I'd rather be a PLC

[Alain Perrin]

I'd rather Saints remain a PLC than convert to a private company. There's far more visibility and opportunity to be heard in a PLC than in a private company.

 

To keep a balance and avoid the fragmented share base that has caused us problems I'd do the following:

 

- I'd allocate 10% of the share capital and allocate them to each fan who buys a ticket.

- All shares allocated in this way would be placed in trust so that each fan would 'own' a number of shares in a nominee account under their name - but the voting rights would live with the trust.

 

That way, fan ownership increases over time and there's an incentive for fans to buy tickets.

[Mole]

PLC's don't work in football.

[SaintRichmond]

I'd rather Saints remain a PLC than convert to a private company. There's far more visibility and opportunity to be heard in a PLC than in a private company.

 

.

 

 

No thanks .......... Look where being a PLC has got us ....... Lowe's personnal Toy ..... ZERO Investment ( thanks to him ) .......

 

Bad circumstances I know, but the minute he's gone ...... LOADS of intertested parties

 

Lowe was the Millstone around the neck of Saints

 

The quicker he jumps off the Itchen Bridge with it around his, the better ......

[Leslie Charteris]

PLCs only exist to take profit out of the company and are no good for football clubs.

 

What really sticks in my craw is the fact that Irving Scholar first did this at Tottenham 25 years ago the Football League just let him carry on, despite it being totally against the spirit of the regulations. They wouldn't take on people with deep pockets but they will exact vindictive punishment on those who cannot easily fight back like Luton, Bournemouth and now Saints.

 

It will be interesting to see what the new owners do. Reviving the PLC or creating a new one would suggest they are out to make money - sometime in the future.

[Gingeletiss]

I'd rather Saints remain a PLC than convert to a private company. There's far more visibility and opportunity to be heard in a PLC than in a private company.

 

To keep a balance and avoid the fragmented share base that has caused us problems I'd do the following:

 

- I'd allocate 10% of the share capital and allocate them to each fan who buys a ticket.

- All shares allocated in this way would be placed in trust so that each fan would 'own' a number of shares in a nominee account under their name - but the voting rights would live with the trust.

 

That way, fan ownership increases over time and there's an incentive for fans to buy tickets.

 

Christ..........we're not over the first shambles caused by a PLC, and your wanting a repeat showing, unbloodybelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[corsacar saint]

No thanks.

[The Farmer]

I'd rather Saints remain a PLC than convert to a private company. There's far more visibility and opportunity to be heard in a PLC than in a private company.

 

To keep a balance and avoid the fragmented share base that has caused us problems I'd do the following:

 

- I'd allocate 10% of the share capital and allocate them to each fan who buys a ticket.

- All shares allocated in this way would be placed in trust so that each fan would 'own' a number of shares in a nominee account under their name - but the voting rights would live with the trust.

 

That way, fan ownership increases over time and there's an incentive for fans to buy tickets.

 

Why did you waste your time posting this BS?

[Verbal]

I'd rather Saints remain a PLC than convert to a private company. There's far more visibility and opportunity to be heard in a PLC than in a private company.

 

To keep a balance and avoid the fragmented share base that has caused us problems I'd do the following:

 

- I'd allocate 10% of the share capital and allocate them to each fan who buys a ticket.

- All shares allocated in this way would be placed in trust so that each fan would 'own' a number of shares in a nominee account under their name - but the voting rights would live with the trust.

 

That way, fan ownership increases over time and there's an incentive for fans to buy tickets.

 

1. There's an awful lot of information that 'private' (limited liability') companies have to make publicly available. Anyone who runs their own company would be well aware of this.

 

2. You can 'get heard' within PLC structures in much the same way that independent voices are heard at a block-voting TUC conferences - in other words, in no meaningful way, or simpy not at all.

 

3. What you're proposing sounds like the very thing you say you don't want - a fragmented shareholding.

[TNT]

Transparency ???? LOL since when at Saints under Lowes plc ?

 

You get lump figures to see in both set ups end of, that is all.

 

The PLC has been a total disaster and merely allowed Lowe and his cronies to hijack the club.

