CCM Supporters Trust

[Coast Football Ramble]

Thanks to everyone who has filled out the survey!

 

[Corsair]

I've started filling in the survey (which i only found here, have seen no advertising or other means of being asked to complete it). I don't understand the model and its not explained so far in the survey. It talks about investment but it looks like charity... if i sign up and pay money what's in it for me? Is this a gift to keep the club afloat or is there actually any ROI?

 

[Tim]

I am not sure that any money paid to the trust can be viewed through the same eyes (or apply the same metrics) as one would for the usual investment in a commercial enterprise (i.e. ROI, dividend or expectation/hope of capital growth). Rather, I think its an "investment" in the future of the club surviving and staying on the CC (and the CC more broadly). I appreciate everyone faces different financial circumstances, however, I truly believe the initial subscription fee and any further annual payments must be viewed in that light. Do you want a local A-League football side that you can follow, attend games and enjoy for a variety of reasons? If so, are you prepared to make some sort of initial and subsequent annual contribution to "guarantee" this (as much as any "guarantee" is possible in such circumstances)? If that is your position then contribute and only expect the "reward" of a club to follow in return. If your financial circumstances preclude this or you need a more tangible ROI on your money, it may be best to steer clear in my view as a lack of any "ROI" (material/financial return) may lead to frustration and a need/want to end your association with the trust.

 

[bikinigirl]

I've started filling in the survey (which i only found here, have seen no advertising or other means of being asked to complete it). I don't understand the model and its not explained so far in the survey. It talks about investment but it looks like charity... if i sign up and pay money what's in it for me? Is this a gift to keep the club afloat or is there actually any ROI?

. there is no model - yet! the purpose of the survey is to help shape the model

. therefore it is too early for a prospectus where an 'investor' might hope to see ROI numbers

. but lets be realistic here - if there were a set of numbers to show a ROI we wouldn't be looking at this model

. maybe one day there may be a possibility for some sort of return, just as it is possible you could win the lottery if you buy a ticket

. i believe that most 'investors' in this instance will be looking for a return that is non-monetary i.e. keeping our club, staying in the coast and becoming competitive again ... for some that will be more than enough of a ROI (and for others it may have to be)

EDIT: Tim was obviously typing as I was - my post would make more sense as a lead in to his

 

[Corsair]

That makes sense, totally get that. I think the language is a bit misleading/confusing but i now understand the intent. Its basically an emotional investment backed with some cash. If expectations are set up front that's transparent and fair enough.

The part i don't understand is how the money would be spent and if the trust (or whatever vehicle would control the funds) would purchase a percentage of the club or what? Would there be any liability?

Main concern is if this would end up being a subsidy so the owner can invest less.

I do think it's an interesting and well intentioned idea. Would be a terrible loss to the region to see the club fold or relocate.

 

[Corsair]

Making a lot more sense as the survey progresses... should have finished it all.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Likely to struggle to gain significant traction without a new owner and sensible investment (which appears unlikely)

People flock to support teams that are at least competitive. Whilst our signings so far are promising, we are still weaker than last season and that has to change to get hope and momentum for the trust

 

[Tim]

. there is no model - yet! the purpose of the survey is to help shape the model

. therefore it is too early for a prospectus where an 'investor' might hope to see ROI numbers

. but lets be realistic here - if there were a set of numbers to show a ROI we wouldn't be looking at this model

. maybe one day there may be a possibility for some sort of return, just as it is possible you could win the lottery if you buy a ticket

. i believe that most 'investors' in this instance will be looking for a return that is non-monetary i.e. keeping our club, staying in the coast and becoming competitive again ... for some that will be more than enough of a ROI (and for others it may have to be)

EDIT: Tim was obviously typing as I was - my post would make more sense as a lead in to his

Great minds, Bikinigirl!!

 

[Tevor]

Likely to struggle to gain significant traction without a new owner and sensible investment (which appears unlikely)

People flock to support teams that are at least competitive. Whilst our signings so far are promising, we are still weaker than last season and that has to change to get hope and momentum for the trust

A new owner is a major contributing factor in my opinion, I don’t see a lot of support for MC getting a leg up by the trust. It’s fair to say the relationship between MC and the fans is at an all time low and I doubt it can be smoothed over.

 

[AuzDutchy]

While im not really keen on handing money over to MC or to help MC, if it was a choice between

MC being the owner, needing help from a supporters trust

or

the club no longer exists

i would choose the option where we still exist

 

[Wombat]

Things appear to be moving quickly and things might be in place by the end of next season......sigh again!!

 

[Ancient Mariner]

I think we really need to think about the importance of the supporters' trust and how it can be used in different scenarios.

