SHOULD CARDIFF CITY FC BE RUN BY A COMMITTEE

Do people think it should be run by a committee, a bit like Trelewis Welfare FC, you know vote a secretary, Chairman, Treasurer etc with every decision involving the club voted for democratically?

Would you as a business man be tempted to buy or invest in such a business where other people could vote and tell you how to spend and risk your money whilst not risking their own.

Serious question to stimulate some opinions, hopefully people will keep it sensible, be interesting to see how people view business's and their structure etc.

I'm sure Annis will be interested to debate especially after his similar situation with Merthyr football club, how much say should people have if they are not risking their own money, share holders are another matter, and in all honesty I have never bought shares in Cardiff City because (besides for being skint) i have always wanted to distance myself from being financially involved with something I love that much, would cause me a bit of internal conflict, that is just my personal view mind, and I fully understand those that have bought shares and helped the club by investing, because we'd have been screwed without them.

Just wonder if people were risking their own money, how much would they risk, and it would it affect the decisions they made regarding the club.
I'd hate to be in that position where sometimes you had to do the sensible thing rather than the love thing, major conflict.

Nooo

Do people think it should be run by a committee, a bit like Trelewis Welfare FC, you know vote a secretary, Chairman, Treasurer etc with every decision involving the club voted for democratically?

Would you as a business man be tempted to buy or invest in such a business where other people could vote and tell you how to spend and risk your money whilst not risking their own.

Serious question to stimulate some opinions, hopefully people will keep it sensible, be interesting to see how people view business's and their structure etc.

I'm sure Annis will be interested to debate especially after his similar situation with Merthyr football club, how much say should people have if they are not risking their own money, share holders are another matter, and in all honesty I have never bought shares in Cardiff City because (besides for being skint) i have always wanted to distance myself from being financially involved with something I love that much, would cause me a bit of internal conflict, that is just my personal view mind, and I fully understand those that have bought shares and helped the club by investing, because we'd have been screwed without them.

Just wonder if people were risking their own money, how much would they risk, and it would it affect the decisions they made regarding the club.
I'd hate to be in that position where sometimes you had to do the sensible thing rather than the love thing, major conflict.

I agree with some sort of supporter represention on such a commitee, the club say they are bringing one in , but to be honest this conflict between fans is breaking my heart gwyn

thats the truth

Do people think it should be run by a committee, a bit like Trelewis Welfare FC, you know vote a secretary, Chairman, Treasurer etc with every decision involving the club voted for democratically?

Would you as a business man be tempted to buy or invest in such a business where other people could vote and tell you how to spend and risk your money whilst not risking their own.

Serious question to stimulate some opinions, hopefully people will keep it sensible, be interesting to see how people view business's and their structure etc.

I'm sure Annis will be interested to debate especially after his similar situation with Merthyr football club, how much say should people have if they are not risking their own money, share holders are another matter, and in all honesty I have never bought shares in Cardiff City because (besides for being skint) i have always wanted to distance myself from being financially involved with something I love that much, would cause me a bit of internal conflict, that is just my personal view mind, and I fully understand those that have bought shares and helped the club by investing, because we'd have been screwed without them.

Just wonder if people were risking their own money, how much would they risk, and it would it affect the decisions they made regarding the club.
I'd hate to be in that position where sometimes you had to do the sensible thing rather than the love thing, major conflict.

I agree with some sort of supporter represention on such a commitee, the club say they are bringing one in , but to be honest this conflict between fans is breaking my heart gwyn

thats the truth

I see it as positive, but at the end of the day, the decisions will still come down to one man, the owner.
People have been up in arms about the lack of consultation before this rebrand, what if there had been consultation and there was a 100% turnout to vote and a 100% vote against, at the end of the day, the decision is still down to one man, the owner.

I just hope that if we do get a fan with some input, the other fans aren't going to expect him to be able to change things.

I tend to agree

We are a professional football team, not a little shitty voting club, whenever people vote for things, it's always corrupt, money buys votes fact!

And how fair do you think these various clubs are run? From what I see there's always the greedy feckers only out for themselves.

Having people in charge with a financial stake in the club in terms of share value and not loan notes seems the best possible option for me.

They'll then want to run the club in the best financial fashion to keep the share value stable as a minimum requirement, with growth as an ideal.

Granted, having a fanbase representation which gets serious consideration in various matters and decisions would complete this scenario.

Hopefully, this is where Tan is leading us.

I spend too much money in McDonald's, should there be a consumer representative on their board ?

Before we say football is not like main stream business ask Rangers.

