging love to see
- The Trust actively go build a commitment to fan investment in the club, get independent valuation of club, do preliminary calculation of what fan investment would look like
- An ask for a view to the short/medium/long term success of the club both as a business and as an on field concern
- Bring some set of skill sets to the table we feel the club is missing
- Build in long term protection of the club (so yes, name, stadium, colors, who future buyers would be, perhaps even no ESL in future)
But that is not what they are doing
- it's I buy coffee, so I want a seat on the board of Starbucks and want to say what flavor coffee I expect them to sell with nothing other than an opinion I pulled out my ass.
People are annoyed because it comes across as posturing, not well thought out and MOST importantly not really connected to what is best for Tottenham, somehow again you see that and come up with "fudging ENIC supporters"
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
Yeah I’ve said I don’t think it’s a good move for them to be involved in fiscal matters.
I can see how the way they put things across riles people, but ultimately I see fan groups as a positive even if they overstep their boundaries at times. Clubs need to be held to account at times, that doesn’t mean policing them for every little thing but I’m cool with them giving fans a voice, even if some of it is self-serving. I just see a common theme with a lot of pro-ENIC posters getting angry anytime a thread about them gets bumped and I’m sure some of them don’t even bother to read the content of what they say. It comes across that they don’t want ENIC to be questioned. It’s like problem, what problem? We couldn’t ask for better owners.
Not exactly an even trade for what they are asking .. actually demanding is a better term.
And how active will they be in that and what would be the longevity of the PR?
Would be better to hire a fan with a finger on the pulse (fan opinion) give him seat at the table and make him talk to the media about loads of different Šhit.
That would be semi useful... and depending on the wage... I maybe interested, so Levy can give me a call
My qualifications are:
- I love spurs
- I hate sol çuntball
- I will always call them lot the woolwich wanderers or 'that ârse' club.
Obviously there's more... but to be honest does there need to be? I think that list is plenty good enough.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
I think that''s the difference between the likes of you (and scaramanga and Raziel etc) and me. I consider myself to be a supporter as opposed to just a 'customer'.
While in 'normal' businesses where they locate themselves, what business they operate in and what they call themselves wouldn't matter. For a football club though I think it is different. I think most of that list of items are sensible ones. We really shouldn't need to have most of them but you never know what owners will do (Wimbledon's owners moving the club to Milton Keynes for example). I don't see the downside with any of those items I outlined operating under the proposed rules. You obviously feel differently though, can you explain why you don't think it would be a good thing for the fans to have those specific points subject to increased controls?
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
I think the equity ownership and fines for the failed ESL participation are two separate points.
I think it is important that we see evidence of the owners meeting the ESL fines. The owners saying that they are going to and seeing proof in the accounts (via injected funds) are two different matters. I don't have the same blind trust in our owners that you have. If the owners are going to pay the fines as they state then it will be very simple for them to appease this ask. So I don't see the problem with it.
Regarding your other points in turn....
#1 - Name of the Club? = really, someone thinks we will change the name of the club? this smacks of the fear mongering of pub fans
Who knows. If we're not going to change it then it's an easy one for the owners to concede right? So why does it concern you so much? Who knows what future owners might want to do: Toyota FC for example? This takes it off the table. A good thing.
#2 - Location of Club stadium? = fudging help me, we just spent a fudging billion pounds, is moving an option? again this is absolute idiot pub talk "ESL & no relegation = we are now an American franchise that will move from city to city" more fear mongering flimflam
Again, should be easy for the owners concede then. Why does it concern you so much? Who knows what will happen in the future. Perhaps a City in the US or the UAE would offer the owners a huge sweetener to move the stadium (if in future something like the ESL or even an even higher stakes WSL took off then this could be a possibility). Better to ensure it can't be an option.
#3 - club colours and crest? = ok, but we have spent a significant amount of money trademarking our brick, is this again a current burning issue?
I expect this is to stop something happening like at Cardiff where their owner changed their colours from blue to red. I don't really see any harm in it. I expect the change in crest rule is to guard against our club crest changing to one that is the same as an owner's/sponsor's business (i.e. Toyota FC and us incorporating the Toyota badge).
#4 - Competitions the club plays in = ESL reference, again I'm not sure how any vaguely qualified representative on a board looking at the financial implications of in/out would have made any different decision
The club obviously got it very wrong with the ESL and it will now cost the club money (hopefully to be paid by the owners). This ensures that the owners (these ones or future ones) couldn't get something like this so wrong again. I know you take the opposite view and were a fan of the ESL, but you were very much in the minority.
