Supporter Ownership

I've mentioned this before but I'm interested in people's thoughts.

I had a conversation with Gally & Owen from the Trust on Twitter last night where it was explained that Supporter Ownership is not one of the Trust's current aims. Seems that a few years ago there was a vote and it was agreed.

My question is this - in an ideal World, would you want our club to be wholly owned & ran by supporters?

This isn't a slight on Mr Cryne as we all know he's a supporter, however, I don't believe having a football club supported by 10s of thousands of people being in the ownership of one man is right. Appreciate it's not as simple as that but there has to be a starting point - would people want that?

 

How many community clubs are there in the football league?

 

Wimbledon are the main example, Swansea being one where the Trust sit on the board and own a stake.

 

Nope

Because 'supporter' representation or ownership will only ever represent the views of a few supporters.

 

I think the Swansea model would be more suitable for BFC. The supporters need (deserve?) to have more influence over the club but I'm not sure about complete ownership.

 

Yes, but we couldn't afford it and we couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

And then there are the practicalities of it. There'd have to be a board of directors elected from within the ownership. You can't have 10,000 people voting on everything from how many bog rolls we order to who we should sign to play up front. Anyone who put themselves forward for such a position would be instantly hated by a significant proportion of other members of the ownership. Because that's what we do. If you don't think that's true ask any board member past or present or anyone who has been on the exec committee of either the official supporter's club or the supporter's trust. And when the first contract is signed, along with the first confidentiality agreement, get ready to try to explain that one to 10,000 people who think, quite rightly, that they should know exactly the same as the exec members. Plus, of course, power corrupts and those elected start to think better of themselves, so some of the criticism is actually fair.

Then there's the irrational behaviour of all football fans. There were calls for Flitcroft's head within a month of the new season starting by the same people who demanded he be offered a contract at the end of the previous season. Wilson was afforded about the same time. These people don't see their views as irrational, which is kind of the point. It's bad enough when you get this from fans, but we're paying punters, so we demand our say, but you'd start to get such views from people who actually owned the club! "Kennedy you ******* wnaker, come and sit up here with me" exclaimed the club secretary.

Speaking of paying punters, good luck with getting people who own the club to buy tickets. "I own the ******* place, I'm not paying to get in!"

If you could raise the money, which you won't be able to.

Sorry for being a negative nellie.

 

Not negative, realistic.

 

All absolutely fair.

My point though is there has to be a start. Would people want it? If so, then there can be discussions about the rest later. Understand the pit falls and challenges but that can get in the way of even starting something.

 

I think the Swansea model is an excellent one. Also Portsmouth a similar area in terms of socio economic deprivation and with a similar canvases seem to be doing very well now the fans are in charge.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

And that's before we discuss getting football fans to agree on owt. Bobby Hassell is crap, one of the best players we've had, should have been shown the door a couple of years ago, should have been offered a new contract and it's a disgrace that he hasn't, is a club legend, is an average player at best, are the views of just a handful of Barnsley fans, never mind 10,000. And that's when discussing the merits of a really genial bloke who has been here 10 years. It's probably the least contentious issue we could face, yet we've seen extreme opinions on both sides and the direction the club is taking brought in to question. What would happen if we faced a really thorny issue, like whether we should go with meat and potato or steak and kidney for instance? If it could happen, which it won't, there'd be murders within the first month.

 

Re: Nope

A few more than currently where the opinion of only one man matters.

 

To achieve what Dyson ?

We have the BFCST who I thought were supposed to have dialogue with the club.

Can't add anymore than what Jay has said.

 

Re: Nope

Alright, let's have 50 views.

Still representative of the fanbase ?

 

To bring supporters closer to the club that they've supported all their lives and make them feel important rather than a customer. Give them a say in how things are run.

Wouldn't be easy. Far from it. Jay's post only outlines the first 10% of the challenges but my original point was to understand if people would want it, regardless of the problems.

 

People will see Portsmouth and look only at their league position. Yet I imagine lots of Portsmouth supporters feel closer and more connected to their club than they have in years.

 

I'd start with something smaller, like trying to get a supporter's representative on the board for example. It'll give you a clue what you're up against. For a start, the club won't even enter into discussions with you about it. If you get that far, you'll then be patronised and fobbed off. If you persuade them to do it (after all, what you've achieved with WSB is pretty miraculous, so I don't want to write you off altogether, you've clearly got a lot about you) you then have to elect someone to take up the position. Who will become the most hated person in Barnsley.

And which supporters will this person represent? Will they represent Hemsworth Tyke who believes footballers should be paid handsomely, that good players only come from the academies of Premier League clubs or our own academy and that loyalty to our club from experienced players is to be frowned upon. Do they represent people who believe the way forward is to attract rich business men to take over the club and if that results in a change of colours or a move away from Oakwell and even a change of name then so be it. Do they represent people like me who doesn't want any outside investment, who believes that the club should be self-sufficient and believes that our history is all we've got. I don't know how you represent the concerns of football fans when everyone has such disparate ideals.

 

I think it'd do exactly the opposite - the supporters unable or unwilling to be part owners, subscribe to the 'new' ownership would be just as disenfranchised, possibly even more so. Because then I guarantee that they'd be told when they complained that they should have signed up to it, and thus have no right to moan.

It's a lovely fluffy idea that we all are part of a BFC 'collective' but you are dealing with human beings - and in particular football fans, so any rationality goes straight out of the window.

Also what is the ultimate aim ? To get back to The Championship ? Hope all the new owners have deep pockets, cos that ain't happening on gates of 8000 and good wishes alone.

 

I'm not advocating anyone for anything, mate.

I'm only looking to understand if people want it. If they do, as a member of the Trust I'll put a motion together at the next AGM to state that The Trust will look to make it a dedicated aim.

The Trust has to be the place/organisation to do it. That's what they were created for.

And understand your point RE place on the board, however, that for me is a compromise. People talk about the club settling and not aiming high, why would we just state a goal of a place on the board that would quite probably be over ruled by the existing members?

 

How many members does the BFCST have ?