VT is a successful businessman as were numerous failed chairman/owners of the last 10 years, is VT's plan any better than theirs ? Ultimately we are only consumers, if we don't like the product we vote with out feet. Will reduced spending in the club shop affect his business plan - doubt it.

£2,500 from each season ticket holder genuinely buys you a say, unless we have that we are just consumers.

Phew ! Just dropped my blue X5 off down the local paint & body shop - having it back in three years as a red Megane ! Why ? 'Cos I can !

I spend too much money in McDonald's, should there be a consumer representative on their board ?

Before we say football is not like main stream business ask Rangers.

VT is a successful businessman as were numerous failed chairman/owners of the last 10 years, is VT's plan any better than theirs ? Ultimately we are only consumers, if we don't like the product we vote with out feet. Will reduced spending in the club shop affect his business plan - doubt it.

£2,500 from each season ticket holder genuinely buys you a say, unless we have that we are just consumers.

Of course there would be consumer representation, maybe in the form of some kind of consumer analyst or other but essentially it would be there.

How can they successfully provide their customers with what they want without knowing / listening to their wants and needs.

I'm guessing MacD's also have some form of heritage links too to keep in touch and in line with their heritage and history etc etc.

Interesting topic Gwyn but I'm totally against committees running football clubs. Yes it can be done at a very lower level because of the small figures involved but you need people who understand economics to run a football club.

Whilst I agree that the club is Tans to legally do what he wants with it. I don't understand what benefit is has to the club when a move spilts the support as much.

From my experience, a commitee would lose focus on what they are actually doing and will turn into points scoring and man-bitchiness

Some good points

I've always been a believer in one man needing to be at the helm at football clubs - I'm more than happy with VT

Lets remember we have a perfect example of a big business that was run by committees on our doorstep,namely the welsh rugby union.And when the game went proffessional in very nearly ruined them.Could'nt get a desicion made without running it by countless committees all self serving with their own agenda.

Interesting topic Gwyn but I'm totally against committees running football clubs. Yes it can be done at a very lower level because of the small figures involved but you need people who understand economics to run a football club.

Whilst I agree that the club is Tans to legally do what he wants with it. I don't understand what benefit is has to the club when a move spilts the support as much.

Agree

Interesting topic Gwyn but I'm totally against committees running football clubs. Yes it can be done at a very lower level because of the small figures involved but you need people who understand economics to run a football club.

Whilst I agree that the club is Tans to legally do what he wants with it. I don't understand what benefit is has to the club when a move spilts the support as much.

So let's say this Billionaire business man has a long term plan that is based around this red theme, and he is prepares to go along with that scheme and risk a hundred million pounds of his money.
Should he, as the owner be forced to tell us these plans, even if it is confidential and involves a third party who don't want it made public at the moment, and it puts the plan at risk?

Do people think it should be run by a committee, a bit like Trelewis Welfare FC, you know vote a secretary, Chairman, Treasurer etc with every decision involving the club voted for democratically?

Would you as a business man be tempted to buy or invest in such a business where other people could vote and tell you how to spend and risk your money whilst not risking their own.

Serious question to stimulate some opinions, hopefully people will keep it sensible, be interesting to see how people view business's and their structure etc.

I'm sure Annis will be interested to debate especially after his similar situation with Merthyr football club, how much say should people have if they are not risking their own money, share holders are another matter, and in all honesty I have never bought shares in Cardiff City because (besides for being skint) i have always wanted to distance myself from being financially involved with something I love that much, would cause me a bit of internal conflict, that is just my personal view mind, and I fully understand those that have bought shares and helped the club by investing, because we'd have been screwed without them.

Just wonder if people were risking their own money, how much would they risk, and it would it affect the decisions they made regarding the club.
I'd hate to be in that position where sometimes you had to do the sensible thing rather than the love thing, major conflict.

If you were putting your money into any business would you allow the shop floor to tell you what you should be doing< bloody right you wouldn't, if they came up with constructive ideas that would benefit the business then yes listen to them, What about acceptimg responsability for the debt , not bloody lightly, people want to have an input, but from the outside, the sole responsability for runing the club is the owners, they pay the wages and take on the risk involved, so why don't supporters just let them get on with it?

Interesting topic Gwyn but I'm totally against committees running football clubs. Yes it can be done at a very lower level because of the small figures involved but you need people who understand economics to run a football club.

Whilst I agree that the club is Tans to legally do what he wants with it. I don't understand what benefit is has to the club when a move spilts the support as much.