Edited 25 April, 2009 by TNT

[alpine_saint]

I'd rather Saints remain a PLC than convert to a private company. There's far more visibility and opportunity to be heard in a PLC than in a private company.

 

To keep a balance and avoid the fragmented share base that has caused us problems I'd do the following:

 

- I'd allocate 10% of the share capital and allocate them to each fan who buys a ticket.

- All shares allocated in this way would be placed in trust so that each fan would 'own' a number of shares in a nominee account under their name - but the voting rights would live with the trust.

 

That way, fan ownership increases over time and there's an incentive for fans to buy tickets.

 

Christ you are such a Lowe Luvvie.

 

Not wanted today - go away.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Sorry but I have to state an emphatic "NO" to PLC status. Apart from disparate and fragmented views, this structure encourages fragmented shareholding and therefore disuades investment and/or purchase of the commodity. PLC status has almost killed this club alongside its architects idiotic and poor mismanagement. I truly hope this is not repeated at this football club ever again.

[Toadhall Saint]

No No NO!! PLC's are there to make money for the shareholders - do they ever reinvest that dividend? Did Lowe - nah didn't think so.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Why did you waste your time posting this BS?

 

To promote thoughtful debate? There is always a danger in the brave new world we end up with some despotic chairman who is intent on developing the club to meet his own purposes and without the need to be answerable to shareholders let alone fans. The grass isn't always greener and perhaps a plc under a different CEO isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Share ownership undeniably helps a sense of ownership and a collective desire to see the club/company succeed if as many as possible have part ownership especially employees and committed fans/customers.

 

Shared ownership is still viewed with suspicion, the blue collar vs white collar scenario that society has done a lot to move away from. However, some in football prefer the old Victorian method of ownership as if your football club was a coal mine from some D H Lawrence novel.

 

Both models have disadvantages and is dependent on the business proposal and buyers. What if Rupert Lowe bought the club and continued as owner and chairman and no shareholders like Leon Crouch to challenge his thinking? Rupert Lowe back in charge of a PLC would be altogether a touch more democratic.

 

Extreme example but a PLC will always be less autocratic and more transparent and to blindly dismiss it, is ludicrous. Chelsea to a degree have lost their identiity and when Roman gets bored, what then? He answers to no one but himself, same as Gaydamak.

[Freemantle_Saint]

No thanks. It's been tried. It didn't work. Time to move on.

[um pahars]

To promote thoughtful debate?

 

It's a pity you've taken 6 different guises (and various changes within each of those) to get to this stage.:smt117

 

 

All of a sudden we're supposed to believe you've changed your ways and the days of Sundance Beast and the earlier versions of Nineteen Canteen were just a pipedream:D

[Nineteen Canteen]

No No NO!! PLC's are there to make money for the shareholders - do they ever reinvest that dividend? Did Lowe - nah didn't think so.

 

Make money or preserve shareholder value? If Shares are rewarded to employees as part of a bonus scheme why not reward fans with shares who invest in Season Tickets. The more you buy and the longer the period the more shares you are awarded. If it's seen a company looks after its shareholders it will encourage investment and increase revenue.

 

If PLC is such a bad thing how about a private partnership like the John Lewis Group but open it up to customers, fans in this case.

 

Shared ownership is a good thing, the person appointed CEO is the key.

[Gingeletiss]

There is always a danger in the brave new world we end up with some despotic chairman who is intent on developing the club to meet his own purposes and without the need to be answerable to shareholders let alone fans.

 

Saturday Shocker..........NumptycanteenFlashmantheBearsundancebeast, scores an own goal.

 

19.......we've tried the above, why on earth do you associate it with a Private sale, when we had 12 years of it under the 'PLC' umbrella.

[Nineteen Canteen]

It's a pity you've taken 6 different guises (and various changes within each of those) to get to this stage.:smt117

 

 

All of a sudden we're supposed to believe you've changed your ways and the days of Sundance Beast and the earlier versions of Nineteen Canteen were just a pipedream:D

 

 

Give it up Stephen. The whole club is on the brink and you continue with your petty little agendas and childish ripostes.