Scenario 1) The situation we have been seeing. Club on life support min salary cap spend, whether the Club is sold, kept by MC or run under administration.
In this scenario I see the Trust as probably being of extreme importance. The money it can inject raise the spend anywhere between the base and the top. This can lead to the Club not only being competitive, but remaining viable and being a more attractive option for sale. It may be crucial to keep the Club on the Coast.
If the Trust chooses to go in the way of buying a share of the Club it will possibly be more likely under this scenario.

Scenario 2) The Club is sold to a buyer who can afford to own an effective club.
In this scenario the Trust is not as crucial to the survival of the Club but may be able to influence a decision to keep the Club on the Coast. If the new owner the Trust could be of use for funding Marquee players or funding youth development.
Buying shares in the Club will depend on the owner.

There can be a range of options of varying degrees between the two scenarios.

If the Club is not sold and MC continues on as we are, it is clear that the Trust will be more important and effective than under any other scenario.
The Trust will be independent of the Club and can use any money available as it sees fit. Any owner cannot rely on the Trust to avoid any commitment that said owner's responsibilities as any funding to the Club will be at the Trusts discretion. The only way an owner can reduce having to personally dig into their own pockets is by increasing the Club's revenue stream (sponsorship, tickets etc.). The Trust falls outside this method of funding.
The only way the owner can count on the Trust financing the Club in any way is if the Trust actually purchases a share of the Club. If this happens then the Trust will be responsible for fully funding the Club proportionally with the majority owner. To many, this is the dream with the ideal being able to afford majority or complete ownership (Barca, Green Bay Packers).

At present if MC remains owner or sells should be largely irrelevant as to whether you invest in the Trust or not. Indeed if MC remains, the success of the Trust could probably be vital to our future and should not be a reason to hold back but a reason to dig deeper.

 

[Tevor]

I think we really need to think about the importance of the supporters' trust and how it can be used in different scenarios.

Scenario 1) The situation we have been seeing. Club on life support min salary cap spend, whether the Club is sold, kept by MC or run under administration.
In this scenario I see the Trust as probably being of extreme importance. The money it can inject raise the spend anywhere between the base and the top. This can lead to the Club not only being competitive, but remaining viable and being a more attractive option for sale. It may be crucial to keep the Club on the Coast.
If the Trust chooses to go in the way of buying a share of the Club it will possibly be more likely under this scenario.

Scenario 2) The Club is sold to a buyer who can afford to own an effective club.
In this scenario the Trust is not as crucial to the survival of the Club but may be able to influence a decision to keep the Club on the Coast. If the new owner the Trust could be of use for funding Marquee players or funding youth development.
Buying shares in the Club will depend on the owner.

There can be a range of options of varying degrees between the two scenarios.

If the Club is not sold and MC continues on as we are, it is clear that the Trust will be more important and effective than under any other scenario.
The Trust will be independent of the Club and can use any money available as it sees fit. Any owner cannot rely on the Trust to avoid any commitment that said owner's responsibilities as any funding to the Club will be at the Trusts discretion. The only way an owner can reduce having to personally dig into their own pockets is by increasing the Club's revenue stream (sponsorship, tickets etc.). The Trust falls outside this method of funding.
The only way the owner can count on the Trust financing the Club in any way is if the Trust actually purchases a share of the Club. If this happens then the Trust will be responsible for fully funding the Club proportionally with the majority owner. To many, this is the dream with the ideal being able to afford majority or complete ownership (Barca, Green Bay Packers).

At present if MC remains owner or sells should be largely irrelevant as to whether you invest in the Trust or not. Indeed if MC remains, the success of the Trust could probably be vital to our future and should not be a reason to hold back but a reason to dig deeper.

Not sure I agree and especially with scenario 2, probably helps attract new purchasers as they see how passionate the fan base is or what’s left of it. Look at MC’s track record of wasting money with poor decisions. I’m not interested in giving him more money beyond membership. Dare I mention the Bolt circus as a clear example of what he has put this club through. It’s clear some are willing to invest further in MC others not. Would have been interesting to see the response if it was a survey question.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Agree completely. Great post

 

[Ancient Mariner]

It will come down to how members of the Trust decide how the money will be spent. Whether it is given to the Club with the proviso that it is spent to increase the spend over the min or whether the Club asks for a specific amount to fund the purchase of a player that the Club cannot afford.

Any funding will not be an unconditional gift or like an unconditional sponsorship. To see it as funding MC is just wrong.

From what I understand there is a budget and the squad purchases are decided by a group consisting of the coaching assistant, Monty and last year, Anton, or something pretty close. I imagine if we are going to give money to strengthening the squad I would hope there would be a lot of dialogue between that group and the Trust for them to make to make a case for funding.

