Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater – a message for Dave Felstead

[Andyregs]

Im on the mobile, and cant quote the intial post, but its a fine example of how i believe a silent minority of the clubs supporters feel.

 

With regards to the question posed. I cant see the breaks being put on and all avenues explored and i dont think Mo Chaudry will settle for anything other than total control. The best hope for Mo sceptics is a significant investment from Mark Sims that will see him act as a gaudian against our Chaudry fears.

 

The board had a chance to go for this. They could have left with a little dignity. And with no one being able to claim the club wasn't safe. THey responded with lies, smears and self preservation. Good riddance to them.

[saintvaliant]

Interesting political analogy and a useful argument, I think.

As with the current wider economic crisis I think we've seen socialism fail, but we've also seen the unfettered free market fail. People are looking to the Keynesian type stuff about private ownership with tight outside regulation. Getting back to your "combination" idea, that's basically what I'm proposing as my ideal solution - 24.9% proxied (assuming Robbie's willingness to do that longer term) to an accountable fan's organisation, 24.9% to a successful Vale fan / businessman (Simms) 24.9% to a particularly wealthy entrepreneur with deep pockets and something to prove, 25.3% to others. That gives a much smaller, more mobile and accountable board (say three people) as well as protecting "the community" from unregulated / unsafe business practice. Problem is... could we sell that idea to Chaudry?

I think we should at the very least be pausing to negotiate, and I'm anxious that a new interim board might act in haste without doing so. I happen to think getting the structure right is more important than getting every last penny we can out of Chaudry.

 

Personally, I think we have to accept that anyone who wants to invest, unless they are a die hard fan, will want an element of control.

 

I actually think Mo has been quite open on this front. He wants to have a majority holding but has never shut the door on others chipping in - if others invest, including the smallest of shareholders, Mo will have to keep putting his hand in his pocket to maintain his position. That to me is a win win because the club continues to benefit from increase shareholder capital, which hopefully helps to stabilise the finances and to help rebuild the club.

 

I agree that the interim board should be asked to look at all options however Chaudry is still the only bid on the table. If the board had the wherewithal to attract a rival package surely it would have been seen by now? So we are then looking at an outsider because our most prominent supporters - Williams, Taylor, Sims appear to be advocating change in one form or another.

 

I don't see a long queue forming to invest at any League 2 club so we have to try to come to a position of compromise. For me that is wealthy investor and fans coming together for the greater good.

 

I've spoken to Mo a couple of times very informally at the club. I have no doubt that there is at least some part of him that is in this for the ego trip. I also however believe him when he says he wants to give something back. don't for one second believe that a man with land available at Festival Park wants to try to make money out of the land at Vale Park.

 

Sometimes in life you have to take a leap of faith.

 

After Wednesday, whatever follows will not be Easy Street. We have years of rebuilding ahead should the vote go the right way. We have to embrace whatever assets we have at our disposal to do that. For me, Chaudry, TLB and Sims are an asset and are potentially the start of something bigger.

 

We have to grasp the bull by the horns, back the excellent work of some many people over the last 6 months and take the plunge.

 

If the last 6 months have shown me anything about the people who follow this club it's that when we work for a common goal we can achieve. For too long we let this slide away in silence. Quite simply, we cannot let this chance pass us by.

[Jacko51]

I suppose where I differ is in that I don't equate (or maybe just don't want to equate) the board's abuse of the principles with the idea that they must be fundamentally unworkable.

I agree that the argument "it doesn't work" has its strengths - probably the change away from one shareholder = one vote was prompted by an inability to get investment in on that basis rather than some Machiavellian plot to gain control.

 

The move away from one man one vote happened at the EGM to remove Messrs Machin and Wakefield - it was indeed a Machiavellian plot to keep Mr Bratt and Co in the Board Room.

[Valiant62]

The move away from one man one vote happened at the EGM to remove Messrs Machin and Wakefield - it was indeed a Machiavellian plot to keep Mr Bratt and Co in the Board Room.

 

Fair enough, Jean - I bow to your encyclopaedic knowledge :D

 

As a separate issue - do you think one person (note I'm not sexist like what you are) one vote is workable?

[Macc Lad]

Slight aside, but wasn't Forest run for many years by a committee of supporters, rather than a board of directors? Seem to remember something along those lines. Maybe that is still the case today (can't be bothered to check!)?

 

Following on from the mentions of the socialist model, perhaps we could get the John Lewis Partnership to take over PVFC? Or in the Potteries, maybe Normid might be more appropriate?

[Fosse69]

Forgive me if I'm being a bit simplistic in the suggestion, but wouldn't it be worth floating the idea to adopt the German model of ownership (iirc its 49% shares protected to the fans of the club) to the constitution, rather than the 24.9% rule in place?

