[Archived] Rovers Trust

[PAFELL]

I think this article outlines the reasons why I feel the Trust is not a viable option for clubs and that Financial Fair Play will spell the end for clubs like the Rovers. If the dream of not being able to reach the top flight is taken away then what is the point of the game? Football is about passion and dreams. Without Jack's money we would not have enjoyed what we have done over the past twenty years or so. How long will fans be prepared to pay to watch clubs that have no realistic chance of achieving anything. In terms of attendances and commerical revenue the Rovers will struggle to compete in the Championship. Gradually, the fans will drift away, exactly as they did in the late 60s and 70s when it was clear the Rovers didn't have the financial muscle to compete. If the likes of Leeds are attracting 25,000 and the Rovers 10,000 no amount of Financial prudence is going to bridge that gap. I look at what this system has done for Accrington Stanley. They work within a strict budget. They are unable to attact signings other than young lads who are loaned from other clubs for a few months at a time. Results become poor, the fans stay away and their income is continually reduced until eventually relegation from the Football League becomes more likely than not. Financial Fair Play offers nothing for clubs like the Rovers other than the knowledge that they will never play in the top flight again. Just like the 60s and 70s fans will look to watch their football away from Ewood Park at clubs were the dreams of success are still viable.

I do not believe the prem is sustainable at its current spending levels. Would not surprise me if the prem breaks up one day. some of the clubs forming a european league. I know the skill levels in the prem are higher than the championship. But I find the championship, as a competition better. A bit more of a level playing field.

and some will be able to pay more

I thought the £1000 was the maximum one person could pay.

[dave birch]

Pafell, as I understand it, you can pledge as much as you want and can afford.

Perhaps someone with greater knowledge can clarify it for both of us.

[Wayne Wild]

Your argument is based around the fact of a club being in or winning the premiership. A Trust can operate a club at any level. The point of a trust is to protect the heritage and future of a club. When rich owners can no longer buy a club to play with and throw money at what interest will they have ?

Blackburn Rovers has an average position of 9th in the Premiership whilst mainly running a prudent budget and accounts. Whilst the top 6 clubs are super rich and obviously enjoy the spoils from their income other clubs if run well can compete still to a certain level. I know I keep highlighting the Swansea story but for good reason, please consider. A club with c£60m income, currently 9th in EPL (coincidence !) and looking likely to be cup finalists. They turned a profit through player trading last year and are still a success, does it not remind you of the latter Walker Trust days ? All with a 20% supporter ownership.

Thats why the owners and directors must try their very best to regain premiership football asap and get the costs in order immediately. Otherwise I agree it will be much harder to climb the ladder. But wasnt that what football teams and clubs were supposed to be about ? Getting a good boardroom, manager who knew his football and players hungry for success ? Thats how teams climbed the leagues previously ! Not via a huge input of foreign money designed purely for short term gain.

Not every member will be able to pay the £1000

Members do not have to pay £1000 to have a vote. Annual members who pay subscription will have the same voting rights as shareholders.

However, without also selling shares there will be no money to buy shares of BRFC and therefore no ownership model.

As discussed, some people will be able to afford more, some can group together and some will be annual members only.

I do not believe the prem is sustainable at its current spending levels. Would not surprise me if the prem breaks up one day. some of the clubs forming a european league. I know the skill levels in the prem are higher than the championship. But I find the championship, as a competition better. A bit more of a level playing field.

I thought the £1000 was the maximum one person could pay.

The maximum under CBS guidelines is £20k per individual.

[rovers11]

I'm not fully clued up on the Financial Fair Play rules but surely owners will still be able to pump money in - albeit via 'sponsporship' or other means instead of interest free loans. Haven't the Man City owners just sponsored a stand at the Etihad for a ridiculous amount of money? I'm not convinced about the FFP at all - all smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned. Will Man City, Chelsea, Paris St Germain, Anzhi stop spending lots of money? I doubt it. They'll just find other 'income' streams.

[PAFELL]

Your argument is based around the fact of a club being in or winning the premiership. A Trust can operate a club at any level. The point of a trust is to protect the heritage and future of a club. When rich owners can no longer buy a club to play with and throw money at what interest will they have ?

Blackburn Rovers has an average position of 9th in the Premiership whilst mainly running a prudent budget and accounts. Whilst the top 6 clubs are super rich and obviously enjoy the spoils from their income other clubs if run well can compete still to a certain level. I know I keep highlighting the Swansea story but for good reason, please consider. A club with c£60m income, currently 9th in EPL (coincidence !) and looking likely to be cup finalists. They turned a profit through player trading last year and are still a success, does it not remind you of the latter Walker Trust days ? All with a 20% supporter ownership.

