vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Feb 8, 2019 11:08:43 GMT
Without saying I told you so, if you listen to the meeting between 49 and 51 minutes, you will hear Steve Hamer describe the reluctance of DS to consider crowd funding initiatives.
The strategy needs to be clear: are we looking for a new Stadium, are we re-developing the Mem, are we committed to a training ground? DS own the strategy and how these major projects are going to be funded. Their strategy is unclear. They have been "diving for pearls and come up for air".
It is clear to me that Steve Hamer supports and has recommended crowd funding, but DS currently don't wish to pursue this model. But Steve is "chipping away" at them. A green light from DS is a pre-requisite. Tifosy are waiting on the sidelines once DS decide whether they wish to pursue this funding model.
If agreed, this needs an organisational entity to market and operate this initiative, akin to any charity needing to raise £millions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 11:17:01 GMT
We've done crowd funding though, I mean it wasn't sold as that, it was sold as a "share scheme" but we've done crowd funding.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Feb 8, 2019 11:35:39 GMT
We have, but not the way Tifosy has done it, with a model regulated by the FCA.
Share Scheme and SC raise £75k a year. Listen to broadcast.
We are talking millions (plural) for the type of capital expenditure that will make a difference. That demands a professional organisation to help raise, not volunteers.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 8, 2019 11:37:55 GMT
We have, but not the way Tifosy has done it, with a model regulated by the FCA. Share Scheme and SC raise £75k a year. Listen to broadcast. We are talking millions (plural) for the type of capital expenditure that will make a difference. That demands a professional organisation to help raise, not volunteers. Is that realistic? Genuinely asking here as I have no idea how this would work.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 11:43:32 GMT
We have, but not the way Tifosy has done it, with a model regulated by the FCA. Share Scheme and SC raise £75k a year. Listen to broadcast. We are talking millions (plural) for the type of capital expenditure that will make a difference. That demands a professional organisation to help raise, not volunteers. It won't raise millions though, people are still feeling burnt by the last donation scheme. It worked in Gorgie because they were trying to oust someone who was universally recognised as bad for the club in Vladimir Romanov. I don't think the Bristol Rovers Foundation Rent a Tent Tifosi campaign will take off.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 12:03:28 GMT
We have, but not the way Tifosy has done it, with a model regulated by the FCA. Share Scheme and SC raise £75k a year. Listen to broadcast. We are talking millions (plural) for the type of capital expenditure that will make a difference. That demands a professional organisation to help raise, not volunteers. But the long and the short of it is that they don't want fan investment and probably never will. I'd be very interested to know why they are so belligerent about this because, at the moment, the club is at a complete impasse as they won't commit any more funds to infrastructure yet won't invite us to do so. What's the point?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 8, 2019 12:11:52 GMT
We have, but not the way Tifosy has done it, with a model regulated by the FCA. Share Scheme and SC raise £75k a year. Listen to broadcast. We are talking millions (plural) for the type of capital expenditure that will make a difference. That demands a professional organisation to help raise, not volunteers. That's us f*cked then. Good luck Vaughan, I think you'll need it. UTG.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Feb 8, 2019 13:43:06 GMT
WSM - I agree 100%. It has left me baffled. Complete impasse.
I understand the scepticism about the ability to raise money, but that is about "selling it". I believe that the fan base can be energised, but trust, vision, plus a team of individuals truly responsible for the success of campaign hold the key. It has to be a joint investment effort as well, not just supporters. Tifosy model means that there is something definite in return - see debt or equity bonds.
The SS raised money, but supporters hold very little control with % holding of shares compared to DS.
The reality is that supporters should demand more in return. Not just donate for the love of the club.
Cap ex projects mean that funding has a real purpose. Invest and you can have a return and see this built.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 8, 2019 14:35:08 GMT
WSM - I agree 100%. It has left me baffled. Complete impasse. I understand the scepticism about the ability to raise money, but that is about "selling it". I believe that the fan base can be energised, but trust, vision, plus a team of individuals truly responsible for the success of campaign hold the key. It has to be a joint investment effort as well, not just supporters. Tifosy model means that there is something definite in return - see debt or equity bonds. The SS raised money, but supporters hold very little control with % holding of shares compared to DS. The reality is that supporters should demand more in return. Not just donate for the love of the club. Cap ex projects mean that funding has a real purpose. Invest and you can have a return and see this built. And there's the rub.