 

Would that allay the fears of people that are genuinely worried about Mo?

 

Excellent idea, after all MC has stated he wanted 51%, maybe more later. He would always have the final say, as fans bought more shares he could top up. I assume the Germans being Germans have a organised method of controlling the system. Ensures that fans always have a say in things, if not the final word, which in thier case is buying season tickets. I think that by now MC knows what we are about. We expect him to run a football business, and not to be a sugar daddy, but we are willing to contribute to the running of the club in various ways to ensure success.

[SourceOfTheTrent]

The availability of Robbie's proxy to the supporters club is clearly a game changer. Dave's (aka Andy Jones?) views are pretty well documented, but I believe his responsibility is to only represent them in his own vote if he has shares and to make genuine attempts to start from scratch in getting a consensus from those who make their voices heard tomorrow, and vote with that majority whether he likes it personally or not. We're all assuming an outcome of that meeting but I think Dave should suspend that assumption.

If the vote does go in the direction of change, again, from a personal point of view, I'd like us to make the most of this golden opportunity.

I still subscribe to the general principles of V2001 and would like any interim board to explore the best way of reconstructing the club structure to re-establish some of those values. When the Mo =24.9, Mark = 24.9 offer was on the table, that was the outcome I most liked the look of. Chaudry has money and has been a net success, but like any entrepreneur has some failures in amongst that. The going will get tough at some point and entrepreneurs do often walk away at that point. I hear all the assurances but if he's successful in getting in it will take a while for me to build trust and that trust will come when he responds to a crisis, not when things are going well. Mark Simms' pockets aren't as deep, but for me he carries the credibility of having supported the club in an altruistic manner in the past. I'd like Robbie to maintain a 24.9% interest with his proxy given to the supporters club. There would be issues to guard against in that scenario around the supporters' club's representiveness and accountability and I think that may involve revisiting the checks and balances in how that is assured, but the outcome of that sort of model would give us the “old V2001” (if it ever existed) back.

The question is, would people settle for less money from Chaudry and would he settle for less than 51% control.

I reckon this time next week, we'll have an interim board. If that happens, I really want to see them put the brakes on and have a wide ranging discussion / negotiation about the way forward. It will be a great opportunity - if we hand over 51% to Chaudry, that's a pretty final sale of the family silver (admittedly for the greatest short term investment) and might not be the best long term sustainable deal we can get. I hope we don't rush into bed with him without getting a ring on our finger.

 

The best post I've seen on here for ages.

 

We all know the club has not been well run in recent years but I also think the current board have been somewhat 'over-demonised'. Additionally, I am fairly dubious about Mo Chaudry's motivations, the reality of which will only be seen if he gains control of the club, although I do have more faith in Mark Simms because he's a proven, genuine fan with obvious business acumen. My biggest fear is ownership of the ground being separated from the club and then leased back, or something similar; this type of scenario has been carried out and has been consistently disasterous at quite a few clubs, such as Brighton, Rotherham, Bradford and Stockport.

 

The power of the Supporters' Club vote is now hugely significant and I really hope it's used in a thoughtful manner. Once an individual has 51% or more they can easily and rapidly become the new Billy Bell or, worse, **** Knight.

[Fosse69]

The best post I've seen on here for ages.

 

We all know the club has not been well run in recent years but I also think the current board have been somewhat 'over-demonised'. Additionally, I am fairly dubious about Mo Chaudry's motivations, the reality of which will only be seen if he gains control of the club, although I do have more faith in Mark Simms because he's a proven, genuine fan with obvious business acumen. My biggest fear is ownership of the ground being separated from the club and then leased back, or something similar; this type of scenario has been carried out and has been consistently disasterous at quite a few clubs, such as Brighton, Rotherham, Bradford and Stockport.

 

The power of the Supporters' Club vote is now hugely significant and I really hope it's used in a thoughtful manner. Once an individual has 51% or more they can easily and rapidly become the new Billy Bell or, worse, **** Knight.

 

How much would you put in without 51% control, 51% works in Germany they have no problems. But is not RWs proxy just for the first EGM?

[VantaaVale]

I'm maybe getting ahead of myself here, but anyway...

 

One of the serious failings of the current board has been communication. Either there is none or it is inaccurate, leaving it open for interpretation. As an example, the Sentinel reported last Monday on the AmeriTurf investment that "The investment would be in the form of a £400,000 purchase of new shares and a £100,000 interest-free loan". No mention was made of the loan being converted into shares. A crucial detail, which came out later on the official site. The problem was that many missed this detail and were convinced that this was a £100K loan repayable in cash to AmeriTurf. Now I know this was a communication from the Sentinel, but the club must have reported it to them and should have ensured it was reported accurately.

