Share Liverpool

[FC Showster]

Can anyone explain why an individual share price was set so high and with a limit of one share per person? Why didn't they go for £1,000 per share with a limit of 5% of total shares per person to try to oust H+G and put Liverpool back in the hands of true fans?

 

There may be a good reason for it but to me it seems like they missed a trick to get rich supporters, including possibly some current players, involved.

 

Feel free to shoot this down

[MFletcher]

They should have brought in 'rich' fans to begin with. They'd have put the money up to get the current owners out. They'd then have issued the shares - one per person - to fans in order to get their money back over a period of time. Fan ownership without forcing people to put the money together up front.

[Cam]

I think the plans for shares have reduced to £500.

 

And one share per person is the right way to go. If you're gonna have fan ownership it's got to be equal. I wouldn't want to invest in the club and then find I own less than Angelina Jolie's kid. 'Tis the true co-operative spirit.

[aka Dus]

Membership ownership requires equal voting shares.

 

The way to bring cash in is to incentivise those rich fans to run for office a la Spain by investing cash - IF attracting rich fans is the ambition.

 

Whatever way SL go about it, ultimately the club needs to be a 1 vote per member if fan ownership is to be achieved.

[Rimbeux]

True co-operative might be a nice ideal some decades from now, but this was always going to be about a few individuals with the experience and resources to pull this off, driven by a feeling for the club. Share Liverpool seem to be completely against that notion, instead fixing on a fantasy that would never work.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Rimbeux

[aka Dus]

True co-operative might be a nice ideal some decades from now, but this was always going to be about a few individuals with the experience and resources to pull this off, driven by a feeling for the club. Share Liverpool seem to be completely against that notion, instead fixing on a fantasy that would never work.

 

In fairness to SL, exploring all options must have been the main purpose of the existence of SL so far.

[growler]

I think some sort of hybrid is the way to go. Get someone like Purslow, experienced, fan, connected, to front some through a consortium of fans, investors etc, get ShareLiverpool to front the other to get hold of the club. Then have an agreed plan for sale of the consortium shares to the shareliverpool plan

 

Even if we start with 15% ownership and gradually work our way to 51%, that would be fine.

 

I would think we would have 100mil for 40% as fans wouldn't we? Or even outbid the Rhone group by offering 100mil for 36%? ESpecially if we got people like Fowler involved. Also if we got some of the current players too. Gerrard, Carra, Torres, Reina would all 'invest' into the club I would think.

[fyds]

They should have brought in 'rich' fans to begin with. They'd have put the money up to get the current owners out. They'd then have issued the shares - one per person - to fans in order to get their money back over a period of time. Fan ownership without forcing people to put the money together up front.

Yes - get a group together to buy the club first, then sell to the fans over a given period - only chance it ever has of working.

[stressederic]

I've said it before, but one of the people who would have the cash to invest in such a consortium is David Moores.

[MFletcher]

I've said it before, but one of the people who would have the cash to invest in such a consortium is David Moores.

 

Indeed. Maybe I'm living in the clouds with that idea, but the likes of Moores, Miskelly, any number of ex-players could have put up the initial cash, or at least a sizeable portion before borrowing the rest, and then issued shares in the manner of ShareLiverpool's ultimate goal once they'd actually acquired the club.

 

Getting fans to put £5,000 up front, and needing tens or thousands to do it, was never a feasible plan.

[meepins]

Getting fans to put £5,000 up front, and needing tens or thousands to do it, was never a feasible plan.

That's why it was revised to 500 instead of 5000.

[MFletcher]

Meaning ten times as many fans had to commit, making it even more unlikely.

[aka Dus]

Its not as unlikely t happen or difficult to envisage if Uefa enforce fan ownership regulations from above, rather than a new membership-ownership model being a popular movement inspired from below.

 

In which case, the work SL (and hopefully SOS) have done will not be wasted but rather give us some intellectual capital as a head start in how to organise ourselves in this area in the future.

 

All ifs and buts and maybes but the only people who seem to want the status quo to continue are the owners themselves - across many clubs.