 

Why aren't you at the fund raising meetings that must be going on this morning to organise the day's collections along with the likes of Nick Illingsworth, Steve Grant, Derry and the rest?

[Weston Saint]

It's a pity you've taken 6 different guises (and various changes within each of those) to get to this stage.:smt117

 

 

All of a sudden we're supposed to believe you've changed your ways and the days of Sundance Beast and the earlier versions of Nineteen Canteen were just a pipedream:D

Sorry Steve you are beginning to get boring now.

[lenwilkins]

To promote thoughtful debate? There is always a danger in the brave new world we end up with some despotic chairman who is intent on developing the club to meet his own purposes and without the need to be answerable to shareholders let alone fans.

 

And that wouldn't ever ever ever happen under a plc?

 

LMAO

 

:smt075:smt063:smt040[-X:smt007:smt051:smt051:smt051:rip::butthead:

 

(sorry just having an um p moment there)

[alpine_saint]

To promote thoughtful debate? There is always a danger in the brave new world we end up with some despotic chairman who is intent on developing the club to meet his own purposes and without the need to be answerable to shareholders let alone fans. The grass isn't always greener and perhaps a plc under a different CEO isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Share ownership undeniably helps a sense of ownership and a collective desire to see the club/company succeed if as many as possible have part ownership especially employees and committed fans/customers.

 

Shared ownership is still viewed with suspicion, the blue collar vs white collar scenario that society has done a lot to move away from. However, some in football prefer the old Victorian method of ownership as if your football club was a coal mine from some D H Lawrence novel.

 

Both models have disadvantages and is dependent on the business proposal and buyers. What if Rupert Lowe bought the club and continued as owner and chairman and no shareholders like Leon Crouch to challenge his thinking? Rupert Lowe back in charge of a PLC would be altogether a touch more democratic.

 

Extreme example but a PLC will always be less autocratic and more transparent and to blindly dismiss it, is ludicrous. Chelsea to a degree have lost their identiity and when Roman gets bored, what then? He answers to no one but himself, same as Gaydamak.

 

This post is funny as f**k. It is dripping in irony

 

I really do wonder about the people starting and provoking such a thread today, of all days, when we may be about to play our last home game EVER due to the moronic PLC structure.

 

I wonder if AP and NC have donated tickets ?

 

Lads, its a much better way of seeking attention than this provocative crap.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Saturday Shocker..........NumptycanteenFlashmantheBearsundancebeast, scores an own goal.

 

19.......we've tried the above, why on earth do you associate it with a Private sale, when we had 12 years of it under the 'PLC' umbrella.

 

Selective response once again from Ginger and no attempt to consider AP's comments at least.

[Weston Saint]

To promote thoughtful debate? There is always a danger in the brave new world we end up with some despotic chairman who is intent on developing the club to meet his own purposes and without the need to be answerable to shareholders let alone fans. The grass isn't always greener and perhaps a plc under a different CEO isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Share ownership undeniably helps a sense of ownership and a collective desire to see the club/company succeed if as many as possible have part ownership especially employees and committed fans/customers.

 

Shared ownership is still viewed with suspicion, the blue collar vs white collar scenario that society has done a lot to move away from. However, some in football prefer the old Victorian method of ownership as if your football club was a coal mine from some D H Lawrence novel.

 

Both models have disadvantages and is dependent on the business proposal and buyers. What if Rupert Lowe bought the club and continued as owner and chairman and no shareholders like Leon Crouch to challenge his thinking? Rupert Lowe back in charge of a PLC would be altogether a touch more democratic.

 

Extreme example but a PLC will always be less autocratic and more transparent and to blindly dismiss it, is ludicrous. Chelsea to a degree have lost their identiity and when Roman gets bored, what then? He answers to no one but himself, same as Gaydamak.

Fair points and worthy of note. For me weighing up the advantages and disadvantages I would prefer private ownership for now.

