|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 3, 2015 8:59:33 GMT
It may be a "Family monopoly of power" but it's a local family with the club at heart. Better that than a faceless bunch of 'money men' that have no real affinity with the club, it's fans or the local area. Also, to call Scholes a 'yes man' is pretty unfair since he is employed by the Coates family to see through their policies so why the hell would he do anything other than implement their policies? The set up at Stoke City is amongst the most stable and progressive (In football terms) anywhere in English football and, for that, we should be grateful. I'm delighted that the Coates family (it seems) will be running this club for some time to come. Given you've just agreed that TS is a 'yes man' why are you complaining? The last two directors to leave are dedicated, local Stoke City fans. How is it the Coates family are Teflon coated whereas other people with SCFC at their heart are not? I've got no problem with the Coates family running our club but why are they so frightened of independent thought? The only talent TS brings to the Board, is a deep(pan) knowledge of pizza! What's with this constant "yes man" stuff? Scholes is employed by Stoke City and, as such, he's there to do what he's instructed to do and to carry out the policies of the company that employ him. In that respect every single Chief Execute of every football club throughout world football is a YES MAN. The shareholders that have left the club may, or may not have had some problem with the way things were run but have chosen to leave....their choice. I haven't seen any particular criticism of any of them so I don't know what your issue is ref them V the Coates family. You seem to have a problem with the Coates family having total control of Stoke City but I find that far more acceptable than being run by 'investors' from around the globe (as at many other clubs) who's number one priority is often not football. At least our club is run by people who care about the club (and no-one said the other shareholders didn't). Family monopoly or not, our club is in good hands....thank god.
|
|
|
Post by BristolMick on Jul 3, 2015 9:09:47 GMT
Given you've just agreed that TS is a 'yes man' why are you complaining? The last two directors to leave are dedicated, local Stoke City fans. How is it the Coates family are Teflon coated whereas other people with SCFC at their heart are not? I've got no problem with the Coates family running our club but why are they so frightened of independent thought? The only talent TS brings to the Board, is a deep(pan) knowledge of pizza! What's with this constant "yes man" stuff? Scholes is employed by Stoke City and, as such, he's there to do what he's instructed to do and to carry out the policies of the company that employ him. In that respect every single Chief Execute of every football club throughout world football is a YES MAN. The shareholders that have left the club may, or may not have had some problem with the way things were run but have chosen to leave....their choice. I haven't seen any particular criticism of any of them so I don't know what your issue is ref them V the Coates family. You seem to have a problem with the Coates family having total control of Stoke City but I find that far more acceptable than being run by 'investors' from around the globe (as at many other clubs) who's number one priority is often not football. At least our club is run by people who care about the club (and no-one said the other shareholders didn't). Family monopoly or not, our club is in good hands....thank god. Correct doz. it beggars belief how we still have spanners trying to stick the knife into the people who own and run the club. This is as good as it gets for a club like us as long as the FA sanction a structure that means only the big clubs can win the league or even qualify for the champions league any more. BM
|
|
|
Post by george2again on Jul 3, 2015 9:50:07 GMT
Vice Chairman Daveviews.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Jul 3, 2015 11:49:12 GMT
Vice Chairman Daveviews Nello.
|
|
Martin53
Academy Starlet
City til I die. Stoke til I croak.
Posts: 117
|
Post by Martin53 on Jul 5, 2015 9:02:49 GMT
Long may the benevolent dictatorship continue
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 5, 2015 9:25:33 GMT
I don't have any problem with ordinary fans owning shares but I'd rather a local (Stoke supporting) family owned the club 100% than it be listed on the stock exchange. The idea of making a significant number of shares in a club available to people who have no affinity for the club is not a pleasant thought.
But I sort of see where NJ is coming from. I think our club (and all English clubs) would benefit from having a couple of fans on the board and I rather hope that the government goes down this route in the proposals it is working on for the future of the game. Appointees (as opposed to directors elected by fans) tend to either be "yes men" or to naturally hold similar opinions to those who appointed them. That means that fresh ideas are rarely brought to the table.