Thats why the owners and directors must try their very best to regain premiership football asap and get the costs in order immediately. Otherwise I agree it will be much harder to climb the ladder. But wasnt that what football teams and clubs were supposed to be about ? Getting a good boardroom, manager who knew his football and players hungry for success ? Thats how teams climbed the leagues previously ! Not via a huge input of foreign money designed purely for short term gain.

Members do not have to pay £1000 to have a vote. Annual members who pay subscription will have the same voting rights as shareholders.

However, without also selling shares there will be no money to buy shares of BRFC and therefore no ownership model.

As discussed, some people will be able to afford more, some can group together and some will be annual members only.

The maximum under CBS guidelines is £20k per individual.

Thanks for clearing that up. £20K per individual.

[PAFELL]

I'm not fully clued up on the Financial Fair Play rules but surely owners will still be able to pump money in - albeit via 'sponsporship' or other means instead of interest free loans. Haven't the Man City owners just sponsored a stand at the Etihad for a ridiculous amount of money? I'm not convinced about the FFP at all - all smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned. Will Man City, Chelsea, Paris St Germain, Anzhi stop spending lots of money? I doubt it. They'll just find other 'income' streams.

The current big clubs fear little clubs becoming big clubs. That is why they want to stop folk like JW coming in and buying clubs. The FFP is designed to keep the top clubs at the top and curbing little clubs enhancing themselves.Which is totally unjust imo.

[Parsonblue]

Wayne, we had a good boardroom in the 1970s and 1980s but until Jack put in his money we couldn't make the step up to the top flight. At the end of the day football is about chasing a dream and whether we like it or not that takes money. Why did thousands drift away after the relegation from the top flight in 1965-66? Simply because many supporters believed that the Rovers hadn't got the financial muscle to return to the top flight. At the end of the day football is about entertainment and the dream of competing with the best. Many fans simply drifted to Manchester and Liverpool to watch top flight football. Fans turned their back on the club even though it was run well by local businessmen but the fans wanted something better than second rate football and there was a genuine feeling that the club hadn't got the money to compete at the top level and hence they opted to watch their football elsewhere.

Swansea is an interesting story but, correct me if I'm wrong, their Trust came about when the club was in the bottom division and facing the prospect of going under. The present board at Swansea is made up of local businessmen and a representative from the Supporters Trust. Swansea and the Rovers are two entirely different clubs with completely different situations with regard to ownership. Swansea literally had to start again and build themselves up from football's basement. The Rovers haven't yet reached that stage although I think there is every possibility that we will.

However, if these rules come into force it will be interesting to see how Swansea cope over the longer term. These rules are destined to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Swansea's main advantage over the Rovers is that apart from Cardiff City, who are likely to be a Premier League club next season, they have no competition for supporters. Blackburn has several clubs within less than an hour's drive who are offering top flight football and history has shown that that is what people will opt for in the long term if the Rovers can't deliver it.

[Wayne Wild]

Parsonblue...

"I think this article outlines the reasons why I feel the Trust is not a viable option for clubs and that Financial Fair Play will spell the end for clubs like the Rovers"

Im still not sure how you can say a Trust cannot operate within FFP regulations ? The general argument from fans previously was that a supporters trust does not have the wealthy funds to compete against foreign ownership, that is true. But under FFP this argument is no longer valid. All clubs must achieve break even based on the clubs individual income, not owners wealth, therefore a well run club attracting as many fans as possible plus sponsorship deals and corporate sales is more valid. Without getting into too deep a discussion I would say that while fans are staying away in their droves due to the dislike of the mismanagement of the club I would say that a fan owned club would surely encourage the fans to come back to support the existance of the club ? Therefore increasing revenue and therefore giving the club more funds under the FFP regulations ?

The Trust was a concept to protect the clubs future, not to win the Premier League or Champions League. That doesnt say that this cant happen but considering the money required in the game the reality is it would be extremely difficult to even compete in the top league. If we have an ownership model that mirrored our previous regime then the need to a Trust would be less, doesnt meant though its not a good idea to have fans part of the fabric of football clubs by owning a percentage.

[rovers11]

The current big clubs fear little clubs becoming big clubs. That is why they want to stop folk like JW coming in and buying clubs. The FFP is designed to keep the top clubs at the top and curbing little clubs enhancing themselves.Which is totally unjust imo.