 

In my opinion anyone who thinks a new owner/s will be in it to lose money is barking mad. Whoever comes in with substantial funds will want the club to live within its means and generate a profit over a period of time. The days of a sugar daddy in it for the fun have long gone as far as I am concerned.

[Gingeletiss]

Selective response once again from Ginger and no attempt to consider AP's comments at least.

 

Considered, and dismissed, didn't take long either. As to selective response..............I bow to the master;)

[Mole]

This thread is without doubt the most riduculous thing ever to said in relation to Saints. The PLC brought this club to it's knees and some fans would actually like to go backwards and do it all over again. You could not make it up.

[Weston Saint]

This post is funny as f**k. It is dripping in irony

 

I really do wonder about the people starting and provoking such a thread today, of all days, when we may be about to play our last home game EVER due to the moronic PLC structure.

 

I wonder if AP and NC have donated tickets ?

 

Lads, its a much better way of seeking attention than this provocative crap.

Did you actually read it G? Don't let poster reputation cause you to react without thought. That is what many do to you and it is as boring as f..k when they do.

[Nineteen Canteen]

This post is funny as f**k. It is dripping in irony

 

I really do wonder about the people starting and provoking such a thread today, of all days, when we may be about to play our last home game EVER due to the moronic PLC structure.

 

I wonder if AP and NC have donated tickets ?

 

Lads, its a much better way of seeking attention than this provocative crap.

 

Alps if you believe it's solely the PLC structure that has led to this day then you are the moron. Donating tickets whilst worthy and I am not knocking Roswell's initiative and he deserves great credit but it could have been done months ago but many were to busy focusing on acheiving their moronic objectives. Well done Alps you got what you wished for instead of trying to encourage others to support the club from the word go this season.

[Gingeletiss]

In my opinion anyone who thinks a new owner/s will be in it to lose money is barking mad. Whoever comes in with substantial funds will want the club to live within its means and generate a profit over a period of time. The days of a sugar daddy in it for the fun have long gone as far as I am concerned.

 

I agree............nobody will buy into football nar day's, with a view to chucking their money away, and will expect a reasonable return for their investment. Which is why all those clamoring for LC to throw £2 million at Saints now, are barking mad as well..........would you??.

[OldNick]

Going into administration has not been my idea of fun and has costs me a lots of money it shouldnt have. I just want a football club that thrills me again with a low key owner who has some common sense.

When/if we get one please can we as a fanbase give them some slack and not complain about everything FFS

[Mole]

Going into administration has not been my idea of fun and has costs me a lots of money it shouldnt have. I just want a football club that thrills me again with a low key owner who has some common sense.

When/if we get one please can we as a fanbase give them some slack and not complain about everything FFS

 

They will have a clean slate as far as i'm concerned. I will judge them on their actions.

[um pahars]

Sorry Steve you are beginning to get boring now.

 

Bravo.

 

Would have loved to have your intimate knowledge of boredom and your interjections at our disposal when this troll was ruining a potentially good board over recent months.

[um pahars]

Give it up Stephen. The whole club is on the brink and you continue with your petty little agendas and childish ripostes.

 

And you've been trolling, insulting, accusing, antagonising, sending insulting PM's over the last couple of years, so spare me the sanctimonious, holier than thou approach.

 

Maybe you should have heeded your own words over the last couple of years.

 

As my hero Lauren said "I can forgive you, but I'd rather just forget you;)"

[SaintRobbie]

I'd rather Saints remain a PLC than convert to a private company. There's far more visibility and opportunity to be heard in a PLC than in a private company.

 

To keep a balance and avoid the fragmented share base that has caused us problems I'd do the following:

 

- I'd allocate 10% of the share capital and allocate them to each fan who buys a ticket.

- All shares allocated in this way would be placed in trust so that each fan would 'own' a number of shares in a nominee account under their name - but the voting rights would live with the trust.

 

That way, fan ownership increases over time and there's an incentive for fans to buy tickets.

 

Barking idea given the evidence of the last 14 years.

 

ONE OWNER - ONE VISION

 

Thats how you run a football club.

[OldNick]

And you've been trolling, insulting, accusing, antagonising, sending insulting PM's over the last couple of years, so spare me the sanctimonious, holier than thou approach.

