The Official Manchester United Thread (Vol 10)
Discussion
To explain:
Let's say I form a company. It has 100 'A' shares and 1 'B' share. You have a total of 101 shares. Let's say the A and B shares have equal value of £1, but B shares have 100x voting rights of the A shares.
When decisions need to be made about the company, the holder of the B shares has the same voting power as the holder of the A ones.
When it comes to selling the company, the holder of the A shares has 100x more equity in the business than the holder of the B shares, so would make £100 whereas the B holder makes £1.
Let's say I form a company. It has 100 'A' shares and 1 'B' share. You have a total of 101 shares. Let's say the A and B shares have equal value of £1, but B shares have 100x voting rights of the A shares.
When decisions need to be made about the company, the holder of the B shares has the same voting power as the holder of the A ones.
When it comes to selling the company, the holder of the A shares has 100x more equity in the business than the holder of the B shares, so would make £100 whereas the B holder makes £1.
JeffreyD said:
What happens if 51% of the shareholders vote against the agreement to sell the "A" shares as they don't like the fact the IRA want to buy them?
Then you have the system in action. Any incoming owner would know they can only have minority voting rights. There are working examples of leagues using this model. I really don't understand what people are afraid of?RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Then you have the system in action. Any incoming owner would know they can only have minority voting rights. There are working examples of leagues using this model. I really don't understand what people are afraid of?
I'm not afraid of it. I am only sorry that the fans didn't mobilise in the days of Edwards and Moores.It's the Glazers and FSG et al that will lose if they are left holding the baby.
ORD said:
The fact this conversation is happening explains some much about why the U.K. economy is junk.
I'm as free market as it gets, not a fan of state interference or control. Certainly not socialist. However, football isn't pure commerce and it isn't pure sport. It's somewhere in the middle.
Right now anyone fit and proper can rock up, buy a football club and more or less do what they want with it. Except they can't. We saw this week that government will intervene at their caprice and owners can't actually do what they want at all. In which case, we have an unknown, undisclosed and unpredictable back door type of regulation that brings uncertainty. Why would you invest in a club now, if the government can threaten to legislate against your plans at any moment, should the mood swing in that direction?
By bringing together the fans and owners on decision making, you have two groups of people who should have aligned interests; the success of the club (as opposed to the success of the owner). This vastly reduces the likelihood of situations developing where governments may feel the need to intervene. It means clubs can be better aligned to concentrate on success on the pitch. It means the values of the clubs can increase along with the stability.
My view, for right or wrong, is that we either allow the clubs' owners unfettered rights to do what they want with their asset (subject to usual company and commercial legislation), in which case the 6 would still be forming the ESL, or we accept football clubs are not the same as typical commercial assets and we give fans (if they want them) voting rights sufficient to assert some level of control.
Fan owned clubs are the model of financial stability as as some are saying. I mean you only need to look at Barca and Real Madrid to see this financial stability and fan ownership utopia in action. Or are we supposed to pretend that doesn’t exist and o my use Bayern where it seems to work and ignore everywhere that it doesn’t.
The A & B discussion is ridiculous. You use those systems to retain control whilst releasing equity. You don’t use it to relinquish control but hold onto equity. That’s just a way to guarantee your investment goes down in value consistently. All that would happen is the fan owned section would vote against every single proposal put forward by the owners, be that dividend payments, debt reorganisation or whatever.
The A & B discussion is ridiculous. You use those systems to retain control whilst releasing equity. You don’t use it to relinquish control but hold onto equity. That’s just a way to guarantee your investment goes down in value consistently. All that would happen is the fan owned section would vote against every single proposal put forward by the owners, be that dividend payments, debt reorganisation or whatever.
unident said:
Fan owned clubs are the model of financial stability as as some are saying. I mean you only need to look at Barca and Real Madrid to see this financial stability and fan ownership utopia in action. Or are we supposed to pretend that doesn’t exist and o my use Bayern where it seems to work and ignore everywhere that it doesn’t.
The A & B discussion is ridiculous. You use those systems to retain control whilst releasing equity. You don’t use it to relinquish control but hold onto equity. That’s just a way to guarantee your investment goes down in value consistently. All that would happen is the fan owned section would vote against every single proposal put forward by the owners, be that dividend payments, debt reorganisation or whatever.