It's a crazy idea. Football will just become predictable and boring. I'm still not convinced about the robustness of the rules though. There will be ways round them.

[Parsonblue]

Parsonblue...

"I think this article outlines the reasons why I feel the Trust is not a viable option for clubs and that Financial Fair Play will spell the end for clubs like the Rovers"

Im still not sure how you can say a Trust cannot operate within FFP regulations ? The general argument from fans previously was that a supporters trust does not have the wealthy funds to compete against foreign ownership, that is true. But under FFP this argument is no longer valid. All clubs must achieve break even based on the clubs individual income, not owners wealth, therefore a well run club attracting as many fans as possible plus sponsorship deals and corporate sales is more valid. Without getting into too deep a discussion I would say that while fans are staying away in their droves due to the dislike of the mismanagement of the club I would say that a fan owned club would surely encourage the fans to come back to support the existance of the club ? Therefore increasing revenue and therefore giving the club more funds under the FFP regulations ?

The Trust was a concept to protect the clubs future, not to win the Premier League or Champions League. That doesnt say that this cant happen but considering the money required in the game the reality is it would be extremely difficult to even compete in the top league. If we have an ownership model that mirrored our previous regime then the need to a Trust would be less, doesnt meant though its not a good idea to have fans part of the fabric of football clubs by owning a percentage.

I think were we differ Wayne is in our expectations of what the community will do. You clearly believe that people will rally round and support the club in greater numbers if the fans own part of it. I look at it from an historical perspective and look at what has happened in the past when the Rovers have been out of the top flight. I also look at what is happening at Accrington where the club is run by people from the community for the community and yet the fans are staying away in increasing numbers because of the lack of success on the pitch due to the need to trim what is spent of player wages.

The great unknown, of course, is how the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City respond. I really don't believe that billionaires who have spent a small fortune in the past few years are going to be dictated to. PSG in France seem to be happy to take money from huge sponsorship deals which suggests they are confident of getting around these rules with regard to UEFA. There are always ways and means of getting around such rules.

I'm sure that the Trust can operate within these rules. Certainly Stanley operate within the Fair Play rules in League One but it is the outcome I have issues with. As I say, Stanley have a dedicated team running the club but the fans are simply staying away because of the impact of the rules on what is put on the pitch on a Saturday afternoon. The rules may ensure Stanley live within their means but they may well ensure that there is no future for them as a Football League club. The irony is that the rules that were supposedly designed to protect them may ultimately destroy them.

[47er]

Not every member will be able to pay the £1000

That's true but I was asking you!

[Stuart]

I think were we differ Wayne is in our expectations of what the community will do. You clearly believe that people will rally round and support the club in greater numbers if the fans own part of it. I look at it from an historical perspective and look at what has happened in the past when the Rovers have been out of the top flight. I also look at what is happening at Accrington where the club is run by people from the community for the community and yet the fans are staying away in increasing numbers because of the lack of success on the pitch due to the need to trim what is spent of player wages.

The great unknown, of course, is how the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City respond. I really don't believe that billionaires who have spent a small fortune in the past few years are going to be dictated to. PSG in France seem to be happy to take money from huge sponsorship deals which suggests they are confident of getting around these rules with regard to UEFA. There are always ways and means of getting around such rules.

I'm sure that the Trust can operate within these rules. Certainly Stanley operate within the Fair Play rules in League One but it is the outcome I have issues with. As I say, Stanley have a dedicated team running the club but the fans are simply staying away because of the impact of the rules on what is put on the pitch on a Saturday afternoon. The rules may ensure Stanley live within their means but they may well ensure that there is no future for them as a Football League club. The irony is that the rules that were supposedly designed to protect them may ultimately destroy them.

You've made some great posts on this topic. I both enjoy and detest reading them!

I think the idea of a level playing field is exposed, as you say, by those clubs who are able to take advantage of the sponsorship route. What's to stop Venkys sponsoring their team by purchasing shirt and stand sponsorship - apart from the obvious?

This would stop owners 'loaning' money to the club but is this permissible? If it is, then even more this means that clubs like Chelsea and Man City will be fine but clubs like Stanley (and Rovers - with unwilling owners) will not.

Football may as well be played on park pitches in terms of the overall competition.

The way to go about this in the interests of both the big clubs and the smaller clubs is not FFP (in it's proposed guise) but to jettison off the 'big 4' to a European league and franchise them off. People say this will kill football but without it, it will die anyway.

(Whilst they'd appreciate the promotion, Stanley are a League Two club, by the way. )

[Mike E]

Martin Samuel's mention of the American redistribution of wealth system got me thinking that the best way to go about Financial Fair Play would simply be: Become an American Sport (in a sense).

