quel type d'investissement voulez vous?

voici le post de rushian.
très interessant.
vous n'avez peut être pas besoin de tout lire pour voter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the widespread discussion on the needs of extra finance with much talk of outside investment and the (lack of) progress towards a new stadium, I thought it would be good to look at what supporter's have done at other clubs and what LFC fans might be interested in.

There are over 100 Supporters' Trusts across England, Wales and Scotland, with 61 Supporters' Trusts holding equity within their football clubs and 39 football clubs have supporter representation within the boards of their football clubs. A whole range of trust models initially sprung up but all bar two are now Industrial and Provincial Societies and this is the model Supporters Direct now exclusively promotes as best practice and helps set up.

Another possible route of fan ownership could be via a Community Enterprise Company. A community enterprise is a specialised form of community-based organisation that has both commercial and social aims and objectives. The commercial objectives of a community enterprise mean that business methods and practices drive its organisational functions and determine its operating style. This sharply distinguishes a community enterprise from the predominantly representative and often informal operating pattern of most other forms of popular community-based organisation. However there are some features which it shares in common with popular community-based organisations. In particular, it is owned and controlled by the people who live in a defined locality or who share other forms of common interest.

Some models of what has happened in the football community with regards to football supporters involvement and fundraising are:

The AFC Wimbledon model (2003)

AFC Wimbledon was formed after the original Wimbledon FC was moved to Milton Keynes by its owners in 2002. After a year of renting a stadium, the nascent club and its fans decided to try and fund the purchase of the Kingsmeadow Stadium. To fund this they launched a share issue, fully supported by the Dons Supporters Trust. Shares were priced at 60p each with £1.26m being raised.

Shares on Offer: 5,000,000
Applications Received for: 2,106,600
Balance not applied for: 2,893,400
Percentage share uptake: 42.14%

Number of applications forms received: 2148

In the summer of 2004 AFC Wimbledon also issued The Dons Trust Bond which has raised about £0.25m to date to further aid in the purchase of the stadium. It's interesting to note the number of applications for shares was over 2000 given the average AFC Wimbledon crowd hovers between two and three thousand. Also 90% of the share capital is held by the Supporters Trust suggesting that the share issue wasn't seen as a long term investment scheme by individuals, but instead the principle of the fans as a body owning part of the club and helping to fund a new home was widely welcomed and participated in.

The Celtic model (1995)

Given the connections between the two clubs, Celtic's experience of fundraising from the fans makes interesting reading. Celtic has remained a social institution as much as a corporate entity for much of its life despite the plc status. It's strong ties to the community, often being described as a "family club", mirror Liverpool in many respects.

Following the Fergus McCann takeover in 1993/4 Celtic had a public share issue. The issue took place in January 1995 and remains one of the most successful share issues ever made by a football club, raising £9.4 million for the Club and creating 10,500 new shareholders. The minimum subscription was set at £620 per unit (each unit representing five ordinary and five preference shares) the issue was oversubscribed some 1.8 times. Following the issue supporters owned approximately 40% of the shares in Celtic.

What was unqiue about the 1995 Celtic share issue issue was that the shares were bought almost exclusively by supporters of the club, rather than by city institutions. One consequence of this has been the fact that extremely low levels of secondary market trading have been reported in shares in Celtic. One important factor which may explain the high take-up of shares by the supporters was the availability of low cost loans from the club's bankers, the Co-operative Bank, from whom supporters could borrow up to 80% of the cost of shares at a low interest rate.

In 2001 following Fergus McCann selling his shares in the club to existing shareholders, season ticket holders and and other investors interested in the long-term success of the club the number of shareholder-supporters had risen to 16,000 with a share capital estimated as between 35% and 50%.

Celtic have recently announced they are about to launch a further share issue to the tune of £15m.

The Barcelona model

Barcelona Football Club is, in effect, a mutual society, owned and run by its members. According to its Statutes, the Club exists for the pursuit of sporting excellence.

The Club is run by an elected body for a term of four years. However, the annual reports of this elected body have to be reviewed and approved by the General Assembly of members' representatives. Members are entitled to stand for election and vote for the President. The Delegates Assembly is made up of over 2000 members chosen by draw.

As well as voting on issues surrounding the club members also decide on how the FC Barcelona Foundation utilises its money. FC Barcelona donates a % of the income from membership fees to solidarity projects run by the Foundation which is a not for profit organization whose principal mission is to disseminate and promote the sporting, cultural and social dimension of FC Barcelona.

Traditionally membership was pinned at 108,000 members but under the present President Juan Laporte there has been a drive to take this upto 200,000 members. To this end the annual membership fee was dropped from 411 € to 137 € recently.

The benefits of membership are substantial for matchgoing fans, from free entry to the museum, discounts on tickets, early booking of tickets etc. However as important is the strong community aspect and ethic of Barcelona. A Liverpool model might for instance give members priority in buying season tickets in an area of the new stadium.

Football leagues are run for members. Local community groups are supported (members get a 35% discount on the use of function rooms for community related activities). Members children get discounted football coaching during the summer. There's a matchday creche free for FCB members and their children aged 0-12. The club also cater for the elderly - retired Barça fans have their own centre with activities including board game competitions, talks, debates, cultural visits, trips to matches and Catalan classes.