So what is your position?The A & B discussion is ridiculous. You use those systems to retain control whilst releasing equity. You don’t use it to relinquish control but hold onto equity. That’s just a way to guarantee your investment goes down in value consistently. All that would happen is the fan owned section would vote against every single proposal put forward by the owners, be that dividend payments, debt reorganisation or whatever.
Do you want things to remain as they are with current owners? Are you happy with the current ownership model, but want different owners? The same owners but with a different model?
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
I'm as free market as it gets, not a fan of state interference or control. Certainly not socialist.
However, football isn't pure commerce and it isn't pure sport. It's somewhere in the middle.
Right now anyone fit and proper can rock up, buy a football club and more or less do what they want with it. Except they can't. We saw this week that government will intervene at their caprice and owners can't actually do what they want at all. In which case, we have an unknown, undisclosed and unpredictable back door type of regulation that brings uncertainty. Why would you invest in a club now, if the government can threaten to legislate against your plans at any moment, should the mood swing in that direction?
By bringing together the fans and owners on decision making, you have two groups of people who should have aligned interests; the success of the club (as opposed to the success of the owner). This vastly reduces the likelihood of situations developing where governments may feel the need to intervene. It means clubs can be better aligned to concentrate on success on the pitch. It means the values of the clubs can increase along with the stability.
My view, for right or wrong, is that we either allow the clubs' owners unfettered rights to do what they want with their asset (subject to usual company and commercial legislation), in which case the 6 would still be forming the ESL, or we accept football clubs are not the same as typical commercial assets and we give fans (if they want them) voting rights sufficient to assert some level of control.
How many industries in the U.K. operate completely unregulated? The answer isn’t a difficult one. The threat of additional legislation exists for every single business and they are constantly adapting to it. Football shouldn’t be seen as anything special. However, football isn't pure commerce and it isn't pure sport. It's somewhere in the middle.
Right now anyone fit and proper can rock up, buy a football club and more or less do what they want with it. Except they can't. We saw this week that government will intervene at their caprice and owners can't actually do what they want at all. In which case, we have an unknown, undisclosed and unpredictable back door type of regulation that brings uncertainty. Why would you invest in a club now, if the government can threaten to legislate against your plans at any moment, should the mood swing in that direction?
By bringing together the fans and owners on decision making, you have two groups of people who should have aligned interests; the success of the club (as opposed to the success of the owner). This vastly reduces the likelihood of situations developing where governments may feel the need to intervene. It means clubs can be better aligned to concentrate on success on the pitch. It means the values of the clubs can increase along with the stability.
My view, for right or wrong, is that we either allow the clubs' owners unfettered rights to do what they want with their asset (subject to usual company and commercial legislation), in which case the 6 would still be forming the ESL, or we accept football clubs are not the same as typical commercial assets and we give fans (if they want them) voting rights sufficient to assert some level of control.
There was no government intervention as far as we’re aware anyway, and there isn’t likely to be.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
We saw this week that government will intervene at their caprice and owners can't actually do what they want at all. In which case, we have an unknown, undisclosed and unpredictable back door type of regulation that brings uncertainty. Why would you invest in a club now, if the government can threaten to legislate against your plans at any moment, should the mood swing in that direction?
No we didn’t. What we saw was Boris doing his usual thing and saying what he thought the populace wanted to hear to try and seem like the good guy.
Saying and doing are 2 completely different things, and whatever they said in public, I very much doubt the government want anything to do with this.
What’s proposed is pseudo forced nationalisation. The current owners might retain the asset value, but with no possibility of controlling the key decisions the value of their asset would significantly decline.
Good luck getting that through the law courts.
All this without the complications of things like who decides investment levels? Can the 51% force the commercial owners to invest in transfers beyond natural income, for example? Or to build a new stadium? Can they stop the owners taking profit out of the club?
The government want no part of this as it will just end up a huge legal mess.
unident said:
dickymint said:
Everybody hiding behind their sofas then 
3-0 United
It’s not the best so far from either side. Apparently that’s 5 matches on the bounce that we’ve not scored in the first half. 3-0 United
te performance from both sides.Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff