Private owners are a worry for football

We can't publish defamatory statements. Think before you post. Thanks, Roar Mods.

Always back self-interest - at least you know it's trying.

@ fussball, nice gesture by a man who loved his club, but i could cite you references to benefactors from the 1860's all the way through to present day, that have kept clubs afloat. That does not make a community/membership driven club, any worse than one owned by a billionaire. It could be argued that to give plenty of money with the knowledge that you will not own it, means that you are giving for the right reasons.

@ stabpass In 2009, just before Pratt passed away, current President and Carlton legend, Stephen Kernahan, hailed Richard Pratt for rescuing the Blues from the brink of bankruptcy. Source: http://www.theage.com.au/business/pratt-close-to-death-report-20090421-ad45.html

Fussball - - I always get a chuckle out of the way you always tear into anything and everything AFL I know you are a reformed AFL addict !! Your attitude is like that of a reformed smoker who always comes down so extra hard on continuing smokers ! Sorry to bore anyone with this flipant observation . . . but it is funny !

@ fussball, i really think you are being a bit silly to suggest that Carlton would have been put in receivership, first of all, the AFL would never have let that happen, and secondly there are plenty of millionaires/billionaires who would have put there hand in their pocket to bail them out. ........ which ultimately happened. Football clubs, no matter what league, division, what they pay staff and players, even amatuer clubs invariably usually just break even, they spend what they make, and invariably start the next season close to the bones of their arse. Profits are plowed back into facilities and so on and so forth, i am suprised you were not aware of this.

@ The Cattery The biggest problem - and I mean biggest problem - facing every business is "being undercaptialised. The examples you've given from AFL are "mickey mouse versions" of private ownership. The Bears and Swans private ownership didn't succeed b/c they went after Skase & Edelstein - one was a conman the other a clown - and neither was wealthy enough to own a sporting club. No wonder they ran out of money quickly. To own a sporting club, you need serious money - access to capital that you can afford to lose. Pratt is an example of a guy, who had such capital and, guess what ... this PRIVATE investor saved the AFL club.

Fussball North toyed with private ownership - at one point Carlton FC owned 49% of them! Swans and Bears were epic disasters under private ownership models. We've been there, done that, and one model has survived continuously for 115 seasons (in fact, most of the clubs are even older than that).

Johnnoo You are looking through rose coloured glasses here. Do you really think a members driven club could sustain the 1-2 million dollars most A-league clubs are losing currently. The problem for all start up clubs is that in the short term they are unlikely to break even let alone make a small profit. We do not have the luxury of a Europe when clubs can form in the lower leagues, have very small budgets and then grow over time as their revenue's grow. You cannot use exmaple like Barcelona who have been around for a 100 years. The closest club in recent time to support your argument would be AFC Wimbledon who have built themselves up over a period of 10 years. The fact we need the private ownership model currently, not only for the capital but to sustain the losses that will occur for the next 5-20 years. You use the argument what happens to the club when the money dries up? This is a issue about the sustainability of the game in this country not private ownership. If a member owned club was being asked to contribute 1-2 million per year on top of their membership money, i think you would find the club looking for a white knight very quickly. As fussball pointed out above the issue is not private ownership but concentrated ownership that places the club at the mercy of 1-2 very strong willed individuals. I would prefer a mixed model, where the members of the club obtain voting rights to 1-2 seats on the board and so have a say in the running fo the club. Any more than that and clubs are just as exposed finiancially as they are under the cujrrent ownership model.

But apaway the FFA is like new limited to the storm giving a lot of these a-league clubs grants to stay alive. And they do not have unlimited amounts of money . Then what happens to say Newcastle or gold coast if the private owners pull out. And there not of hundreds of people who have th emomeny or interest to buy football clubs. I think baby steps is better if it builds long term stability by having members owned clubs. Short term they may not have the high profile buy long term they can build. I think th best models are where member clubs are owned by members, with reliance of big sponsorship deals eg Nathan tinklier and clive palmer, and having them give 3rd party type input rather than formal day to day ownership. That way the football people can get on with running the club and the rich business people can still be involved in the sport and promote there business interests rather than use it as a toy. The group that have taken over the Brisbane Roar own a lot of football clubs already so they have been given a10 year licence and may prove to be sensible owners. The FFA have claimed they have been looking long and har for a suitable owner rather than the 1st rig man or woman who claims ot have the cash, time will tell on that one. But they still will have a 30% stake in the Roar and i don't think that is a good solution either the administrator of the sport having ownership of a club just look at the mess news limited have with the storm.

@ The Cattery That's not an argument that holds weight with me. Yes, the longevity of the clubs could be: a) due to "the membership model"; or b) in spite of "the membership model" How do you know that North Melbourne wouldn't become a powerhouse if they could attract a billionaire who saw potential in owning an AFL club the way billionaires flock to HAL clubs? We do know for a FACT that the membership model took the most successful AFL club, Carlton - at the time they had never finished bottom and had won the most VFL/AFL Premierships - to the brink of extinction. We also know for a FACT that a PRIVATE investor - disgraced businessman, Richard Pratt - single-handedly saved the club from being put into receivership - compelling recent evidence of the private equity saving an AFL club.

Well, i think in a round-a-bout way they can, they can vote in a new board, who will make the changes. If they wanted to it quicker, maybe a quorum of members would be needed to force elections and changes.

As he correctly pointed out in the very next post, members elect the board and president, and they do the hiring and firing of the CEO - that is a perfectly normal governance structure that definitely places the members in the position of "owner".

Ian Whitchurch suggested "(AFL) Members can sack the hired management." I simply pointed out that's false - AFL members cannot sack the hired management.

It has proven to be extraordinarily successful. In 115 seasons of VFL/AFL football, only one club has been completely lost to the league, University, in 1915, a victim of WWI. That stands up against anything you care to put up against it - anything.

Fuss no model is perfect, and Eddie Mcguire has helped Collingwood immensely as president. And i do remember when collingwood was on the brink. Hut he Fuss is president not the owner. So he is not ploughing his money in. He is president not the owner, so there is obvious motivation for him with out the pressure of using the football club as a toy. He is in it yes to help his own profile but also more likely in it for the right reasons , he is not the owner and can be voted out. A win for the members of Collingwood then. And Fuss i am not a big believer in AFL they have done a lot of bad for australian sport, they have treated soccer with contempt at times in Australia, and come across as a code only in it for themselves.

Are you seriously suggesting that members vote in CEO's ?.

Johnoo, you keep citing Barcelona as an example of a member-owned club, but they are a very big exception to the rule. In a perfect world, all clubs would like to be Barcelona, on and off the field, but Barca have an average home crowd of 90,000 and probably the highest membership of any sporting club in the world. The A-League simply does not have the membership population to have any of their clubs "be Barcelona", which is no criticism because neither do clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Real Madrid, AC Milan or Juventus.

Johnnoo, you can fall for any propaganda you wish !!.

Each and every HAL franchise have heavily relied on FFA handouts to stay afloat in the frist 5 years. You think Carlton and Collingwood were close to the wall, their most dire of times don't compare to what many of these HAL franchises have to face regularly. Not to say the "AFL model" will work for start up clubs in the HAL. Clubs like Collingwood, et al, have evolved from amateur clubs over time to be the powers they are now. These member backed models work well for amateurs and semi-pro, and then evolve to what we have now. We can't expect a brand new, fresh out of the box, football team in Australia to be able to implement such an ownership structure in today's high-cost professional sports landscape, but it must also be noted the sole owner private model can be frought with danger.