My Opinion of the Board is Changing

[Hooky]

Ignoring the two little pigs.

I'm starting to change my opinion of Stoke Holdings SA. ignoring the Vale asset strip "conspiracy theory" as we don't really know their intentions on that one.

They have kept the purse strings shut when all around were chucking stupid money at players, they have then allowed the manger a reasonable budget to change personnel, and hes moved the high earners out ( bar CG) , and brought in better players on lower wages. Then they have allowed him to sign the odd player for cash... summat we hadn't done for a while, seen his success, and allowed a little more for some more .

They have steadied the ship through the rocky storm that swept through the nationwide league following the collapse of ITV Digital, kept our debts manageable, you just have to look at some other clubs debts to realise that in reality £8.5M whilst still a tidy sum, is frankly nothing in this division. And now, with our first division status almost already guaranteed, they are looking at a 1st division budget for next season, instead of having to have a plan for the second division, having constructive dialogue with the fans forum, and doing all the clubs fans a FANTASTIC deal on season-tickets, we just have to show them we now have faith. For some this will not be possible, I can see that, but for the moment, I think its time we repaid them a little, we might not have liked the way they have gone about it, but from a purely business sense, its made sense I'm afraid. They have not allowed supporter pressure to make them overspend, and now they will loosen the strings a little, as they can see the rewards of their investments on the pitch, they now trust TP & JR to unearth some rough diamonds, and give us a team to be proud of.

Whilst I disagree with them not letting fans invest, again I think this is something that might change in the future.

its time to back the board, they are backing the manager with in reason.

[markscfc72]

well said dave

[Hooky]

109 people read it, only one posts an agreement.

;D

[Admin]

It's always difficult for people to admit they may have been wrong... even partially so.

I was incensed by the attempt to buy Port Fail but other than that I do not think the board have been the bogeymen that some have made them out to be. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but still better than we've had to put up with for most of the two decades prior to their arrival.

Smudge

[Hooky]

I know it is smudge.

even I find it hard to admit I've been wrong sometimes, but I prefer to admit it, and then I can enjoy the times I've been right with a smug feeling of satisfaction even better.

;D

[telfordstokie]

i agree. the board have reallygone up in my estimation over the last season.
on the subject of admitting you were wrong, sorry Tony Pulis. After losing the Cardiff i really thought he should go, but he has completly turned it round.
Also, apologies to Clive Clarke and Paul Williams.

[GlennA]

They rise in my estimation, in a very small way, with every passing day that they keep their mouths shut.

I'd like to think that they were stung by the derision that greeted their disastrous comments about statues, relative levels of shareholder investment, property deals in Burslem and so on, and have decided that least said, soonest mended. I suspect though, that the real reason they've belatedly adopted this admirable new level of discretion is that the football club has simply slipped down their no doubt long and diverse list of investment priorities.

Still, credit where it's due. They have shut up and signed the cheques. Personally, that's all I want from a board of directors. But remember that every cheque they sign simply adds to the sum that you and I owe them. The sum that, one day, they will simply withdraw from the till, at an extortionate rate of interest. And there lies the dilemma - the divergence of our essential interests. The only purpose of a capitalist is to sell you something for more than it's worth. It will, one day, end in tears. So I'll enjoy the football but forgive me if I resist the temptation to pop a 'Thank You' card in the post to Reykjavic.

One final point, and I know this doesn't apply to everyone. The divergence of interests is felt particularly sharply with regard to a particular bete noir of mine: the attempt to buy control of the Britannia Stadium for a pittance. I don't trust their motives, for a start, but in the new spirit of entante cordiale, let's leave that for now. I support Stoke City because I live in Stoke. It's that way round. I'm a citizen first and a supporter second. I take offence at their intention to fleece the council taxpayers for, whichever way you slice it, their own ultimate economic gain. But I realise this is probably of no consequence to those of you living outside civilization.

So. If they stay out of my face, I'll stay out of theirs. I came perilously close to letting them put me off football for good, but it was too high a price to pay. So now I try to mentally uncouple them from the club as much as possible. In much the same way that I try to mentally uncouple Tony Bliar (sic) from the Labour Party. Now don't get me started on that...