 

Maybe you should have heeded your own words over the last couple of years.

 

As my hero Lauren said "I can forgive you, but I'd rather just forget you;)"

FFS can we not have an new start? You and NC and others are all part of the ingredients that make the site what it is. NC has come back and until he steps over the line again can you not give him a break, Im sure he and yourself will be a thorn in my side at times but.... You are big enough to do so Im sure

[lenwilkins]

And you've been trolling, insulting, accusing, antagonising, sending insulting PM's over the last couple of years, so spare me the sanctimonious, holier than thou approach.

 

Maybe you should have heeded your own words over the last couple of years.

 

As my hero Lauren said "I can forgive you, but I'd rather just forget you;)"

 

 

Perhaps you and the Beast could star in a fund raising Panto version of Cassablanca Steve?

[Nineteen Canteen]

Fair points and worthy of note. For me weighing up the advantages and disadvantages I would prefer private ownership for now.

 

In my opinion anyone who thinks a new owner/s will be in it to lose money is barking mad. Whoever comes in with substantial funds will want the club to live within its means and generate a profit over a period of time. The days of a sugar daddy in it for the fun have long gone as far as I am concerned.

 

Weston, I don't disagree and comes back to the point it depends who is buying the club. Logically, a new owner will want to set out to make money from their investment but equally they could prove to be in the long run a chancer or a charlatan that only becomes apparent before its too late.

 

The days of the sugar daddy may be gone but the ability to act like one may not and I don't think that fear is misplaced. Private Ownership only has to answer to themselves of the fans (if they wish) who can walk away again like they have done this season. If the new owner regardless of their intention to make money starts to lose sense of the reality and gets out of step with fans expectations the fans won't even have a Crouch type figure with a stake in the club to try and influence change. Neither will those fans have any stake in the club themselves to promote revenue and unity.

 

It really depends on an assessment of the new owners but I personally would always prefer some form of public or privately shared ownership so both fans amd employees can be part of the success but neither would I dismiss an alternative dependent on the buyer.

[um pahars]

Perhaps you and the Beast could star in a fund raising Panto version of Cassablanca Steve?

 

Only be too happy. We ouldn't need any thers for the cast as Nineteen's various guises will mean we have more than enough to cover all the roles.

 

Actually, given his schizophrenic nature, maybe a version of Hitch****'s Psycho would be more apt;)

[buctootim]

Only be too happy. We ouldn't need any thers for the cast as Nineteen's various guises will mean we have more than enough to cover all the roles.

 

Actually, given his schizophrenic nature, maybe a version of Hitch****'s Psycho would be more apt;)

 

 

For Christs sake give it up you repetitive tedious w**ker. For all your sense of self importance, you're just another poster on here.

[OldNick]

may i also say that Ump also deserves some slack on this. He drives me mad at times but Im sure I do the same for others on here.I dont want anybody driven away from this site as we need the whole mix.

[Gingeletiss]

may i also say that Ump also deserves some slack on this. He drives me mad at times but Im sure I do the same for others on here.I dont want anybody driven away from this site as we need the whole mix.

 

You do;)

[buctootim]

may i also say that Ump also deserves some slack on this. He drives me mad at times but Im sure I do the same for others on here.I dont want anybody driven away from this site as we need the whole mix.

 

I dont want him driven away, or anybody else either. I just want him to stop stalking people and issues. Its unfair on the victim and its boring for the rest of us.

[Alain Perrin]

Jesus.

 

You post an idea about the club and get slated for it.... and then NC and UM Pahars start knocking bells out of each other.

 

The problem is not the PLC, it is the management. My argument, missed by most, is that you have more influence over a PLC than a private company. If Hitler was your CEO he can be voted off by the shareholders. If Hitler owns you as a private company, it's out with the red and white stripes and in with the Brown shirts. And you can do **** all about it.

 

FYI Alpine - I didn't buy any tickets but I wager I put more in the bucket than you've spent on Saints this season.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Jesus.

 

You post an idea about the club and get slated for it.... and then NC and UM Pahars start knocking bells out of each other.

