Portsmouth FC - Fan Owned and Billionaire Wanting to Invest

[spen666]

I see that Portsmouth, a fan owned club like Darlington are now apparently being courted by an American Billionaire.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/footb ... -1-7874456

What would the reaction be if such an investor was interested in Darlington? The positive side would include the fact that the investment would bring the current ground (or a new ground) up to to Football League standards.

One of the downsides would be back into the cycle of individual/ corporate owners rather than fan ownership.

I suspect it comes down to whether you value football league place over the self determination you have now.

[lo36789]

I would be against us going to being funded and directed by a single individual. Artificially competing above our means whilst might be fun it wouldn't have the same feeling as almost 'earning it'. The fans and players who jump on that bandwagon soon leave when the money man goes.

I think the DFCSG with it's controlling stake would prevent any such takeover. I don't think the articles of the club would allow it anyway but obviously they can theoretically be changed with sufficient backing.

[Darlo_Pete]

I think one day sometime in the distant future, we will be approached by someone wanting to put a substantial money into the club and then people will have to make a choice as to what to do and whether to take the investment and handover ownership.

[spen666]

Realistically, without major investment, how can the club redevelop BM to football league standard.

Even if the maximum grants could be obtained , as I understand it ( and may be totally wrong) the maximum grants will only fund match what club can raise. In the Conference National, the maximum that could be obtained as a grant is £400k. Thus club would need to raise another £400k from elsewhere.

Would that realistically be enough to create a ground up to Football League standards from BM? A second application cannot be made within 5 years of previous application.

It leaves a very difficult choice for fans.

What is needed is a super rich fan to leave his multi million pound estate to the club to avoid the dilemma.

any super rich fans who are in poor health?

[Spyman]

Simple. Let them invest up to the point they are a minority shareholder. If they wish to gift the club the funds to develop a stadium so be it.

Why enter back into an ownership model that more times than not offers only short term gain? I'd rather be stuck in the conference forever than go boom and bust with a few seasons in the league followed by potential ruin. Been there, done that.

How do Spennymoor fans find it, incidentally, being funded beyond their means by one man?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[princes town]

I think there are major advantages in having a big investor on a minority shareholding basis. The Germans have operated this system for years - 50 +1. It is a wider definition of the community concept but given we are currently chasing commercial revenue I can't see a contradiction. A few years ago I would have hated it but I have moderated my opinion observing the costs involved in managing football on even a part-time basis. It would certainly change the culture of the club but on the positive side it would be a platform for establishing a 4g pitch which I believe is essential for a number of reasons. Other ground developments will also be difficult to service under the current shareholding structure. At conference level, I also have doubts whether a pure volunteering structure can genuinely sustain matchday demands at this level.

[theoriginalfatcat]

I would be against us going to being funded and directed by a single individual. Artificially competing above our means whilst might be fun it wouldn't have the same feeling as almost 'earning it'. The fans and players who jump on that bandwagon soon leave when the money man goes.

Not often I agree with lo but agree with this.

Would that realistically be enough to create a ground up to Football League standards from BM?

Any proper big money given or gifted would be better spent on a ground which belonged to us.

A few years ago I would have hated it but I have moderated my opinion observing the costs involved in managing football on even a part-time basis. It would certainly change the culture of the club but on the positive side it would be a platform for establishing a 4g pitch which I believe is essential for a number of reasons.

A 4g pitch would not be popular amongst a good proportion of our fanbase - this idea has been mooted many times on here.

[Darlo_Pete]

Unless an investor is a fan, nobody is going to put in major money for a minority share. Anybody who is prepared to invest in the club in a major way, would also want a majority share.

[woody58]

I think the 50 + 1 rule could and would work for Darlo, of course the hard part would be finding an investor who would be happy with it.
Here in Germany they are exceptions Bayer Leverkusen the team I watch, are owned by pharmaceuticals company Bayer who have the controling stake due to having substantially funded the club for a continuous period of more than 20 years therfore the Bundesliga allowed this.
Maybe if Darlo found an investor they could offer a controling stake after 15 or 20 years of continuous funding.
The reason RB Leipzig are hated is owing to the the effectiveness of the rule, this has been brought into question following the rise of RB Leipzig. Although it is possible to become a RB member, the membership fee is prohibitively expensive, and RB reserves the right to reject any application without a reason. As a result, RB has only a handful of members who have the controling share, eighteen, most of whom are Red Bull GmbH employees.
But to be honest, I can not see an investor, for example funding a brand new stadium for Darlo without a controling share.

[spen666]

I think the 50 + 1 rule could and would work for Darlo, of course the hard part would be finding an investor who would be happy with it.
Here in Germany they are exceptions Bayer Leverkusen the team I watch, are owned by pharmaceuticals company Bayer who have the controling stake due to having substantially funded the club for a continuous period of more than 20 years therfore the Bundesliga allowed this.
Maybe if Darlo found an investor they could offer a controling stake after 15 or 20 years of continuous funding.
The reason RB Leipzig are hated is owing to the the effectiveness of the rule, this has been brought into question following the rise of RB Leipzig. Although it is possible to become a RB member, the membership fee is prohibitively expensive, and RB reserves the right to reject any application without a reason. As a result, RB has only a handful of members who have the controling share, eighteen, most of whom are Red Bull GmbH employees.
But to be honest, I can not see an investor, for example funding a brand new stadium for Darlo without a controling share.

Very interesting explanation regarding RB Leipzig

[OHDFC]

There's a bit more to the Tin Cans than that though. It's a marketing strategy. Leipzig had to change their name - used to be Dynamo Leipzig I think - and play in Red Bull colours. Before Leipzig, Red Bull were interested in investing in my team Unterhaching when we were really struggling in the third division. But the President turned them down saying he couldn't agree to the conditions. We wondered why Red Bull were interested in a struggling third division team with a couple of thousand fans from a suburb of Munich...
... that played in Red and Blue.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[mikkyx]

But to be honest, I can not see an investor, for example funding a brand new stadium for Darlo without a controling share.

Well, not until one of us wins a Euromillions roll-over, anyway....

[fat tony]

I can't see why a private cash-rich investor would want to get involved with us, other than altruism, vanity or being a lottery-winning fan. With someone like Portsmouth you've at least got good local wealth demographics and chance of getting back to Championship / Prem level where there's TV money. Either way I'd always want us to retain fan-owned structure from here on.

[spen666]

I can't see why a private cash-rich investor would want to get involved with us, ....

you could say the same about most teams below the Championship, but people do want to get involved in such clubs.

It could be said that football is a good cover for money laundering and that attracts some people to clubs

[Undercovered]

If you own a successful parent company it's also a nice effective tax write off!

[BUSHEAD]

It could be said that football is a good cover for money laundering and that attracts some people to clubs

It could be said that you are a c***.

[spen666]

It could be said that football is a good cover for money laundering and that attracts some people to clubs

It could be said that you are a c***.

It could be said you have a sense of humour....but then again