Liverpool fans and supporters trusts/share issues

The formation of a "Supporters Trust" via either a mutual membership scheme or a share issue could have a two-fold benefit: firstly raising much needed finance and secondly augmenting and expanding LFC's role in the community (football and local).

From the wide-range of independent supporter-led initiatives which already take place (HJC, Michael Shields, mosaics, Kop banner project, liaising with European away fans such as Galatasaray and Olympiakos, challenging media outlets who have inaccurately portrayed the Hillsborough disaster - FHM, Maxim magazine, BBC Worldwide, Universal Pictures etc) it is clear there is an untapped potential could take Liverpool FC back to the heart of the community at a time when fans and their clubs are perceived to be drifting apart. Unfortunately much of this current work in unfunded and organised by volunteers on an ad hoc basis with little cooperatioon with the club.

An LFC Supporters Trust might want to get involved with a mix of the Barcelona model of community projects (see above), the LFC in the Community projects and the "Fan Projekts" so prevalent in Germany.

These Fan Projekts act as links between the Bundesliga clubs and their fans. They provide a place for daily discussion and a forum for information. They've proven to be a great resource for working off frustration and the fans' central point of contact with the club and are seen as vastly improving the relationship between fans and the clubs in Germany since they were first proposed by the Government in 1992. The Fans Projekts are traditionally provided office space by the club and employ two or three full-time workers and undertake many community projects including anti-racism and anti-violence work.

Dissemination of information to fans is still deemed to be a problem at Liverpool with the ticket office the brunt of most complaints. Problems often arise which are foreseen by fans on the websites but seemingly not by the club. A proactive attitude to these problems by the club (possibly by using a Fans Office/Projekt run by fans as a conduit, a first point of contact) could alleviate many of these frustrations and dispel quickly myths which often arise.

Other areas an LFC Supporters Trust might like to get involved with (over and above those mentioned above at Barcelona and already having been achieved by the already existing LFC community) could include areas such as:

1. Promoting Girls and Ladies football, perhaps "adopting" the Liverpool Ladies team
2. Sponsoring football teams in local Primary schools, with provision of kits and coaching - possibly combining this with giving those schools who participate access to some tickets for matches 2-3 times a season
3. Sponsoring local football leagues at all levels
4. Disabled Supporters issues
5. Charity work in the local community
6. Working with Kick It Out and Football Against Racism in Europe

Also a Supporters Trust could be a proactive method of addressing some of the recent recommendations of the All Party Football Parliamentary Group's Inquiry Report "English Football and Its Finances", which include:

"We would like to see the views of ordinary supporters genuinely represented at Board level at all clubs. To this end, we recommend that each professional football club establish a formal integrated mechanism to ensure that supporters' views are represented at board level. In the case of a club owned by a 'football benefactor', it may well require some form of formalised contact with elected supporters."

Taking all of the above together a Supporters Trust (be it funded through a Barcelona model with appropriate benefits to members or a share issue ) could be the ideal method for taking Liverpool firmly back into the heart of the community, helping fund a new stadium and genuinely harness for the first time the latent worldwide and local support LFC possesses.

Which of the two? A share issue would provide a bigger initial burst of funding (say £15m - £20m) where as a membership scheme would bring in a smaller amount of money but on a yearly basis (say £3m a year with the club taking £2.5m and £0.5m spent on community projects). In both cases you'd envisage the fans/trust owning a minority percentage of the club (say 10-15%) and electing a supporters representative to the board. A trust would have it's own elected "council" from among the member's ranks, hold regular meetings where members would vote on issues and projects to undertake etc

But what do you think? What would you be interested in? Have you got an alternative idea? Any pitfalls? Enthused?

Bien sûr, j'aimerais bien être actionnaire d'un petit bout du LFC, mais ce n'est pas ma place.
Le club doit appartenir au club et pas aux supporters aussi brillants soient-ils. Je crains une dérive et surtout une catastrophe comme MU.
Quand on voit l'importance débile qu'ont pris les supporters du PSG et de Marseille, qui par la violence de leurs gestes et de leurs propos veulent dicter leurs lois aux dirigeants (ça ne vous rappelle rien ?), je crois qu'il vaut mieux rester prudent.

je penche aussi pour ce type de solution.
un navire,un chef.
un navire avec plein de chefs différents qui empochent plein de sous,ça mène nulle part.
je n'aime pas que les supporters élisent un entraineur ou un président,je trouve ça malsain:ça dérive vers la politique et la politique c'est du show business.

Je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous! Le club appartient avant tout à ceux qui l'aiment et vivent pour lui! n'importe quel fan de chelski peut se revendiquer plus "propriétaire" du club qu'Abramovitch ! Meme si tout cela reste subjectif! Quand à l'importance des ultras de l'om, je peux en parler, étant membre d'un de ces groupes, elle reste limitée à la vente de places et de gadgets, nous n'avons aucun pouvoir décisionnaire!
Donc je pense que tout fan de quel club que ce soit, devrait pouvoir avoir un pouvoir minimal sur son club tout en laissant les décisions importantes(investissement, transferts...) à des gens compétents(entraineurs...)!
Le systeme d'élection du président par les fans me parait donc la solution la plus adaptée!