[meepins]

Meaning ten times as many fans had to commit, making it even more unlikely.

I don't think it's that unlikely really. It's not a particularly large sum of money and considering the size of our fanbase, I find it quite feasible to generate the money. The main problem is marketing it properly to the fans and getting them interested enough to make the purchase.

[Billy Dane]

Share Liverpool = amateur operation to date. Ridiculous idea to expect the average fan to cough up 5k with no return. As M Fletcher said they should have gone after the rich fans from day one, not as if we haven't got any.

[RP]

I know of a couple of appropriately qualifed ad connected people who offered sevices (free, of course) to Share Liverpool - never even got an acknowledgement.

 

Run by Rogan Taylor for the benefit of ... Rogan Taylor.

[New York Red]

I think the plans for shares have reduced to £500.

 

And one share per person is the right way to go. If you're gonna have fan ownership it's got to be equal. I wouldn't want to invest in the club and then find I own less than Angelina Jolie's kid. 'Tis the true co-operative spirit.

 

And the value of the club is about 350 million.

 

Which works to to be how many fans buying shares?

 

Indeed. Maybe I'm living in the clouds with that idea, but the likes of Moores, Miskelly, any number of ex-players could have put up the initial cash, or at least a sizeable portion before borrowing the rest, and then issued shares in the manner of ShareLiverpool's ultimate goal once they'd actually acquired the club.

 

Getting fans to put £5,000 up front, and needing tens or thousands to do it, was never a feasible plan.

 

And so getting 500 up front and getting hundreds of thousands of fans to do it makes more sense?

[aka Dus]

Share Liverpool = amateur operation to date. Ridiculous idea to expect the average fan to cough up 5k with no return. As M Fletcher said they should have gone after the rich fans from day one, not as if we haven't got any.

 

Ah here. No return??? Ownership of the club is no return to you?

[fyds]

Its not as unlikely t happen or difficult to envisage if Uefa enforce fan ownership regulations from above, rather than a new membership-ownership model being a popular movement inspired from below.

 

In which case, the work SL (and hopefully SOS) have done will not be wasted but rather give us some intellectual capital as a head start in how to organise ourselves in this area in the future.

 

All ifs and buts and maybes but the only people who seem to want the status quo to continue are the owners themselves - across many clubs.

The problem for UEFA is that this is essentially pie in the sky as most clubs in most european leagues are in the hands of individuals, long-held families or as part of the business portfolio of some multinational or soncortium etc - what legal power could they swing to change this? To get Berlusconi to give up AC MIlan, Abramovich Chelsea, Mansour City or the Glazers United, Hicks and Gillett Liverpool or that non-specific group of Diamond merchants who own a large chunk of Ajax just for starters without even delving into the complex ownership of other clubs - many of which are owned outside of the EU?

 

It can be inspired from wherever they want, but the legal changes of internationaly on the ownership of businesses (which is what football clubs have long been) is not going to happen and Platini certainly can't do it. UEFA don't own the clubs, they just make the laws of the game and we would be back to breakaway leagues or groups like the premiership just sailing away from them.

[aka Dus]

The problem for UEFA is that this is essentially pie in the sky as most clubs in most european leagues are in the hands of individuals, long-held families or as part of the business portfolio of some multinational or soncortium etc - what legal power could they swing to change this? To get Berlusconi to give up AC MIlan, Abramovich Chelsea, Mansour City or the Glazers United, Hicks and Gillett Liverpool or that non-specific group of Diamond merchants who own a large chunk of Ajax just for starters without even delving into the complex ownership of other clubs - many of which are owned outside of the EU?

 

It can be inspired from wherever they want, but the legal changes of internationaly on the ownership of businesses (which is what football clubs have long been) is not going to happen and Platini certainly can't do it. UEFA don't own the clubs, they just make the laws of the game and we would be back to breakaway leagues or groups like the premiership just sailing away from them.

