2 owners as one?

[melv]

After a debate elsewhere.What would the opinion be of both potential owners joining together as one.

 

They could together have more money for the club.Which would without doubt be good for the club.But should it happen and both parties put in the same amount then who would get the call on a split decision? Maybe the CEO.(who hasn't put any money in to the club) Would such a situation lead in-house problems? Not forgetting V2001 who didn't agree on some issues and worked against each other, did things without other people on the board knowing.

[Woakesy]

No chance. We need one owner (company or individual). Smurthwaite could have been a success if he'd been a completely different person.

 

Sent from my CUBOT ECHO using the onevalefan mobile app

[valetillidye]

No, no, no

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bertiepee]

When I brought my little shop would I have liked to buy a shop double the size with someone else , NO , I own my little shop lock stock and barrel and make my own decisions, likewise when I brought my house would I of liked buying a bigger house and having shared ownership , NO . If I could afford to buy a football club on my own I would do so ,if I couldn't I would then go the way of adding my funds with a consortium.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using onevalefan

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

No thanks.

[Martino Knockavelli]

Oh no. Just the Kevin Jones Consortium for me.

[PVTony]

Either one or a consortium of both.

 

Just as long as they don't 'LOAN' the club money, but invest into a gradual progress of making Port Vale a successful Championship club

[elav trop 1876]

interesting thread as it actually sorts 2 questions,

 

1) Would joint owners merged from separate bids be a good idea?

 

2) If people say its too many cooks and need a sole owner then surely a consortium is going to be the least fancied

[Heatwave]

It would depend on whether the parties concerned had the same vision for the club or not. We've only learned about the second bid recently and don't know whether they've actually spoken to each other, let alone determined a shared vision.

[1977Valiant]

Here are some of the points made for and against the idea which was debated elsewhere.

 

For:

 

• More funding

• More business skill sets on the board

• More contacts (leading to more sponsors etc...)

• Decisions made with a board rather than just an individual

 

All the above could lead to a better run and funded club. In the debate it's was raised that once Wildes left Smurf was in a position where his mad cap decisions weren't ever challenged, had he still got someone to question his decisions and play devils advocate, then Smurf would perhaps not have been able to get rid of the manager and players and bring the foreign legion in, therefore, last season could have ended up very differently.

 

Against

 

• possible boardroom arguments

• who would decide on which role the board members s had she such a chairman

• who has casting vote on split board decisions

 

However, if Synectics and Manor made a joint bid then this presents a possible new issue that if there were an even number of board members let's say 3 from each company, then who would make the casting decision in the event that a vote was split? This is where the debate turned to the idea of using whoever the employed CEO is at the time, thus keeping confidential details in house.

[Fosse69]

Vale were always run by a board of directors,(Pre-Bell) who came and went/retired, contributed skills, contacts, money. Usually took it in turns to be chairmen as the had the time, inclination, ability etc. Some clubs are still run that way. They have to be united in a common cause, resolve their disputes and move on or out if they cant. As people say, more hands make light work, two heads are better than one, or there can only be one hand on the tiller. You take your choice, there is always more than one answer. Early days yet.

[melv]

Kevin's plans

 

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/port-vale-kevin-jones-reveals-plans-after-offering-1-25m-for-club/story-30317330-detail/story.html

[PV1993]

Some of the answers on here I assume mean that some people don't want Jones' bid either as his us already as part of a consortium?

 

Personally I think it would be a good idea, as long as there are no egos.

 

They all claim to want what's best for not just Vale but for the local area - all being local business people.

 

I can't see what would be wrong about this IF all parties agree to it.

 

It would be interesting to hear if The Sentinel could pose this question to them.

[sinnott2spinnit]

Oh no. Just the Kevin Jones Consortium for me.

 

Any particular reason why please?

[i vale]

Not sure about the idea of Brian Horton coming back

He was a very good player and ok manager but is 68. Don't think any decent manager would want to work with a dof anyway. Do we need another property speculator after enduring the current owner of the club ?