[mcf]

I wrote this elsewhere earlier:

People can suck off the board all they want but they are still in it for themselves. They are only lowering the season ticket prices in a bid to make more money. More customers, more car park fees, more programme sales, more catering sales etc. At last, they may have seen the light.

This is still the same board though that try to sell the club, that said they had no money for players but then tried to buy the Fail, the same board that charge 7% on loans to make 'our' debt ever increasing. Pulis wasn't even their first choice manager, just like Macari wasn't for C & H, so I'd rather not give them the title of the 'football knowitalls' just yet. The board do at least seem able to seize the initiative through a triffic turn around of fortunes for the club and have perhaps realised the way to achieve this Premiership goal. Pulis with a little help, has shown that he might just deliver one day and what better way of making your money back than making it to the promised land.

People might say I'm being harsh on the board and maybe I am but I can't think of any better argument for them other than it could have been a lot, lot worse.

Anyway, here's to all our success and that the Icelandics don't drop us in a pile of shit when the debt gets 'too' big.

[marinog]

I don't know how many remember the chairman's statement on the offical site some two or three years ago were he talked about the new financial reality of football. That clubs needed to be run like any other businesses. To be able to succeed the books had to be balanced and players would have to come to terms with the fact that clubs were not able to spend endlessly on wages. It looks like not only was he correct on this but by admitting it at that point and acting according to that Stoke is better off than most clubs around us. The club is well run though it is still not breaking even (I think), but it's moving closer to that goal. We have been able to get many good players in this season despite of how things ended last season. As a result of that we are playing better on the field and that will mean that we can attrack better players.

I don't see us as a Premiership quality but see us no worse than most of the teams above us. So there is more to be done before we can expect to get promotion and then retain our Premiership status. But the Board has done a great job rebuilding the team (with better players each time than before) not once but twice in the last 5 years or so and bringing financial stability to club at the same time. Not many clubs have managed that on tide budget.

[Hooky]

there is that too Glenn, but again sometimes i can look at things from their point of view, and their mentality ( despite being a raving socialist, I'm also a realist and can look at things from a capitalist view point, to see their thinking on things) and at the end of the day, they may have been a bit cheeky, but maybe they were just testing the water, seeing what the council were prepared to let it go for.

the debt isn't piling up at the rate people think anymore, I fully expect this current season (next finacial year), to see the club at least break even. the drop in the wage bill, whilst maintianing if not increasing income will have seen to that (yes we missed out on £400K in the cup, but that is never budgeted for).

The comments coming from the Icelandics are now more positive, and also coming only from GG, which is a sign they have taken on board some of the critisism and realised we aren't dumb cash cows, and they have to be a bit more subtle.

I'd like to see anothe Oatcake interview or 2 with the following:

Gunnar Gislason
Phil Rawlins
Tony Pulis
John Fuller
John Rudge
maybe even C & H

any chance smudge

[smilerandy]

Good post the board have been sensible with their money and have allowed the club to progress each year. Though some may not have seen last year as progress, but we did stay up just.

This year the team has been rebuilt on lower wages as well and we are currently mid table and not many points from the top 6.

My pledge is in the post. I have not had a season ticket for nearly 10 years.

The future looks good just need to reduce the debt a bit.

[browneyedboy]

IlfordDave said:

Whilst I disagree with them not letting fans invest, again I think this is something that might change in the future.

I personally think letting fans invest in Stoke City would be a VERY bad idea. I'll give you one good reason why:

Suppose the club became listed on the LSE and a few hundred fans bought shares. Now also suppose that in 3 years' time, things have gone tits-up, we're languishing in the 2nd division and not looking at all like promotion. The shares have shrunk to less than half what people paid for them.

Now let's also suppose that it's clear that the board cannot sell the club because of the golden shares that the 2 pigs hold. Therefore, the Icelandics try to extract as much money back by asset-stripping. It's clear to fans that it's time for a change of ownership, but to change ownership, C&H have to be eliminated.

Suppose that fans all unite and decide that the best way forward in the long term, is for no-one to buy season tickets so that the club runs out of money, goes into administration, (probably gets relegated, but) clears out all shareholders completely so that things can be started afresh with a new owner (maybe Phil Rawlins, maybe someone else).