So let's say this Billionaire business man has a long term plan that is based around this red theme, and he is prepares to go along with that scheme and risk a hundred million pounds of his money.
Should he, as the owner be forced to tell us these plans, even if it is confidential and involves a third party who don't want it made public at the moment, and it puts the plan at risk?

No he shouldn't be forced to do anything because it is he own club. However I would very much doubt that Tan has risked damaging public relations with any one of his other businesses than he has here. Only together can we all move forward as a club, support base and at the end of the day a business. However I'm struggling to see what benefits the club are seeing with such a spilt between its supporters.

There have been many a chairman in the past who have come unstuck even through they have been very successful in the world of business with Alan Sugar being one of them.

Yes it should be like that in preparation for what's to come. The Malaysians are going to leave us playing the likes of Trelewis Welfare FC.

no

Interesting topic Gwyn but I'm totally against committees running football clubs. Yes it can be done at a very lower level because of the small figures involved but you need people who understand economics to run a football club.

Whilst I agree that the club is Tans to legally do what he wants with it. I don't understand what benefit is has to the club when a move spilts the support as much.

So let's say this Billionaire business man has a long term plan that is based around this red theme, and he is prepares to go along with that scheme and risk a hundred million pounds of his money.
Should he, as the owner be forced to tell us these plans, even if it is confidential and involves a third party who don't want it made public at the moment, and it puts the plan at risk?

No he shouldn't be forced to do anything because it is he own club. However I would very much doubt that Tan has risked damaging public relations with any one of his other businesses than he has here. Only together can we all move forward as a club, support base and at the end of the day a business. However I'm struggling to see what benefits the club are seeing with such a spilt between its supporters.

There have been many a chairman in the past who have come unstuck even through they have been very successful in the world of business with Alan Sugar being one of them.

Fans are very fickle, success on the pitch and you wont notice the divide, failure and it will be a chasm.

Interesting topic Gwyn but I'm totally against committees running football clubs. Yes it can be done at a very lower level because of the small figures involved but you need people who understand economics to run a football club.

Whilst I agree that the club is Tans to legally do what he wants with it. I don't understand what benefit is has to the club when a move spilts the support as much.

So let's say this Billionaire business man has a long term plan that is based around this red theme, and he is prepares to go along with that scheme and risk a hundred million pounds of his money.
Should he, as the owner be forced to tell us these plans, even if it is confidential and involves a third party who don't want it made public at the moment, and it puts the plan at risk?

No he shouldn't be forced to do anything because it is he own club. However I would very much doubt that Tan has risked damaging public relations with any one of his other businesses than he has here. Only together can we all move forward as a club, support base and at the end of the day a business. However I'm struggling to see what benefits the club are seeing with such a spilt between its supporters.

There have been many a chairman in the past who have come unstuck even through they have been very successful in the world of business with Alan Sugar being one of them.

Fans are very fickle, success on the pitch and you wont notice the divide, failure and it will be a chasm.

In normal circumstances you are right but for this issue to be resolved will take a lot more than just good results.

Interesting topic Gwyn but I'm totally against committees running football clubs. Yes it can be done at a very lower level because of the small figures involved but you need people who understand economics to run a football club.

Whilst I agree that the club is Tans to legally do what he wants with it. I don't understand what benefit is has to the club when a move spilts the support as much.

So let's say this Billionaire business man has a long term plan that is based around this red theme, and he is prepares to go along with that scheme and risk a hundred million pounds of his money.
Should he, as the owner be forced to tell us these plans, even if it is confidential and involves a third party who don't want it made public at the moment, and it puts the plan at risk?

No he shouldn't be forced to do anything because it is he own club. However I would very much doubt that Tan has risked damaging public relations with any one of his other businesses than he has here. Only together can we all move forward as a club, support base and at the end of the day a business. However I'm struggling to see what benefits the club are seeing with such a spilt between its supporters.

There have been many a chairman in the past who have come unstuck even through they have been very successful in the world of business with Alan Sugar being one of them.

Fans are very fickle, success on the pitch and you wont notice the divide, failure and it will be a chasm.

In normal circumstances you are right but for this issue to be resolved will take a lot more than just good results.

Totally disagree, if it goes to plan, it will all be a distant memory, a bit like the I'll never watch them again after selling Toshack furor.

Why is it possible here in Germany? The only club controlled by a rich guy is Hoffenheim, all others have a different structure.

The ordinary fan can become a member and pay his membership fees into the club (e.g. 62 Euros annual at Borussia Dortmund). In return (besides being able to buy early bird tickets for cup games etc) he has a vote in the members annual meeting/assembly and can vote for or against the board and their proposals. The board stands elections every few years, but need to present everything they do to the assembly at the AGM.

