Ownership model

[Deleted member 142]

Given the raging debate about player sales, transfer fees, wages, ambition, sustainability etc. I thought it would be interesting to see which model people would prefer.

The current model sees us regularly outspending our revenues, increasing the debt and, if we ever had the wrong owner, jeopardising the future of OUFC. If we could gain ownership of the stadium, would a better approach be to live within our means as a fan owned club, which would probably restrict the ambitions for the future but would see us never spend more than we could generate from our activities and membership.

Clearly, having a home to call our own is vital. But just imagine if that was the reality, how would you vote?

 

[AbbeyOx]

fan ownership is great in theory but can only take you so far.
would we have the support base to make it work successfully?
a part ownership would be good like the German model

 

[RyanioBirdio]

Fan owned, always. Germany does just fine this way. Having a majority stakeholder is forbidden by their footballing bodies, although there is a so-called 50+1 law that means someone has to have been involved for over 20 years, and then they can sort of, kind of have a majority. Ish. It’s a bit of an odd rule, but even then it still seems to work just fine.

The alternative is minority fan ownership, where the supporters’ trust owns a chunk of the club and must always have one elected member sitting on the board. I believe Carlisle operate in this manner and it allows for total transparency, which is the main attribute people tend to favour about fan ownership.

A lot of people frown on anything to do with fan ownership because it may well end the unicorn chasing fantasies that many fans have regarding their clubs’ future prospects, but I think particularly now, when the dam is starting to burst on numerous clubs after countless years of mismanagement, there’s a bigger argument to be made for it than ever before. As a general rule, that is. Some clubs will be better cut out to make it work than others, but that’s sort of how the world works, to be honest.

 

[oxford1985]

fan ownership is great in theory but can only take you so far.
would we have the support base to make it work successfully?
a part ownership would be good like the German model

agree, we are struggling to fully fund and agree on a mural - imagine this board when trying to vote/fund/decide on who to sign/release/sell etc.. when for real!

 

[Sarge]

Fan ownership great in principle ... viable as non league maybe L2 beyond that there isnt enough avail funding even if stadium revenue was factored in to progress further.

traditional ownership is these days dangerous even precarious ...ask Bury, Bolton, Coventry, Notts county etc ( and 'our' recent/ current situation ...WUPs, etc etc), when traditional owners get bored it can leave ridiculous debts, without EFL /FA changing and enforcing properly new rules n regs where so called fit n proper persons actually cant leave a club deep in the brown stuff it leaves many many clubs vunerable

option three seem the better option ... albeit Im not that well versed in how it works in practice... as the options are hypothetical,.... Im tentatively in favour of the 3rd option

 

[Manorlounger]

Option one has the high entertainment potential but, inherent risks and the chance of catastrophic outcome when said owner walks away.
Option two, at least for us as we are now is a non-starter. There are simply not enough fans/supporters to finance OUFC.
Option three, I don't know. How would that work when it comes to finance? It would take a special kind of person to put up funds and then have a bunch of us telling what to do with those funds!

I would have to go with option one and watch my blood pressure!

 

[yellowbow]

To be honest, if you’d asked this last week I’d have said option B but now the new players have started rolling in I’m edging towards option A. Yes I’m as fickle a fan as the next one...