Now do you see the problem here? There is a massive conflict of interest. Fans who don't own shares may be in favour of forcing the club into administration. Those who own shares would be dead set against this because their shares would be wiped out and they would lose ALL their money.

This would cause a lot of very bitter infighting between those who wanted the best long term future for the club and those who didn't want to lose their investment. It might be that you didn't buy shares, but the bloke you work next to did; he knows you're not renewing your season ticket in protest and you know that that means he's gonna lose all his money.

This is only one, rather drastic possiblity for the future, but I think it demonstrates why issuing shares to fans might be a very bad idea.

[Pricey]

DaveC_SCFC,

Does this boil down to the 'speculate to accumulate' way of thinking.

What I mean is that if fans were allowed to have shares in the club, they would do so in the hope that the club wouldn't end up on the scrap heap (as you point out could happen) in a few years and either maintain a steady level within the league structure (remain in Division One for the forseeable future) or make year-upon-year progress and get into the Preimership.

The problem with this is progress would have to be made/status maintained by spending a similar level of money to that which we are now, meaning there would be little or no chance of administration.

People have been mentioning Charlton Athletic that much on here recently, and I'd just like to know whether their fans are allowed to have shares in the club and if so whether we can try and follow their example as closely as possible with regards to that and the various other aspects of running a football club?

I'm talking on a very basic and uncomplicated level here and have probably missed out some obvious flaws but thats my take on the fans having shares thing.

Also, can anybody answer me the following questions in the most simple form possible please:

Why are the club taking 7% on loans? Does this mean that they get back all money invested (apart from that used on transfer fees and money used to buy the club) plus an extra 7%?! And if that is the case surely this has massive financial implications in that they are taking more than they put in? I'm pretty confused by this so if anyone can answer my questions I'd be very greatful.

Cheers.

[SuperStokie]

Pricey, whats your take on the board now?

What with your previous "staying away" policy and all!?



Jon

[AlbertTatlock]

It’s easy to start warming to the board when the team is doing well, some of their decisions have been bewildering to say the least, let’s hope they have learnt their lessons and have like the team turned the corner.

They may just have realised that with a little foresight and ambition Stoke can be a successful team and with success comes rewards.

Let’s hope so.

Gouranga.

[smilerandy]

As far as I can tell most of the debt is in the hands of the board members. So if the club went into admin the losers would be the board members and not banks. With banks you may end up paying more than the 7% if bank penalties came into force.

I am glad our directors did not go the Leeds United school of money management.

Though debt is still debt

[smilerandy]

Talking of Charlton.

Jonathan Fuller if memory serves right came from Charlton. I wonder if he has helped change certain attitudes around to how to take club forward.

Having never met the guy. I was just wondering.

[Pricey]

My opinion of the board is pretty much the same as Glenn's, if they keep their gobs shut and sign the cheques they are doing OK.

[GlennA]

I seem to remember that one of the turning points in Charlton's meteoric rise was a campaign called 'Project 10000' or something similar, when they set out to reach the now rather modest-sounding target of 10000 season-ticket holders.

JF was in charge at the time, I think, so he may have brought the idea up here with him, as the 10000 target is what's underpinning our new pledge scheme thing.

Begs the question why it wasn't raised before, though? Probably a reminder from Tim Gallimore (or the latter has managed to persuade the directors it could be worth a go, where JF failed before?)

[SuperStokie]

I'd like a bit more feedback so don't agree with the "keeping their gobs shut".

However, they've certainly provided TP with the necessary funds to build a decent looking 1st division squad that has bags, BAGS of potential.

We've been through some bad times with them yes, but we've also been through some good times as well. From a point of view of liking or disliking the board, i'll just say we could do a whole lot worse.

It's TP and the team who deserve the REAL credit though and I think we must keep that in the forefront of our minds. Well done the board yes, but TP and the lads deserve the big pat on the back.

If you're succesful, you've just gotta keep on walking. We can make a real success story out of Stoke, hopefully soon!

Jon

[Pricey]

Every time they say something, they get slated; either rightly when they show they don't really give a toss about Stoke City or wrongly as people mis-interpret what they say.

Justification for them saying nothing (or as little as possible) I reckon.