 

If Mo is to get into the Chairman's seat, it is vital that the new team sets realistic targets and take regular checkpoints of where they are against where they thought they would be. Then, regardless of the situation, they should communicate this to the shareholders and supporters, which will earn them alot of respect.

 

What I saw on the Colchester United site yesterday from their CEO, regarding their budget for next season and the four seasons following, was like a breath of fresh air. Every Colchester supporter is aware of what the plan is going forward. This is the kind of thing I'd like to see of any new board.

 

If communication is poor, rumours will run rife, statements will be closely examined and if things don't look good either with results on the pitch or when the annual accounts are presented, serious questions will be asked. This is when tensions between supporters and board can get strained.

 

We're all in this together and it has amazed me what fan power can achieve. The acid test for a new board comes when things don't go to plan. This is what worries me (a little) about having a single person in control of the club, as that person may close ranks and just do things his way.

 

I would really hope that a new board will seriously listen to supporters and that criticism is accepted as part of the journey to success.

 

What I don't want to hear are statements like "people don't know what goes on behind the scenes of a football club" and for the Chairman to be continuously stating he is considering his position. What kind of signals does this send out to the supporters and the staff?

[Mr Carter]

Well said, Valiant 62. At last someone has put into words the niggling concerns I have felt about those on OVF who have wholeheartedly swallowed just one approach to the future of the club. I'm still really not happy about one person having so much control and just because the V2001 model did not work out with the current board, it doesn't mean that something along similar lines or a hybrid could not succeed.

 

Like you I hope minds are open to different models of running our club and not just one narrow option.

 

Problem is one person runs the club now as a dictatorship.......Peter Jackson

[SourceOfTheTrent]

How much would you put in without 51% control, 51% works in Germany they have no problems. But is not RWs proxy just for the first EGM?

 

I have no issue with an individual owning the club, especially if it's a Jack Walker, but if you get someone like Richard Knight the club will be systematically stripped of its assets and may well be luck to survive. Two extreme examples but both real life examples.

[SourceOfTheTrent]

Oh, I also should have added that German clubs do have problems. I have German friends who are Arminia Bielefeld fans and in the past three years they've gone from the Bundesliga to getting relegated to the third division at the end of this season. Through some woeful financial decisions they were lucky to have a club at all this year as 12 months ago it was touch and go if they survived.

[NW9Valiant]

Oh, I also should have added that German clubs do have problems. I have German friends who are Arminia Bielefeld fans and in the past three years they've gone from the Bundesliga to getting relegated to the third division at the end of this season. Through some woeful financial decisions they were lucky to have a club at all this year as 12 months ago it was touch and go if they survived.

 

Yes there's always the odd case or the exception, but I think adopting a 'German model' would help, to be honest. Mo would have 51% control but there would still be the fans protecting the club with their shares so he would still be answerable to the shareholders and fans if the fans have some say in how the club is run*. Isn't that what people have been wanting all along?

 

Certainly to me it makes more sense. Just look at Kroenke trying with his Arsenal takeover, the AST wouldn't sell their shares because they still want their say in the club (Kroenke needs 75% to conduct a restructuring of the clubs operations). End of the day the opportunity is here to make change, let's make it a good one. Fans can still have a say in their club....

 

EDIT = *Just like V2001 in the end. I think Mo would be wanting to run the club with the support of the fans, as his campaign bid's been conducted so far. So I don't think it's losing control to one man, as he would lose out if anything went wrong.

[Fosse69]

I have no issue with an individual owning the club, especially if it's a Jack Walker, but if you get someone like Richard Knight the club will be systematically stripped of its assets and may well be luck to survive. Two extreme examples but both real life examples.

 

Stoke have a Jack Walker, we are looking at a football business model, quite rare, although Colchester are on the same lines I think. It has to be a partnership between the fans and the business provider of investment and expertise. We have the value of the football(we hope), where does the value for the provider come in? He needs to ensure his funds are used effectively, how much control will he be happy with? If he is impressed with the support given, and enjoys the project and the football, who knows? Hope it is sorted before the season starts.

[Pete T]

:D I can't deny a little bit of prejudice about the fact that Mo's a Toryboy.

Seriously, though, 49% I'm entirely comfortable with, 51% and I start getting nervous. If it was the only deal we could negotiate so be it, but I think that's a weaker position.

By the same token, I do like the idea of two or three people having 24.9% of the shares (or even Chaudry having 49.9%) because I don't think a cast of thousands would run (has run) the club well.

 

As a point of information: Robbie HAD 24.9% at the time he bought shares. Now he has 21% ish. Mo will have (hopefully) 51% AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. As more shares are sold (I will buy some more, as others too I believe) then that gets diluted mathematically. If he keeps topping up to maintain 51% we have a virtuous circle.

 

Just a thought.