Any and all shirts sold outside the catchment area of professional clubs should be distributed amongst the 92 professional clubs, with any merchandise sold within the catchment area going to the club itself. I would term internet purchasing as 'outside the catchment area', to prevent abuse of this system, so that any fan who can buy their team's shirt/merch locally will do so.

It'll help lower clubs and it won't hold back the bigger clubs. The PL should be 'The First Division' rather than being the elitist, egotistical organisation it is.

[PAFELL]

That's true but I was asking you!

To be honest, I do not think I can afford £1000.

£10 to become a member.

[RoversTrust]

Simon Garner Condemns Venky's "Arrogance and Insensitivity" in the latest 'Simon Says' entry:

http://www.roverstrust.com/2013/01/21/club-legend-condemns-owners-arrogance-insensitivity/

[Sparky Marky]

I notice Plymouths fans trust couldn't get £400,000 together to buy 20%. Would this be a managable amount for the rovers trust to come up with?

[Miller11]

I notice Plymouths fans trust couldn't get £400,000 together to buy 20%. Would this be a managable amount for the rovers trust to come up with?

I believe we could raise this amount very quickly. Also, I think it is important to point out the reasoning behind their decision not to pursue the offer - and exactly what the offer entailed. Here is the Argyle Fans' Trust statement...

The AFT Board would like to thank James Brent for his invitation to the Trust to take up a 20% stake in the Club.

We would also like to thank the members who returned forms to express their preference on the recent share offer consultation. The number of Trust members who were eligible to be consulted was 1170. The response rate was fairly low with only around 21% of the membership returning preference forms.

The consultation indicated a small majority in favour of purchasing a shareholding with 128 out of the 238 members that returned forms indicating that they thought investment in the club was desirable.

Given the low response rate and the margin of the majority, we do not feel that this shows sufficient support from the membership for the Trust to invest in Plymouth Argyle in the way in which was proposed by James Brent. The Trust Board does not feel it has the mandate required to commit Trust funds of the magnitude needed based on these results. We therefore propose that the Trust rejects the offer made by James Brent and seeks alternative methods of enshrining supporter engagement with the club.

The results on the question of a Golden or Supporter Share Agreement are more conclusive as are the results of the question as to whether the Trust should discuss with the club the possibility launching a Community Share Scheme. Therefore the AFT Board will now consider these alternatives to formulate a proposal that will be put to James Brent outlining an alternative way of supporters and the club engaging with each other to protect the future of our club.

A Trust spokesperson said:

‘Given that only 11% of the eligible Trust membership expressed a desire to pursue the share offer, the Trust board feels that it cannot justify committing so much supporter time and money to pursuing the offer made by James Brent. In addition, the advice received from Supporters’ Direct and our independent financial advisers is that the offer does not give sufficient influence to supporters for the investment. Having taken this advice and the views of members on board, the Trust board will not be pursuing the offer on the table from James Brent, but will instead be formulating a proposal to enshrine supporters at the heart of our club in a more cost effective and beneficial way for supporters and club alike.’

Share Consultation Results

Question One: Should the Argyle Fans’ Trust take up the current offer to purchase a shareholding in Plymouth Argyle Football Club Limited?

Yes – 128

No – 110

Question Two: If you answered ‘Yes’ to the above question, what level of investment should the Trust target?

5% – 17

10% – 27

15% – 17

20% – 67

Question Three: Should the Argyle Fans’ Trust enter into discussions with Plymouth Argyle Football Club Limited with a view to entering into a Golden or Supporter Share Agreement?

Yes – 193

No – 44

Question Four: Should the Argyle Fans’ Trust enter into discussion with PAFC Ltd with a view to finding a project of benefit to the club and community, for which funds could be raised through a Community Share Scheme?

Yes – 179

No – 54

[Baz]

The FFP thing will go away as soon as it starts up. The biggest clubs in Europe wouldnt qualify, or will have to invent income streams such as the stand sponsorship, so its basically a no-goer.

Regarding Rovers though, a trust could be a excellent way for the fans to engage with their club more, and ensure that decisions are being made for the betterment of the club and not individuals. The trust could secure the assets of Rovers from ever being mortgaged or sold off, protecting this for future generations.

In my mind the trust, at present, could work well as a co-owner, albeit not with Venky's. finding the co-owner and getting Venkys to sell is a massive hurdle though.