Moi le type d'investissement que je voudrais,serait un investissement personnel des joueurs sur le terrain.

moi le modele du barca me convient tres bien car les supporters se plaignent souvent de ne pas etre ecoutés ba la non seulement on les ecoutent mais en plus ils ont un pouvoir fort sur le club.

redman75 wrote:

moi le modele du barca me convient tres bien car les supporters se plaignent souvent de ne pas etre ecoutés ba la non seulement on les ecoutent mais en plus ils ont un pouvoir fort sur le club.

si on avait eu ce type de fonctionnement,paisley aurait peut être été viré pour avoir laissé partir keegan.et dalglish ne serait pas venu.

oui mais dans ces cas la les supporters n'auraient pu s'en prendre qu'a eux meme

redman75 wrote:

oui mais dans ces cas la les supporters n'auraient pu s'en prendre qu'a eux meme

oui ce que je veux dire par là c'est que les elections c'est le capharnaüm quand l'équipe ne marche pas.
je prends l'exemple de bob paisley pcq face aux journalistes,c'etait une cata.

autumn319 wrote:

si on avait eu ce type de fonctionnement,paisley aurait peut être été viré pour avoir laissé partir keegan.et dalglish ne serait pas venu.

Je ne suis pas d'accord avec toi, Dalglish serait venu car on aurait pas viré Paisley après le transfert de Keegan mais seulement si Dalglish s'était montré incapable de le remplacer ce qui n'a pas été le cas !
Qui plus est un dirigeant viré par les supporters l'est souvent à cause des résultats et ne peut donc s'en prendre qu'à sa gestion.

non franchement ce systeme du barca me convient moi.

Kilkenny wrote:

Je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous! Le club appartient avant tout à ceux qui l'aiment et vivent pour lui! n'importe quel fan de chelski peut se revendiquer plus "propriétaire" du club qu'Abramovitch ! Meme si tout cela reste subjectif! Quand à l'importance des ultras de l'om, je peux en parler, étant membre d'un de ces groupes, elle reste limitée à la vente de places et de gadgets, nous n'avons aucun pouvoir décisionnaire!
Donc je pense que tout fan de quel club que ce soit, devrait pouvoir avoir un pouvoir minimal sur son club tout en laissant les décisions importantes(investissement, transferts...) à des gens compétents(entraineurs...)!
Le systeme d'élection du président par les fans me parait donc la solution la plus adaptée!

Je ne connais l'OM que de l'extérieur alors je te fais confiance.
Mais quand je parle de pouvoir, je parle du pouvoir que les fans s'octroient et que le pouvoir du club est incapable de contrôler: Pour en constater les dégâts, il suffit de comparer le nombre d'entraineurs et de présidents entre le LFC et l'Om depuis 10, 20 ou même 40 ans.
Si quelqu'un peut le faire on va s'amuser.

kilkenny,ya des trucs obscurs à l'om quand même.
quand les yankees annoncent aux journalistes le départ d'un entraineur avant tout le monde,ça me parait etrange.
j'aime l'om mais on ne peut pas dire que l'équipe travaille dans la serenité.

moi perso je sais pas trop la j avou je suis dans le flou

autumn319 wrote:

kilkenny,ya des trucs obscurs à l'om quand même.
quand les yankees annoncent aux journalistes le départ d'un entraineur avant tout le monde,ça me parait etrange.
j'aime l'om mais on ne peut pas dire que l'équipe travaille dans la serenité.

Avant tout, petite correction: le changement d'entraineur dont tu parles ne fut pas annoncé par les yankees mais par Christian Cataldo, président des dodger's(mais ceci n'est qu'un détail)!
Je vais te prendre un exemple concret pour faire le parrallèle avec Dalglish et Keegan: Christophe Bouchet a démissioné sous la pression des supporters marseillais non pas uniquement à cause du départ de Drogba mais AUSSI à cause de son incapacité à trouver un sustitut à la hauteur et pour avoir dilapidé l'argent de sa vente en achetant des joueurs qui n'avaient pas le niveau(genre Fiorèse). Si l'équipe batie grace à ce transfert s'était révélée etre "la meilleure du club depuis dix ans"(ce qu'elle était selon Bouchet), nous aurions oublié Drogba dès le mois d'octobre.
Tu parles de la pression(inutile selon toi) que nous mettons sur les joueurs et les dirigeants du club, mais celle-ci ne s'applique que si on ne ressent pas d'implication de la part des personnes concernées: tu peux voir par exemple que cette saison, malgré les mauvais résultats, nous n'avons jamais réclamé la tete de Jean Fernandez car nous le savons intègre et impliqué!
Mais en effet je te concède que ce n'est pas aux supporters à jouer les attachés de presse du club!

oui enfin de toute facon le systeme de l'om n'est pas comparable avec celui du barca...pas du tout.je veux pas m'etendre sur le sujet mais ca saute aux yeux.disons que chacun a ses particularités...mais je prefere le systeme du barca.