No I know, and I don't take it as a criticism- in fact the conversations on here and on twitter about the Trust are absolutely welcome. The Trust Board need to be challenged, and also fed ideas, as it can't be about 8 people deciding what fans want, we need to hear our members views. But first we need to increase membership- however to do that we need to refocus and set some clear objectives. We'd welcome any ideas and would especially welcome any fans who wish to get more involved to step forward. This process will start with our AGM which should be within 4 weeks and will be widely advertised so as many people attend as possible. We are anything but a closed shop, but people need to want to walk in!
Would it be feasible/realistic to automatically enrol ST holders as an 'associate' Trust member - ie they get on the mailing list, and are then at least communicated with personally. Then if they want to become full members they pay up etc. That raises the question of what is The Trust ? A supporters group or another arm of BFC ? I personally think that needs addressing first, to stop the accusations of self interest and being too 'cosy' with the club.
The two issues I have with fan ownership are 1, the financing of it and not just initial share issues but what would happen if there were budgetary shortfalls and 2, the decision making infrastructure. I'd prefer an owner with several board members of differing skillsets who draw upon the fans for ideas and a sounding board on key things.
Personally speaking for the good of football the best idea would be for all British clubs to follow the most successful league in Europe and adopt the German model of ownership which proves that a proper integrated approach can be very successful.
And the first thing I will personally volunteer to take ownership of, is timely publishing of agenda and minutes, from all meetings
I liked what we used to have. A one member one vote system, with shareholders made up predominantly of Barnsley fans. There was no point buying up loads of shares because even if you had 10,000 of the buggers you only had the same say as a bloke with one. On top of this sat a board of directors, who often put money in to the club to get that place, but they were ultimately accountable to the shareholders who could vote them out. It was a good system that pretty much guaranteed the future of the club and prevented unscrupulous types from buying us up and doing with us what they pleased. Unfortunately, we learnt to our cost that the gulf between pretty much guaranteeing our future and actually guaranteeing our future was as wide as the Grand Canyon and we very nearly went out of business. Patrick Cryne hated the system. Removing it was a condition of him coming on board, which is why his approach was refused. I don't know of course, but I very much doubt he'd be willing to sell to a supporter's collective who would implement something not identical, but very similar. I don't think Mr Cryne believes it's a workable model that can take a football club forward. Mr Cryne will eventually sell, but I believe he'll only do that if he thinks the buyer can offer the football club a secure future. That can never be guaranteed, whoever buys it, but I'd be surprised if he sold to a collective who intend to set up a system he doesn't think can work. He's far more likely to sell to someone who he genuinely believe will take the club forward. That doesn't mean his judgement is right, but it does mean he won't sell to anyone he has doubts about because he cares about the future of the club. I think that's probably the main reason he's still in ownership.
Would it be fair to say that to some extent supporters trusts have lost their usefulness to both the club and the supporter? In the modern world, if a club wants to know what its fans are thinking, it only has to have a look at the fan boards, facebook, twitter et all. No need for regular meetings with a group of people who, all although well meaning, cannot give the same volume of feedback as the internet. Similary as a supporter you know if you want to get something valid across, you can put on the web and if the club dont pick up on it, some enterprising journo will, and before you know it the smart new media savvy chief exec will be giving feedback on the radio and t'internet.
There's a lot of truth in that yes. Trusts can have a great impact if a club is in trouble, or if they had, say, a dictatorial foreign owner such as at Hull. But when things are in the main seemingly well, as at BFC at the minute, it is harder for a Trust to get a rallying call for fans to respond to. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Om not sure on the supporter owned club issue butI definitely think that the ground should be owned by the fans
And this is my concern. Supporters, in my opinion, should be organising when the times are good rather than rallying when it goes up **** creek. But it's not an easy message to give.
Organising themselves to what ends? In a football world dominated by cash, what difference can a few thousand well meaning, but relatively poor, supporters make? You are competing with sheiks, oligarchs and gamblers willing to bankrupt clubs on a whim. Even a multi millionaire owner pumping piles of money in to the club over the years hasnt made that big a difference. I dont want to sound defeatist, but im not sure what you can do to make a change?
I'm not talking about the money. I'm saying that a well run and organised Trust with a decent size membership base has to be listened to by the powers that be. Whoever they are.
Well youve got a challenge there, because as I mentioned before, the internet has given each supporter a voice, which rightly or wrongly the club do take notice of. My guess is that most folks now believe that they dont have to pay to join a trust to make themselves heard any louder.
I agree RE social media but as ever, a single 'union' has much more power than a single voice. I know not everyone will always agree but a strong Trust can't be a bad thing.
It's my opinion that the Cryne 'family' will own BFC for many more years to come. I therefore see no way (Jay explains why) for supporters to be involved at board level etc.