If it's looked on as a kind of benevolent charitable donation then I have to say that giving a family of millionaire's some money so they can continue to underinvest in a lower league football club is a fair way down my list of priorities in that direction.....
Like it or not the previous Share Scheme was sold, at least partially, on the idea that Rovers was still on some level an actual 'club' in which we were all in it together with the Share Scheme formalising that arrangement to an extent. There was still some residual 'Twerton spirit', 'Family Club' etc about the whole endeavour as skin deep as that may have subsequently turned out to be. Without debating the rights and wrong of what subsequently happened with the SS no one could seriously claim that our club is in the same place now in that regard - the idea of it being any kind of 'club' has gone completely. It is now just an asset to its owners and the supporters are merely the passive but emotionally invested customers who have to hope that those owners are a)competent and b)well-intentioned. It's easy to see why people who purchased the club purely as an asset would not be remotely interested in giving up any kind of control of that asset. I just can't see where the leavers of influence are here anymore.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Feb 8, 2019 15:04:07 GMT
Yes, spot on.
It's THEIR club.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 15:32:26 GMT
WSM - I agree 100%. It has left me baffled. Complete impasse. I understand the scepticism about the ability to raise money, but that is about "selling it". I believe that the fan base can be energised, but trust, vision, plus a team of individuals truly responsible for the success of campaign hold the key. It has to be a joint investment effort as well, not just supporters. Tifosy model means that there is something definite in return - see debt or equity bonds. The SS raised money, but supporters hold very little control with % holding of shares compared to DS. The reality is that supporters should demand more in return. Not just donate for the love of the club. Cap ex projects mean that funding has a real purpose. Invest and you can have a return and see this built. So what are you saying, now that Hamer has told you to come back with a proper understanding and some structure, you are going to get things up and running?
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Feb 8, 2019 16:06:17 GMT
BG
You ask the same question repeatedly as an agent provocateur.
Listen to the interview. 49-51 mins. Status is all there, aligned to what SH informed me previously and I shared at the time.
If you wish to use your influence as a conduit for opening up discussions with DS, then please let Tifosy and Tommy M know, as they are both keen. If SH can't persuade DS of the merits, then what chance I?
Then we could all be a bit wiser, provided that there are no confidentiality clauses invoked.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 17:55:29 GMT
BG You ask the same question repeatedly as an agent provocateur. Listen to the interview. 49-51 mins. Status is all there, aligned to what SH informed me previously and I shared at the time. If you wish to use your influence as a conduit for opening up discussions with DS, then please let Tifosy and Tommy M know, as they are both keen. If SH can't persuade DS of the merits, then what chance I? Then we could all be a bit wiser, provided that there are no confidentiality clauses invoked. I think you must have stopped listening before the bit where he invited you back, when you have a proper understanding and a serious plan to deliver? Don't try to push this on to me, it's something you said you were going to deliver, not me, Hamer has invited you to do so. No excuses, the door is open.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Feb 8, 2019 18:12:48 GMT
😂😂😂
The door is open.
To extend Steve's metaphor.
I have been diving for pearls of wisdom and have ended up with the Bends.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 18:58:27 GMT
😂😂😂 The door is open. To extend Steve's metaphor. I have been diving for pearls of wisdom and have ended up with the Bends. No metaphor needed, gain a proper understanding and foundation and go back, then you'll be given the time of day. Yes, they'll want a large sum of money committed, that's obvious, what did you expect? If you won't do it now you never will. You've been invited back but all you are doing is making excuses not to do the thing. Come on Vaughan, you said you wanted to do this, you've been told to get on with it, you have an opportunity to leave a legacy, you can be the person who started the scheme that raised the additional funds needed to get a stadium build across the line. Show some grit, get it up and running.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 19:43:51 GMT
WSM - I agree 100%. It has left me baffled. Complete impasse. I understand the scepticism about the ability to raise money, but that is about "selling it". I believe that the fan base can be energised, but trust, vision, plus a team of individuals truly responsible for the success of campaign hold the key. It has to be a joint investment effort as well, not just supporters. Tifosy model means that there is something definite in return - see debt or equity bonds. The SS raised money, but supporters hold very little control with % holding of shares compared to DS. The reality is that supporters should demand more in return. Not just donate for the love of the club. Cap ex projects mean that funding has a real purpose. Invest and you can have a return and see this built. And there's the rub.