 

Right, perhaps I should have more accurately said Uefa/governments/the EU. But we've seen even today stories reporting that the government is considering implementing ownership rules in the UK. And the German govt until recently legislated for 51% of German clubs to be fan owned. And when the Spanish govt passed legislation regarding club ownership being a mandatory plc in the 90s, they made exceptions for Barca, Madrid, Bilbao and Osasuna.

 

I think you may underestimate the strength of the clubs. I think it's fair to say that a lot of the assumptions we could make about the power clubs have 5 years ago no longer apply to the same extent. The clubs cant do as they please is the fans won't support their off pitch moves and I think it's not for sure the fans would support clubs who would rebel against the concept of fan ownership. (Maybe the apathy we have seen in the support of SL and SOS prove me wrong, of course)

[aka Dus]

Disbelievers take note. SL take note. Kudos to the Rangers Supporters Trust for getting this far.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/28/rangers-supporters-group-takeover

 

Rangers supporters group take tentative steps towards takeover

• Rangers Supporters Trust submit 'exploratory document'

• Trust won't reveal whether Scotland's richest man is involved

 

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 March 2010 12.46 BST

 

The Rangers manager Walter Smith and his staff have been working without contracts since January to ease the club's financial pressure. Photograph: Lynne Cameron/PA

 

The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST) today confirmed they had submitted an "exploratory document" to the club with the aim of taking over Sir David Murray's majority shareholding. But they refused to reveal whether Jim McColl was involved in the scheme following reports the Trust had held talks with the entrepreneur, who – with an estimated fortune of £800m – is said to be Scotland's richest man.

 

Any RST plan would involve some degree of fan ownership, which is the ultimate aim of the Trust. But a takeover of the club, who are £31m in debt, would need to be underwritten by either a wealthy individual or consortium.

 

"At this point, it's an exploratory document only," said the RST spokesman, David Edgar. "We can't comment on speculation over any names mentioned with regard to underwriting or backing the scheme. And we stress that all discussions must remain private and are at a very early stage."

 

Describing talks both with the club and potential backers as "positive", Edgar insisted it was "too early to say" whether the RST proposal would ultimately end in a takeover bid. "Rangers find themselves in extraordinary circumstances and, at the moment, it's pertinent to assess all options," he added. "Anything the Trust does, we study to make sure it's viable before we go down that path."

 

The London-based property tycoon Andrew Ellis was this month revealed to be considering a bid for Rangers. Edgar insisted Ellis' interest had no effect on the Trust's plans, adding: "At the moment, discussions are ongoing with all parties who would be involved with the scheme.

 

"This is another step towards what the Trust has been working on and continues to work towards, which is full supporter ownership. It hasn't come about overnight."

 

Last year saw the RST invite representatives of Espanyol and Hamburg to Ibrox to discuss their members-run models. Rangers have been working to a business plan in conjunction with Lloyds Banking Group since Murray stepped down as chairman in August. The influence of Lloyds has sparked protests from supporters at some matches this season.

 

The club's manager, Walter Smith, and his backroom staff have been working without contracts since January in a bid to ease the financial pressure on the club. He has also not recruited any new players since August 2008.

[Knox_Harrington]

In fairness to SL, exploring all options must have been the main purpose of the existence of SL so far.

You are more optimistic than I am.

[matty]

Could we find 700,000 people around the world willing to put £500 each up?

 

Probably.

[anfield11]

Could we find 700,000 people around the world willing to put £500 each up?

 

Probably.

 

 

I agree, but things would move a lot quicker if a system could be arrived at where some individuals could ante up £500,000 to £5,000,000 each. Even if rules were set up that the shares were none transferable, other than to a direct family member. We must have enough wealthier supporters who would get involved principally for the love of the club?

[Molby]

the project is stymied because there is no provision for people to buy differing amounts of shares and for that shareholding to be reflected in voting rights

 

obviously the above would allow for someone to assume control, in some fairy land of make believe of course; but we could get around that by imposing certain covenants on what can be done, eg gearing ratios, salaries, rules of conduct when applying for a board or committee position ( eg you can't campaign on the basis of saying things like "I will sign Messi")

 

these ideas have been put forward but have fallen on deaf ears