[SuperStokie]

Perhaps a bit more from Gunnar himself though (not the likes of Kristinsson?). The chairman is the figure head of the board and we're lucky if we hear off him, maybe 3, or 4 times a season?

Remember when we were looking for a new manager after Quitterill, it took the board a hell of a long time to say something when Stoke fans wanted to know what their point of view was.

We want the chairman to say things like he did in the week about Taggart. Constant communicatoin is always a good thing. As Stoke, over the years, we haven't had enough of it....

Jon

[GlennA]

I went along quite happily for donkey's years, as did most football fans, barely knowing the names of the directors. It's a fairly recent phenomenon - brought on by fanzine-inspired fan poiliticization and the 24-hour media glare on football - that we feel a need for communication with them. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred they only give you platitudes anyway, so why worry? Keep 'em not seen and not heard, for me.

[Pricey]

The last big statement I remember from him said that the income difference between the 1st and 2nd divisions was not big enough to justify risking all to stay up.

The majority of us (me included) interpreted that as he didn't give a toss if we went down and it was actually only the F.A. Cup match against Chelsea last season that saved us in my opinion.

Gunnar even had to come out and explain his side of things, telling everyone the actual intention of these words!

If fans are asking questions of him and the board by all means answer them as honestly () as possible but any comment which could be constrewed in a manner other than it was intended should be left well alone.

[browneyedboy]

Pricey said:

What I mean is that if fans were allowed to have shares in the club, they would do so in the hope that the club wouldn't end up on the scrap heap (as you point out could happen) in a few years and either maintain a steady level within the league structure (remain in Division One for the forseeable future) or make year-upon-year progress and get into the Preimership.

I understand perfectly what you're saying, but football isn't like regular businesses. If you run a regular business well, you're pretty much guaranteed success. With football, you can run a club as well as anyone else but still get relegated.

The problem with this is progress would have to be made/status maintained by spending a similar level of money to that which we are now, meaning there would be little or no chance of administration.

But as you well know, spending more money doesn't automatically mean a higher league position. Look how much money Wolves poured into the club, year after year. I'm not sure how long it took, but it must have been a decade.

Share issues are a short-term, one-off way to raise capital. They do not bring income over a period of time. Look at it like this...suppose 1000 supporters bought equal numbers of shares each at £500. That's £500,000. Now suppose 3 years down the line, we're still mid-table in the first division and the club wants more money. Let's say it decides to do a rights issue, where each shareholder has the opportunity to buy a portion of shares equal to the portion they already own...at £500 each. Then each shareholder is faced with a decision...either invest a further £500 and maintain the same percentage ownershipe in the hope that this time we'll get promoted, or choose not to invest money but have their percentage ownership in the club halved.

The problem here is that many people who would buy shares out of support for the club don't have the first clue about how shares work and what ownership of them means. They also think optimistically and hope that they'll make money when in fact they're far more likely to lose money on shares in a football club. They'd be far better having a punt with the bookies on the first scorer, 'cos at least, through experience, they can make an educated guess about what might happen during a match.

Look at it another way, would you invest your own money in a business that had not made money for a very long time and showed no signs of doing so in the near future? I know I wouldn't. Not only that, but football as a whole is collapsing financially.

People have been mentioning Charlton Athletic that much on here recently, and I'd just like to know whether their fans are allowed to have shares in the club.

To suggest that a football club being publicly owned has any bearing on it's success is rather foolish. May I remind you that Leeds United are listed on the LSE.

Every other club these days is trying to "do a Charlton". Few will succeed. At the end, it's performances on the pitch that matter, not shares. In fact, there's a trend in football right now for clubs to try to buy back shares that are publicly listed.

Note also that pushing for promotion can take many years, even with a good squad. Things in football have a habit of going wrong much more quickly than they go right. Who would have said this time last year that Forrest would look likely to get relegated this season?

Also, can anybody answer me the following questions in the most simple form possible please:

Why are the club taking 7% on loans?

The 7% loans means the consortium puts in money and, each year, interest of 7% is paid to the consortium. So, if the consortium put in £1million, then each year, assuming the club does not pay any money back (which it probably doesn't because it's losing money), then the amount owed will grow by 7%. So after one year, the owed amount is £1,070,000, after 2 years £1,144,900, after 3 years £1,225,043. Of course, the club could be paying some of this money back each year. Put simply it works the same as if you take a loan out to buy a car.