Then you have the "Aufsichtsrat" (Supervisory board), which controls finances, the business side of the club, expenditure and the work of the board. The Supervisory board is usually a group of businessmen, ex-players etc, and they give the go ahead and provide some of the funding into the club too.

Without the Supervisory board, the board (chairman etc) cannot make any big decisions on their own, and without the board, the Supervisory board cannot make any big decisions either. They each hold 50% of the football club...

I dont wanna show off and say everything's better in Germany , but I do like that setup that clubs have.

As a result, the Bundesliga is highly attractive, they do listen to its fans, low ticketprices, full grounds, successful marketing, heavy sponsorship, good image etc.

Surely there is mismanagement at some clubs (e.g. Cologne, who just got relegated have financial problems), but they recover in the lower leagues and then go up again, cos the fans identify with their clubs. 1860 München played in front of 20000 every home game in the 4th league some time ago, taking 2000-5000 away week in week out.

Fortuna Düsseldorf clinched promotion to the Bundesliga a few weeks back, took em some time to recover from their crash a few seasons ago, went down to the 4th divison also, but here they are again. Financially in a very good state, highly attractive to sponsors, big gates etc.

Would love to have something like this at the City, and I am sure 99% of you wouldnt hesitate to become club members and have a say too within the club. Things like changing colours, the name or even moving to another location, would only be possible with the consent (?) of the members, board and Supervisory board. A rebrand like we have it is unthinkable over here.

If England is a nation of shopkeepers.

Then Wales is a nation of Committees.

Self-important old men, generally talking shit and skimming off the top.

Besides which. Vincent Tan is a billionaire businessman. Why on earth
would he trust his business, his money to Dai John the Undertaker and
Maldwyn Morgan, local Entrepeneur and part-time bingo caller

Interesting topic Gwyn but I'm totally against committees running football clubs. Yes it can be done at a very lower level because of the small figures involved but you need people who understand economics to run a football club.

Whilst I agree that the club is Tans to legally do what he wants with it. I don't understand what benefit is has to the club when a move spilts the support as much.

So let's say this Billionaire business man has a long term plan that is based around this red theme, and he is prepares to go along with that scheme and risk a hundred million pounds of his money.
Should he, as the owner be forced to tell us these plans, even if it is confidential and involves a third party who don't want it made public at the moment, and it puts the plan at risk?

So if such a scenario exists , would you not expect that business man to tell the executive directors of the company he is investing in what that plan is? After all , it is them not him that have the legal and fiduciary duty to run the business on a day to day basis. At present , VT has no such responsibility - he is a creditor and minority shareholder.

There is nothing to suggest that he has told either the Chief Executive or the Finance Director. indeed , if you recall at the meeting on 8 May you and I attended with others , Alan Whiteley confirmed that he had not been told any business reason for the change of colours.

Gwyn, great suggestion. Some sort of committee would probably make a great/positive difference.

Interesting topic Gwyn but I'm totally against committees running football clubs. Yes it can be done at a very lower level because of the small figures involved but you need people who understand economics to run a football club.

Whilst I agree that the club is Tans to legally do what he wants with it. I don't understand what benefit is has to the club when a move spilts the support as much.

So let's say this Billionaire business man has a long term plan that is based around this red theme, and he is prepares to go along with that scheme and risk a hundred million pounds of his money.
Should he, as the owner be forced to tell us these plans, even if it is confidential and involves a third party who don't want it made public at the moment, and it puts the plan at risk?

So if such a scenario exists , would you not expect that business man to tell the executive directors of the company he is investing in what that plan is? After all , it is them not him that have the legal and fiduciary duty to run the business on a day to day basis. At present , VT has no such responsibility - he is a creditor and minority shareholder.

There is nothing to suggest that he has told either the Chief Executive or the Finance Director. indeed , if you recall at the meeting on 8 May you and I attended with others , Alan Whiteley confirmed that he had not been told any business reason for the change of colours.

And if he had been told in a business confidential manner, you would expect him to confide in those people present at the meeting, the Trust aren't allowed to be told anything in confidence as you well know, they have to share it and tell it to their members.
If Alan Whitely is party to any confidential plans, then that's how it should stay, if VT feels he does not need to share it with one of his CEO's at this moment in time and it could jeopardise the deal, then so be it as well.

Gwyn, great suggestion. Some sort of committee would probably make a great/positive difference.

Of course it is, they can all vote and decide how VT should risk his money to suit them then.