It will be the Trust, not the Club, who decides where the money goes and what it is used for.

It really should not matter who the owner is.

To say that you will not be part of what is the most exciting thing to happen to CCM and probably any football club in Australia just because you think the owner is incompetent, disliked, greedy or whatever and is really similar to saying you refuse to buy a membership until the Club spends more. It is probably the most effective way to ensure that the Club fails.

 

[jacobsfl]

Would have been interesting to see the response if it was a survey question.

This?

 

[FFC Mariner]

It will come down to how members of the Trust decide how the money will be spent. Whether it is given to the Club with the proviso that it is spent to increase the spend over the min or whether the Club asks for a specific amount to fund the purchase of a player that the Club cannot afford.

Any funding will not be an unconditional gift or like an unconditional sponsorship. To see it as funding MC is just wrong.

From what I understand there is a budget and the squad purchases are decided by a group consisting of the coaching assistant, Monty and last year, Anton, or something pretty close. I imagine if we are going to give money to strengthening the squad I would hope there would be a lot of dialogue between that group and the Trust for them to make to make a case for funding.

It will be the Trust, not the Club, who decides where the money goes and what it is used for.

It really should not matter who the owner is.

To say that you will not be part of what is the most exciting thing to happen to CCM and probably any football club in Australia just because you think the owner is incompetent, disliked, greedy or whatever and is really similar to saying you refuse to buy a membership until the Club spends more. It is probably the most effective way to ensure that the Club fails.

Thats not how business works.

The trust will either lend/give grants to the club (doesnt look like thats the plan) or buy shares in the club (in return for money). Once that happens its the directors of the business who decide how its spent.

To think the any minority investor can dictate what happens is simply incorrect

 

[turbo]

Any funding will not be an unconditional gift or like an unconditional sponsorship. To see it as funding MC is just wrong.

For this example let’s assume the floor is 2m and cap is 3m. Broadcast funding covers 1.8m. If MC turns around and says I can’t put in more than the 1.8 and we aren’t meeting the floor, the trust chips in or we pack it up and sell to Canberra. What does the trust do?

I don’t see a situation where they withhold funds and once that happens the bargaining power is gone and the owner is being subsidised by the trust almost all of whom are also paying their membership fees already. The trust requires a positive relationship with the owner and a lot of mutual respect (I’m trying really hard to avoid saying the trust needs trust) to function and that’s going to be very hard to achieve with so many jaded fans.

 

[Ancient Mariner]

It will come down to how the trust is managed. If it is mismanaged and if the money is not seen to used correctly or to the Trust members' satisfaction the Trust will simply collapse. It is in no one's interest for this to happen. Not MC's, not the fans, not the Club's not the trustees' and not the Coast's.
This is a chance for people to put their money where their mouth is.
Do not say you have already invested in the Club through membership. Membership buys you a ticket to watch a game of football live, not a stake in the Club.
To talk down this opportunity before it gets started because of a dislike for the only person in play at the moment who has skin in the game, I just find distressing.
If you want the Coast to have ownership of the Mariners and the Mariners to be part of the Coast this is an opportunity to make it so. To say that whoever owns the Club owes anything to the Coast or to fans is be incorrect until we make it so.
This is too good a chance to let slip away. And could be a final one.

I am a supporter of this Club not a supporter of whoever the owner is whether I like them or hate them. I will be thankful to play whatever small part that I am able to keep the Club alive and successful no matter what. Whatever it takes. 'nuff said.

 

[bikinigirl]

Any owner cannot rely on the Trust to avoid any commitment that said owner's responsibilities as any funding to the Club will be at the Trusts discretion. The only way an owner can reduce having to personally dig into their own pockets is by increasing the Club's revenue stream (sponsorship, tickets etc.). The Trust falls outside this method of funding.

. interesting ... because i know this sort of model was being discussed before Mark Brogan really kicked things along (and he was no part of those earlier discussions)

. i had assumed - whether through my own assumptions, discussions on here and elsewhere or the general rhetoric - that the trust model was for a partial purchase. of course that could have been completely wrong - so thanks for re-considering the alternative ... however, partial purchase still seems to be the prevailing thought

. being able to say that you are a part owner will have more appeal to some people ... but as you suggest, could mean they actually have less influence. the obligation on liabilities is the obvious downside which could be a very slippery slope - which i suspect everybody would want to avoid

. i don't know, but the (non-ownership) trust model seems similar to the way a licensed club may provide conditional grants - is this how rugby league clubs were funded before their media deals were blown out of proportion?