The icelandics do this for 2 reasons: firstly they make money out of it, whereas if they just donated money to the club they'd lose it. Secondly, because they themselves are creditors, if the club went bust, while they would lose all their shares, they'd probably get some of the loaned money back.

Never forget that even though things may be looking rosy on the pitch right now, the Icelandics are here for one reason only: to make a profit. The reason for their renewed optimism is that they've suddenly seen a way after probably resigning to the fact that they were going to lose a large portion of their money.

The icelandics are extremely unlikely to ever issue shares to fans for one reason: if shares are publicly traded, the (share) value of the club is known and there's no way the Icelandics could ever sell their shares at the highly inflated prices they want to sell them for.

[Pricey]

Thanks for all that Dave, I've read it through 3 times and still don't get a couple of bits but I kind of understand everything.

Would another reason for the club not selling shares to supporters be that fans would be given a vote on issues where they would favour short-term footballing success and Stoke Holdings SA would favour long-term financial success?

[browneyedboy]

Pricey said:

Would another reason for the club not selling shares to supporters be that fans would be given a vote on issues where they would favour short-term footballing success and Stoke Holdings SA would favour long-term financial success?

Possibly, yes, but I think if shares were to be issued, it would only be a small portion of the club, maybe 5 or 10%. While this would carry voting rights, I don't think it would make a great impact.

More serious would be the impact of the stock market, which would put pressure on the club to deliver short term financial success, rather than either long term financial sucesss or success on the football pitch.

Suppose shares in Stoke were issued at 50p each and, over time, their value slumped to 5p. What if we had a player who we could sell for £3million, which might immediately add 5p to the value of the shares if he was sold? Investment bankers from the stock market would virtually force the club to sell the player, no matter how badly the club wanted to keep him. Even the biigest clubs like ManUre and Newcastle are not immune to this kind of pressure. Notice that the first thing Roman Abramovic did with Chelsea was to de-list it from the stock market, probably for exactly this reason.

[Pricey]

OK then, so there is no way fans can have shares in Stoke without it being listed on the London Stock Exchange or stock market or whatever?!

[Lakeland Potter]

Dave is right in much of what he says but wrong, possibly as regards the impact of the stockmarket. First, a club the size of Stoke would be unlikely to float on the FTSE - more likely AIM or OFEX - the smaller markets for smaller companies.

Whilst these markets require information at regular intervals and statements regarding important events (as does the FTSE) the pressure for anything beyond such routine information comes only from the shareholders and these would be the fans plus the directors.

Many clubs do have fans shareholders up to but not beyond a figure of 25% as any percentage over this gives the shareholders concerned, the right (if they choose to exercise it) to block certain changes which require a 75% majority vote.

One significance of shareholder fans is that they gain not just a financial stake in the club but a stake in how it is run. This can work to the club's benefit as well as imposing constrains on them. Fans who are shareholders are less likely to demand success at all costs. The Leeds or Bradford scenario is less not more likely.

Many clubs the size of Stoke (Norwich and Watford for example) have fan shareholders. As Dave says, the immediate cash benefit is limited to the size of the cash injection but the long term benefit is much greater potentially, as the club aquires several thousand people with an interest in the club being well run, as well as a desire for success on the pitch.

Dave's example of £500k being raised is just an example but it is on the low side. A club with our fan base should certainly be able to raise £2 million or more from a fans share issue - which is enough to considerably change the financial position - in our case it could wipe out the commercial (bank) debt for example.

Looked at from the fans point of view (and that is the way we must look at it) there is little to be feared from the issue of shares to fans - PROVIDING - that the pitfalls of share ownership are properly explained at the outset and fans are reminded that their purchase is, to some extent, to be regarded as being done out of love for their club rather than the prospect of making money!

[Pricey]

Not that I have any money to invest if the opportunity arose, but the thought never crossed my mind about making a profit and I'm sure the same can be said for 90%+ of Stokies.

A say in the way the club is run is all I think is important. Edit- as well as the money the club would get for it.