If it's looked on as a kind of benevolent charitable donation then I have to say that giving a family of millionaire's some money so they can continue to underinvest in a lower league football club is a fair way down my list of priorities in that direction.....
Like it or not the previous Share Scheme was sold, at least partially, on the idea that Rovers was still on some level an actual 'club' in which we were all in it together with the Share Scheme formalising that arrangement to an extent. There was still some residual 'Twerton spirit', 'Family Club' etc about the whole endeavour as skin deep as that may have subsequently turned out to be. Without debating the rights and wrong of what subsequently happened with the SS no one could seriously claim that our club is in the same place now in that regard - the idea of it being any kind of 'club' has gone completely. It is now just an asset to its owners and the supporters are merely the passive but emotionally invested customers who have to hope that those owners are a)competent and b)well-intentioned. It's easy to see why people who purchased the club purely as an asset would not be remotely interested in giving up any kind of control of that asset. I just can't see where the leavers of influence are here anymore.
Hard to disagree- but whenever I see the phrase 'their asset' it conjures to mind that they have invested in a Banksy or something when the reality could not be starker. Their 'asset' is a crap football team that they seem to have no intention of developing, so why are they still here? It actually winds me up that we have no real idea of their intention or their aims. The club just sort of...exists...with it's future on life support and no idea how or when things will change.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 8, 2019 20:06:35 GMT
And there's the rub.
If it's looked on as a kind of benevolent charitable donation then I have to say that giving a family of millionaire's some money so they can continue to underinvest in a lower league football club is a fair way down my list of priorities in that direction.....
Like it or not the previous Share Scheme was sold, at least partially, on the idea that Rovers was still on some level an actual 'club' in which we were all in it together with the Share Scheme formalising that arrangement to an extent. There was still some residual 'Twerton spirit', 'Family Club' etc about the whole endeavour as skin deep as that may have subsequently turned out to be. Without debating the rights and wrong of what subsequently happened with the SS no one could seriously claim that our club is in the same place now in that regard - the idea of it being any kind of 'club' has gone completely. It is now just an asset to its owners and the supporters are merely the passive but emotionally invested customers who have to hope that those owners are a)competent and b)well-intentioned. It's easy to see why people who purchased the club purely as an asset would not be remotely interested in giving up any kind of control of that asset. I just can't see where the leavers of influence are here anymore.
Hard to disagree- but whenever I see the phrase 'their asset' it conjures to mind that they have invested in a Banksy or something when the reality could not be starker. Their 'asset' is a crap football team that they seem to have no intention of developing, so why are they still here? It actually winds me up that we have no real idea of their intention or their aims. The club just sort of...exists...with it's future on life support and no idea how or when things will change. Agreed but to pretend the situation is otherwise is to kid ourselves. Our Football clubs, with a very few exceptions, are simply not clubs anymore (although you could definitely argue whether they ever really were proper clubs) - they are far more like US style sports franchises.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 9, 2019 3:12:02 GMT
The reason they don't want fans to directly crowdfund any infrastructure is probably that it would look a little embarrassing for the owners if the fans built a small stand/roof/whatever and the only stadium contribution the owners had made in that time was some new hand dryers and the storage of a big TV in a mythical warehouse somewhere in Wolverhampton.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 9, 2019 7:17:40 GMT
We have, but not the way Tifosy has done it, with a model regulated by the FCA. Share Scheme and SC raise £75k a year. Listen to broadcast. We are talking millions (plural) for the type of capital expenditure that will make a difference. That demands a professional organisation to help raise, not volunteers. The tifosy thing was interrsting Vaughn, but what do the AQs have to give up/what do the investors get in return. Presumably its a bond that must deliver something to those putting money in to raise the finance in the first place
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Feb 9, 2019 11:03:28 GMT
www.tifosy.com What is Tifosy Tap into Google Forbes.com Norwich City for an independent view. Debt bonds - rate of interest is determined by the club via prospectus Equity bonds - number of shares is determined by the club via prospectus Hopefully all appreciate that the Club has to take the lead and decide the prospectus. This is not SS or buckets for return of Paul Randall.
|
|