[EwoodDawn]

I have tried to be measured and keep my personal views off the message board for fear of them being misconstrued as the views of Rovers Trust. But I'm sorry I'm bursting with anger tonight, as I was last match. How dare the Raos saunter up in their cavalcade of materialistic excess whilst the majority of the country including many Rovers fans are having to make financial cut backs? Have they heard of the word 'recession' or do they choose to be ignorant?

And seeing players like Givet 'unable' to play, plus other squad members like Robinson not being allowed near a match day squad for reasons that Salgado has hinted are contractual. Sheeesh. I could go a lot further but it's probs best I don't. Incensed.

[Sparky Marky]

And seeing players like Givet 'unable' to play, plus other squad menbers like Robinson not being allowed near a match day squad for reasons that Salgado has hinted are contractual. Sheeesh. I could go a lot further but it's probs best I don't. Incensed.

I think Robbo's not been playing for reasons more to do with his fat arse and lack of mobility. Get him off the wage bill...best for both parties.

[Paul]

Deloitte Money League

Chief Executive of Supporters Direct, David Lampitt, today commented on the publication of the Deloitte Money League.

“This year’s Money League report demonstrates the continued power of the cabal of elite European clubs, with the value of broadcasting and commercial rights contributing to significant increases in the earnings of this group.

“Whilst this growth is a considerable achievement in a testing economic environment, it masks some of the more concerning aspects of football’s financial situation, namely: the growing polarisation between the wealthiest clubs and the rest of the football pyramid; the lack of focus on sustainability; the uneven distribution of football’s financial resources; the disconnect between clubs and fans, as recently demonstrated by the issue of away ticket pricing in England.

“Football must not forget that it is ultimately supporters who sustain the game economically – whether through the turnstile or their TV subscription – as well as culturally and emotionally. If clubs are earning more, then that should mean that football becomes more affordable and accessible for all fans, as the furore over the cost of away tickets shows.

“This season has demonstrated that sustainability and affordability do not have to come at the expense of success. Whether it’s Swansea City’s recent achievements, or the success of Bundesliga clubs in Europe, it’s clear that fan involvement works.”

http://www.supporters-direct.org/?news-article=supporters-direct-statement-deloitte-money-league

At the same time the Bundesliga Report 2013 was published:

http://www.supporters-direct.org/?news-article=bundesliga-report-2013-published

think on..................

[Stuart]

Consider some other (rough) stats though:

Bundesliga has 36 clubs and England has 92 league clubs.

82m pop. in Germany compared to 50m pop. in England. (2012)

Equates to: Germany 2.2m people per club; England 0.5m people per club. (Ignoring regional and rural factors).

On average a total of 800k people watched Bundesliga 1 and 300k watched Bundesliga 2 in 2011/12. Total 1.1m supporters.

30k per club. 1.3% of pop.

On average a total of 650k people watch Premier League and 600k watched Football League in 2011/12. Total 1.2m.

13k per club. 2.6% of pop.

I'm not entirely sure what all this means (possibly just a load of random numbers) but we have double the amount of football fans attending English matches than their German counterparts.

DOUBLE.

Conclusion? We simply have too many clubs to compare ourselves with the Bundesliga model.

Solution? Who knows, but it has to involve reducing the number of clubs. (Don't say it, Gordon). In the unlikely event of mergers due to tribalism, some are probably going to go to the wall. Let's hope we aren't one of them...

Sources:

Wiki

http://www.worldfootball.net/zuschauer/eng-premier-league-2011-2012/1/

http://www.emfootball.co.uk/attend.html

[Stuart]

An interesting editorial piece in this month's When Saturday Comes: "Alternative Methods".

It picks up on the Sporting Intelligence poll about ownership and contrasts Rovers with Swansea (as worst and best owners respectively).

Interesting line from it: "Blackburn get more media coverage now that at any time since their title-winning heyday, though it rarely shows them in a good light".

Just goes to show, maybe there is some truth in the old "any publicity" adage. Maybe that's still how Venkys justify their continued ownership. If so, don't it's hard to believe we've heard the last of the sideshow antics.

As an aside: " - in a recent radio interview the club's "global advisor" Shebby Singh achieved the unique distinction of being made to look a fool by Robbie Savage".

About right.

[mhead]

Stuart. Its been obvious for ten years that we have to combine with PNE to make a really good Central Lancs team.

Half out tribe have disappeared now. We have the PNE3 in charge.

Strategic thinking(should have been done from position of strength,not current weakness)

We need Trevor Hemmings.

[ABBEY]

Combine with nobbers ? I'd rather combine saddam and bin laden .