 

The problem is not the PLC, it is the management. My argument, missed by most, is that you have more influence over a PLC than a private company. If Hitler was your CEO he can be voted off by the shareholders. If Hitler owns you as a private company, it's out with the red and white stripes and in with the Brown shirts. And you can do **** all about it.

 

FYI Alpine - I didn't buy any tickets but I wager I put more in the bucket than you've spent on Saints this season.

 

 

Surely as fee paying customers we can vote with our wallets...no businessman (private or PLC) will ignore this - if they do its at their peril. Fundamentally, I would say you are more likely to get a private owner care more about the needs of the customer base (i.e. that means excitement in an entertainments business like football) than a PLC whose prime function is to serve its shareholders. Also, when it comes to needing more investment, it is far easier to attract a buyer to take the business to the next level, if there is not a massively fragmented shareholding. The evidence of both of these things have unfolded for SLH/SFC over the last ten years - surely you cannot refute THAT?!?

[alpine_saint]

FYI Alpine - I didn't buy any tickets but I wager I put more in the bucket than you've spent on Saints this season.

 

Wow, turn the issue into a childish piissing contest, why dont you ??

[David Strover]

My argument, missed by most, is that you have more influence over a PLC than a private company.

 

I don't agree. Having worked or invested in some way in many, many PLCs indirectly and directly I find I have had no influence whatsoever in the way these businesses are run. Furthermore the blind assumption that PLCs are the answer to everything is part of the reason we are in the state we are in.

 

A load of greedy, greedy men (usually) whose only mantra is 'where's my return?' For a football club that is a disaster - for a lot of normal businesses it is too. Most of them get along by accident lurching from one situation to the other and when they some how make more money than usual the blokes sat around the shiny table are lauded as geniuses and when it goes tits up - which they inevitable do - it's not their fault and half the workforce gets the sack.

[70's Mike]

plc or private company

with rupert in charge it would have made no difference

imo a plc only works in big business with institutional shareholders, our problem was the split of the shares left us open to cliques and gave control to minority shareholders

[SFC Forever]

i'd rather saints remain a plc than convert to a private company. There's far more visibility and opportunity to be heard in a plc than in a private company.

 

To keep a balance and avoid the fragmented share base that has caused us problems i'd do the following:

 

- i'd allocate 10% of the share capital and allocate them to each fan who buys a ticket.

- all shares allocated in this way would be placed in trust so that each fan would 'own' a number of shares in a nominee account under their name - but the voting rights would live with the trust.

 

That way, fan ownership increases over time and there's an incentive for fans to buy tickets.

 

you are not real. Either you are a wind up merchant or you are stark raving bonkers.

 

no way will we want to go down that path again.

[JustMike]

im beginning to think that the problems with this club run deeper than just the boardroom / players :confused:

[John B]

you are not real. Either you are a wind up merchant or you are stark raving bonkers.

 

no way will we want to go down that path again.

 

As a matter of interest why?

 

As I have no idea whether it is a good or bad idea to be a PLC

 

There must be pros and cons I would have thought

[Verbal]

Jesus.

 

You post an idea about the club and get slated for it.... and then NC and UM Pahars start knocking bells out of each other.

 

The problem is not the PLC, it is the management. My argument, missed by most, is that you have more influence over a PLC than a private company. If Hitler was your CEO he can be voted off by the shareholders. If Hitler owns you as a private company, it's out with the red and white stripes and in with the Brown shirts. And you can do **** all about it.

 

FYI Alpine - I didn't buy any tickets but I wager I put more in the bucket than you've spent on Saints this season.

 

I can only assume that you haven't read your own thread. Plenty of reasons have been given for not going down the PLC route again.

 

I'll add two more to the ones I listed above.

 

1. The annual cost of maintaining PLC status is, on the club's own admission, around £250,000 - the equivalent of one month's running costs in the Championship, and much longer than that in League One.

 

2. What really democratises a club is not PLC status - where have you been! - but relegation. The further you fall, the more you depend on schmucks like us coming through the turnstiles.