#5 - Location of home games? = wtf? is this some reference to point #2 again?
There is a difference here. The existing or future owners could decide to designate a different stadium as our home ground for Cup games for example.... Again, perhaps choosing to play the games in the US or Qatar or wherever. This would mean the owners could not take that as a unilateral decision. Again, a good thing IMO. Maybe you disagree?
#6 - Sale of physical assets = ok, fair, protecting from club stripping
Yes. I don't think our owners would do this anyway, but one never knows how desperate our finances could get or which owners might comes next. I would imagine our owners would be against this as it may lower the value of their asset a little.
#7 - Changes of articles of association? = ?
I expect this is to stop the club changing it's purpose (i.e. owners deciding that we are an events company and instead of hosting a football team we will instead give priority to something else - i.e. become an NFL franchise).
#8 - Dividend policy = lump with points above, seemed to be aimed at owners taking money out of club, something ENIC has NOT done in 20 years
Again, this isn't limited to just ENIC. There will be many owners of our club after ENIC. To be honest I'm not sure that this one would really be workable unless ENIC commit to never paying a dividend and somehow enshrining that into this.
#9 - Strategic plan? = this is a dump all, hey if we forgot something, we could claim it was under strategy
I disagree with this ask. I don't see that it adds any value for the Supporters board member to have anything to do with this. The financial plan should come from the top and the football plan from the DoF and manager. This one should be dropped I think.
1,2,3,5,6,7,8 -> all non issues now and historically with ENIC (we could talk about the stadium decision initially but that is gone/done)
Do not concentrate on ENIC only. Just because ENIC have not operated against these that doesn't mean a future owner wouldn't or even that ENIC wouldn't change tack and do so. If they are non issues then ENIC should have no problem conceding these points.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
Not the main board, they are quite clear that their own articles of association would not allow that.
But they would be on the supervisory board (fair enough) and have 'suggested' that they should have 3 representatives (out of I think they said 11?), as they are the only established fan group that covers a broad range of topics, rather than being focused on specific issues. I think they are scrabbling a bit, wanting to make sure they don't lose out (e.g. having the THFC articles of association updated to confirm THST as the official fan group - which should be unnecessary, and would be somewhat contradictory, when (if) there is an official 'Supervisory Board' feeding into the main Board). Having officially called for the current Board to be replaced, they have not exactly put themselves in the good books.
I'm supportive of fan representation at Board level, and generally I agree with most of the points where fan input should be considered, except for "strategy" as that is too broad a heading, but would no doubt be refined if this ever came to fruition. Which in this format it won't. The club are not going to agree the type of structure the trust are asking for, but as a starting point for discussion I don't have a great issue. Except, as per usual, the tone.
There seems to be an expectation from the Trust that something meaningful is going to come out of the government so-called fan-led review. I think they are going to be in for a disappointment here. Probably recommendations is the most that will come out of it. However I do think Levy will put something in place, which I suspect will be more than most PL clubs.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
No. Read the link.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
When I read that in the list of items, I immediately linked it to the Wembley season, when Wembley wasn't available for a LC game, so it was moved to MK Dons. The Trust initially called for a fan boycott in affinity with AFC Wimbledon, and then backtracked and said it was a personal boycott by the Trust board members.
So whilst I still agree with it being on the list for the example you give, I am a bit more suspect of what the Trust had in mind when including it.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
I think the club being a viable business should always be the priority, risk should be minimal, I think most football fans would have a higher accepted level of risk and be seduced by short term gains.
It's not impossible that rebranding the product could be suggested, I expect most fans would be against that solely on principle, but if it made us more money and potentially more competitive we should be for it. Similarly the ESL decision, there is no argument against it being the right thing for the business to have done.
Mate, it shows a lack of coherency
- Very few of the points are a priority now
- Very few of them would/should be a current priority
- Any concessions made by ENIC do not apply to future owners, should the club be sold, the new owners have zero obligation to include fans on future board/decisions "unless" fans own some share.
Comes back to my point (I'm not defending ENIC), the Trust is doing very little useful here.
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Almost all of them are sensible. I expect that the same concessions for future owners would be a condition of sale. I can see why ENIC would not want to agree with them, I could not see why any THFC supporter would not agree to (most) of them.