A couple of fans on the board (elected by the fans) would have no power in the sense that they could not out vote the rest of the broad. But they would be able (if they took their job seriously) to make sure that the board were made aware of fans opinions and concerns and, hopefully, that the board at the very least debated those concerns and gave an answer to them. The fans on the board might also be a source of ideas which might not have occurred to the rest of the board who, by their very nature, do not have any real experience of some of the problems that ordinary fans face. I do hope that fans on the board is something that Parliament approves in the next year or so - even if it is only done initially as an experiment to be reviewed every 5 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by BristolMick on Jul 5, 2015 9:50:00 GMT
I don't have any problem with ordinary fans owning shares but I'd rather a local (Stoke supporting) family owned the club 100% than it be listed on the stock exchange. The idea of making a significant number of shares in a club available to people who have no affinity for the club is not a pleasant thought. But I sort of see where NJ is coming from. I think our club (and all English clubs) would benefit from having a couple of fans on the board and I rather hope that the government goes down this route in the proposals it is working on for the future of the game. Appointees (as opposed to directors elected by fans) tend to either be "yes men" or to naturally hold similar opinions to those who appointed them. That means that fresh ideas are rarely brought to the table. A couple of fans on the board (elected by the fans) would have no power in the sense that they could not out vote the rest of the broad. But they would be able (if they took their job seriously) to make sure that the board were made aware of fans opinions and concerns and, hopefully, that the board at the very least debated those concerns and gave an answer to them. The fans on the board might also be a source of ideas which might not have occurred to the rest of the board who, by their very nature, do not have any real experience of some of the problems that ordinary fans face. I do hope that fans on the board is something that Parliament approves in the next year or so - even if it is only done initially as an experiment to be reviewed every 5 years or so. Some clubs do have fans reps on the board. Bristol Rovers supporters club for example were invited to buy shares a few years ago which gave them a minority stake and two representatives on the board. All hunky dory then? Er no, the rank and file see them as nodding dogs and powerless. What's worse though is that they are bound by confidentiality so cannot divulge any of the things that actually go on at board meetings or reveal any representations they make. So whereas it seems like a good idea in principle i'm not sure it changes much and the fans on the board are seen by everyone else as sychophants not representing the fans anyway. BM
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 5, 2015 10:03:16 GMT
I don't have any problem with ordinary fans owning shares but I'd rather a local (Stoke supporting) family owned the club 100% than it be listed on the stock exchange. The idea of making a significant number of shares in a club available to people who have no affinity for the club is not a pleasant thought. But I sort of see where NJ is coming from. I think our club (and all English clubs) would benefit from having a couple of fans on the board and I rather hope that the government goes down this route in the proposals it is working on for the future of the game. Appointees (as opposed to directors elected by fans) tend to either be "yes men" or to naturally hold similar opinions to those who appointed them. That means that fresh ideas are rarely brought to the table. A couple of fans on the board (elected by the fans) would have no power in the sense that they could not out vote the rest of the broad. But they would be able (if they took their job seriously) to make sure that the board were made aware of fans opinions and concerns and, hopefully, that the board at the very least debated those concerns and gave an answer to them. The fans on the board might also be a source of ideas which might not have occurred to the rest of the board who, by their very nature, do not have any real experience of some of the problems that ordinary fans face. I do hope that fans on the board is something that Parliament approves in the next year or so - even if it is only done initially as an experiment to be reviewed every 5 years or so. Some clubs do have fans reps on the board. Bristol Rovers supporters club for example were invited to buy shares a few years ago which gave them a minority stake and two representatives on the board. All hunky dory then? Er no, the rank and file see them as nodding dogs and powerless. What's worse though is that they are bound by confidentiality so cannot divulge any of the things that actually go on at board meetings or reveal any representations they make. So whereas it seems like a good idea in principle i'm not sure it changes much and the fans on the board are seen by everyone else as sychophants not representing the fans anyway. BM If the government insist on fans reps on the board of professional clubs, a lot will depend upon the terms that the government specify should apply to such appointments. I'm sure the FSF (who argued the case before a Commons Committee a couple of years back) will have some good ideas. It is easy to be defeatist on this but other countries (e.g. Germany) manage to run their football clubs with fans on the board and more consideration for fans. So it isn't impossible.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 5, 2015 10:59:33 GMT
When quizzed about having fans representation on the board before, Coates has always looked like he has a foul smell under his nose. To have fans foisted on him wouldn't be particularly healthy or productive for me. It is of course a great idea in principle but I just can't see it working and have no confidence in our law makers coming up with anything particularly relevant or workable either.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 5, 2015 11:05:24 GMT
You've only got to look at the supporters council to see how utterly pointless it'd be unless they had a significant stake and a way of getting a good number of fans views.
But I don't think a fans group should be anywhere near the board.
The only new person should be someone willing to invest a lot of money and who is willing to work with the Coates'.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Jul 5, 2015 11:08:36 GMT
Isn't this the bloke who switched to MUFC when the Icelanders were in charge? The post Peter Coates future worries me. No, apparently that was total bollocks. absolutely a Stoke fan born and bred
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jul 5, 2015 11:09:46 GMT
Which fans is it that people would want to represent them on the Board?
A quick scan of most of the threads on this message board tells us that we struggle to agree with each other on what day it is.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 5, 2015 11:43:24 GMT
Which fans is it that people would want to represent them on the Board? A quick scan of most of the threads on this message board tells us that we struggle to agree with each other on what day it is. Exactly, it's a shit idea.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 5, 2015 11:49:16 GMT
Which fans is it that people would want to represent them on the Board? A quick scan of most of the threads on this message board tells us that we struggle to agree with each other on what day it is. Exactly, it's a shit idea. Its a good idea in principle but totally impractical. Plus the fact that this administration has always treated organised fan groups with suspicion bordering on contempt.
|
|