Should Exeter City remain a fan-owned club?

[DB9]

To be fair, those two were the culmination of many years of mismanagement even if it was well meaning. Off the pitch, the nineties were a chaotic mess that should have seen us relegated in 1995 as well as being a gnats from bankruptcy and homelessness. Yet instead of a wake-up call we did it all again by 2003.

Yep, Amazing that. I guess Doble and others thought we got out of that by the skin of our teeth, It won't happen again, How wrong they were. But my arguement still is, We've learnt from that time and i have confidence in the people around the club now not to be taken in by shisters.

 

[Rosencrantz]

Yep, Amazing that. I guess Doble and others thought we got out of that by the skin of our teeth, It won't happen again, How wrong they were. But my arguement still is, We've learnt from that time and i have confidence in the people around the club now not to be taken in by shisters.

I think the key to other Supporters Trusts giving up control were either they were running up debts like Wycombe were (which we are unable to do) or had offers that they couldn't refuse as their ambitions and expectations of the club were in excess of where they were (I'm thinking Portsmouth here, Chimes might put me right if needed ).

It could well be argued that we have already been in those positions under the Trust. The "eye off the ball" incident for one and many would, and have, argued the Club have hit a ceiling under the Trust where we are now. But as we have seen, that is a very subjective and split argument that will be ongoing with, as you say, many remembering times when the club were distinctly more unstable and barely surviving on and off the pitch before Trust ownership. It is a debate that will never go away until the hypothetical becomes a reality and an investor in whatever guise becomes apparent. The seeming absence of interest is interesting as to why that may be. Not a good/attractive investment? Too much hassle to overcome to gain control? Shareholding situation of the club too confused currently?

I do wonder that if the Trust could sort out the seeming labyrinth complexity of the shareholdings that are scattered about and are able to increase their shareholding and give more clarity, it would give both the Trust more wiggle room to be open to outside investment and any prospective investor more incentive to get involved. (Nb, I am far from an expert in the shareholding complexities so feel free to blow that out the water!).

 

[DB9]

I think the key to other Supporters Trusts giving up control were either they were running up debts like Wycombe were (which we are unable to do) or had offers that they couldn't refuse as their ambitions and expectations of the club were in excess of where they were (I'm thinking Portsmouth here, Chimes might put me right if needed ).

It could well be argued that we have already been in those positions under the Trust. The "eye off the ball" incident for one and many would, and have, argued the Club have hit a ceiling under the Trust where we are now. But as we have seen, that is a very subjective and split argument that will be ongoing with, as you say, many remembering times when the club were distinctly more unstable and barely surviving on and off the pitch before Trust ownership. It is a debate that will never go away until the hypothetical becomes a reality and an investor in whatever guise becomes apparent. The seeming absence of interest is interesting as to why that may be. Not a good/attractive investment? Too much hassle to overcome to gain control? Shareholding situation of the club too confused currently?

I do wonder that if the Trust could sort out the seeming labyrinth complexity of the shareholdings that are scattered about and are able to increase their shareholding and give more clarity, it would give both the Trust more wiggle room to be open to outside investment and any prospective investor more incentive to get involved. (Nb, I am far from an expert in the shareholding complexities so feel free to blow that out the water!).

I know from my Pompey mate that at the time Esiener came in they had about £800k in the bank but needed about £5m to make sure Fratton Park was safe and on going maintenance, When the new owner came in he was prepared to foot that bill, Have a decent playing budget and said this would be a careful investment, not boom and bust, Their Trust members voted I think over 97% in favour and so far it has worked out well for them.

 

[IBA]

Of course we should keep the trust, it's integral to the success and sustainability of the club. In my opinion all clubs should be trust owned.

 

[DB9]

Of course we should keep the trust, it's integral to the success and sustainability of the club. In my opinion all clubs should be trust owned.

Better write to those other clubs then. With the amount of money in football a trust run club will always be the exception not the rule.

 

[IBA]

Better write to those other clubs then. With the amount of money in football a trust run club will always be the exception not the rule.

I would also like to think that the way football is run in this country should emulate the German model of football ownership which can can produce the best of both worlds.

 

[DB9]

I would also like to think that the way football is run in this country should emulate the German model of football ownership which can can produce the best of both worlds.

But from time long ago our football has always been run in the owner model, To change that would take a seismic shift and one that probably would have detrimental effect on the game in this country, We're too far down the line with private ownership, If it was the better option then more clubs would have taken it up, At the moment A trust run clubs seen by many as a last ditch effort to save a club from going under because no person has come forward to buy a club.

 

[sign of the chimes]

I know from my Pompey mate that at the time Esiener came in they had about £800k in the bank but needed about £5m to make sure Fratton Park was safe and on going maintenance, When the new owner came in he was prepared to foot that bill, Have a decent playing budget and said this would be a careful investment, not boom and bust, Their Trust members voted I think over 97% in favour and so far it has worked out well for them.

Yeah, pretty much this. The £5m wasn't needed there and then, but that was an estimate for ongoing H&S work that was needed over a number of years. Part of the Tornate pitch was that this could be done without impacting on things on the pitch. Ironically, we sold a couple of players for significant fees in the following seasons which has meant this hasn't needed to be called upon really.

Our model was a bit different to the one you had in that the PST owned a proportion of the club made up of a few thousand £1,000 shares purchased by individual fans and syndicates - the rest of the shares were owned by high-net worth 'presidents' who were predominantly PFC supporters. By the time we sold, and following some additional investment by the presidents they owned a mite over 50% of the shares, I think.

The presidents and the PST did an incredible job in saving our club, paying off our post-administration legacy debts well ahead of schedule, and getting us out of League 2. I'd have liked to have seen things continue on that basis in the medium-term at least but the investor that came along seemed very credible (not just in relation to the succession of shysters we'd had in charge before), and promised to do things in a sensible/sustainable way. It certainly felt unlikely that the former CEO of Disney with a visible public persona was going to be a fly-by-night.

If memory serves the final vote to sell (made up of the trust and the presidents) was nearer 80-20, though in excess of the 75% threshold required. Of course, we only had the other model for a few years, and it could be argued that we never got the point of forming a longer-term vision and strategy. I had a sense before the Tornante approach was announced that both the Trust and the club were getting towards a point where that was going to be needed - and perhaps that meant the approach was timely.

As I said, I'd have like to have seen where that model could have taken us but respected and understood the vote going as it did. Of course, three years down the line there are sections of our support lamenting the fact that we're still in League 1 and the fact that the owners aren't throwing money at the squad, despite the fact their whole pitch was that they weren't going to do that. There's also (perhaps more understandably) frustration at the owners for not making progress with developing Fratton Park beyond the H&S work required and some other fairly cosmetic changes. At the moment, I'm currently just happy to have a relatively stable club to support with custodians who don't appear to be malevolent!

 

[Worcester Grecian]

We have the blueprint other lower league clubs should follow. Our academy is feeding our first team, and bringing in funds. We don’t need a single owner but do need to be realistic about our expectations. We are a top end of league 1 club at best, as our attendances would struggle to support anything more.

 

[DB9]

We have the blueprint other lower league clubs should follow. Our academy is feeding our first team, and bringing in funds. We don’t need a single owner but do need to be realistic about our expectations. We are a top end of league 1 club at best, as our attendances would struggle to support anything more.

No one club or fan should tell another how to run things, They do what's right for them, With our model it has it's limitations, Yep the Academy is brilliant and has brought in millions but that has not shown "success" on the pitch, By that I mean we have not gone as far as we'd like because for some reason we seem to always end up that little bit short.