• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Pros and Cons of a consortium setup

Forums New posts
sorry clumsy wording ,meant to say only one club has consortium of shareholders that is more than 5. The vast majority have just one ir two owning large amounts of shares
 
Barry.C said:
sorry clumsy wording ,meant to say only one club has consortium of shareholders that is more than 5. The vast majority have just one ir two owning large amounts of shares
Click to expand...
Does that include where a consortium owns a holding company, that in turn owns the football club?
 
rigsby said:
Most will have made their money by being the top boy and might not be used to suddenly becoming midshipman.....Thats not a criticism, hats of to them.

The benefit of numbers is if someone isn't happy or decides on some other venture. Then they could be more easily replaced or bought out by the others.
Click to expand...
Can't see anyone in the consortium being worse than anyone on the current BOD.FWIW,I met one of them when I was last over for our last match of last season against the Stones.When I hoped that the present chairman would die of cancer over the summer ;he said " I wouldn't go that far."
 
Tangled up in Blue said:
Can't see anyone in the consortium being worse than anyone on the current BOD.FWIW,I met one of them when I was last over for our last match of last season against the Stones.When I hoped that the present chairman would die of cancer over the summer ;he said " I wouldn't go that far."
Click to expand...

That might explain post number 44
 
I think set your bar in the middle and if they exceed expectations then great news. This is a long haul to drag the club back into the league and more importantly keep us in league for more than one season
Fed up reading we are a big club, best supporters, best squad blah blah blah
End of the day we are in non league and a part from folding we couldn’t hit further rock bottom
Personally not a fan of new investors drinking in bar with supporters would prefer a more in the back ground approach , as I remember a certain chairman doing the same handing out his phone number and fast forward a few years ….
Similar people boasting they have a mobile contact list they can call on, just shut up and do it without this culture look what I can do .
Personally like Kevins approach, quietly gets on with the job with what tools he has in front of him, that’s a real legend in my eyes
Exciting times for club and supporters but try not to get too carried away if this and next season we are still in same division, I look at this as very long haul and not everything will go according to plan
UTS
 
FWIW i Have been involved with consortia in the past, and believe me you need to do as much DD on the other members as you do on the company you are purchasing.

There are some people buying companies you really wouldn't want to get in bed with.( including some local ones)

Not saying any of these are joining our board.
 
defender05 said:
They can't expect it for free though, with all the new members recently they might want to try and buy a small stake in the consortium.
Click to expand...

I don't see why it's necessary for the trust to be part of the consortium to have a rep on the board. There is no requirement for board members to be shareholders - although I think the trust is an existing shareholder. It's 'usual' for board members to be shareholders to ensure the interests of owners (shareholders) and the board are aligned. In the case of football though that isn't necessarily a good thing! The fans representative is there to hopefully add some transparency and give the fans a voice - football is a rather unique business with fans being stakeholders (as opposed to purely customers) that are often voiceless and ignored at board level. For it to be necessary for the Trust to have to buy in to get this voice I'm not sure is the right way and could be seen as removing the benefit of independence.
 
Tangled up in Blue said:
"Does that include where a consortium owns a holding company, that in turn owns the football club?"

Sorry but I think you're going to have to explain what you mean exacly here.
Click to expand...

The numbers have changed on this thread. It is now 46 that I'm referring to. Where Napster mentions part of the consortium not wanting fans on the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary Beecham
Andys man club Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top