retired_halfshell69

Not to be a total smart-arse, but I said they would not be able to buy a club anywhere from the Conference National upwards, as they had stated in their original brief. If they wanted total control, I said they'd have to go lower.

The fact they've only been able to get a "controlling interest" of 51% in an until-recently semi-pro club rather proves my point. </BLOCKQUOTE>

not sure why you need to "prove your point"... </BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a total smart-arse. </BLOCKQUOTE>

so i've gathered :p lol

retired_echater

i love it when people make things up to support their own argument. At no point has there been "broad justifications for enabling the votes of the fanbase to be ignored", in the event of not everyone agreeing, it has been the constant goal to make the most popular decision the one that will be used.
and the fact that you are suggesting a conference side signs shevchenko pretty much shows how much notice we should take of what you have to say.... </BLOCKQUOTE>

1) "The Board will present all major decisions to the MyFootballClub members to vote on, and take action based on those votes. However, for the good of the club, members will never be able to take a decision that will compromise the club’s stability, such as overspending on players. This should improve the decision-making process of the club."In other words, it is the board decides whether an issue is "major" enough to warrant a vote and can then veto that vote if they feel it will "compromise the club's stability". Power to the people!

2) I'm not suggesting that a Conference side should try to sign Shevchenko. I'm alluding to the probability that in a poll of football fans who mostly know very little about viable transfer targets for a middling Conference National club, Shevchenko would fare better than many acquisitions which actually were feasible and the chief of executive might actually bother pursuing.

After all, in a members' poll as to which club they should try to buy for &lt;£1million, Manchester United are in the top ten. The fact that such a large proportion of the membership would make the hilarious suggestion to buy Manchester United Football Club with less funding than it would take to sign one of their reserves shows how much notice the people that actually carry out the decisions should take of what the fans have to say...

retired_halfshell69

i love it when people make things up to support their own argument. At no point has there been "broad justifications for enabling the votes of the fanbase to be ignored", in the event of not everyone agreeing, it has been the constant goal to make the most popular decision the one that will be used.
and the fact that you are suggesting a conference side signs shevchenko pretty much shows how much notice we should take of what you have to say.... </BLOCKQUOTE>

1) "The Board will present all major decisions to the MyFootballClub members to vote on, and take action based on those votes. However, for the good of the club, members will never be able to take a decision that will compromise the club’s stability, such as overspending on players. This should improve the decision-making process of the club."In other words, it is the board decides whether an issue is "major" enough to warrant a vote and can then veto that vote if they feel it will "compromise the club's stability". Power to the people!

2) I'm not suggesting that a Conference side should try to sign Shevchenko. I'm alluding to the probability that in a poll of football fans who mostly know very little about viable transfer targets for a middling Conference National club, Shevchenko would fare better than many acquisitions which actually were feasible and the chief of executive might actually bother pursuing.

After all, in a members' poll as to which club they should try to buy for &lt;£1million, Manchester United are in the top ten. The fact that such a large proportion of the membership would make the hilarious suggestion to buy Manchester United Football Club with less funding than it would take to sign one of their reserves shows how much notice the people that actually carry out the decisions should take of what the fans have to say... </BLOCKQUOTE>

1) I interpreted this as preventing members from causing financial harm to the club, rather than overriding the tactical decisions.

2) fair point, i miss interpreted your earlier statement, sorry. when i signed up for this i was curious as to why some people considered ANY premiership club within MFCs means.

retired_anthonyc

what i found strange was that the top ten were all recognisable league clubs like..man u, leeds, arsenal accrington and then...ebbsfleet.
also if it was a major success and the club ended up in the premier and valued at £60m, who gets the profits if its sold?

retired_marca37

I owuln't worrying about having to impliment the Ebbsfleet model for FM09. It'll have gone tits up by then.

Completely barmy idea.

retired_halfshell69

*sigh* care to back that up with any actual evidence? or are you just jumping on the anti-MFC bandwagon because you think it makes you sound clever?
there's a difference between your post and those of dave C, one was a well thought out attempt to critique the MFC concept, the other was a mindless statement, no prizes for guessing which was which.

retired_jess29

these people have coded the single most realistic football game simluation engine ever known.

once they know how it works IRL, i'm sure coding this little quirk into the game won't be beyond them

retired_dchago

IIRC, the money would go to charity or something, which is a nice gesture of course, but I just seeing it as being a nail in the coffin of this idea.

In no way are any of the members making any money from this, they won't get to share in the clubs profits and they won't get anthing if and when the club are sold. When investing in a business, is it normal to expect something in return? I know I would, but in the case of MFC, the investors are getting nothing, so how long before they tire of putting £35 into the pockets of a business for nothing in return? I honestly can't see it being long before people decide they spend their £35 pound elsewhere and the investors in Ebsfleet dry up.

This is just one of the reasons why I can't see this lasting for more then about two years.

retired_NVE THIS

I disagree. To me it just looks like a Supporter's Trust with bolts on - it's just the supporters are scattered across the country (world?). Perhaps this is how it will be implemented by SI.

As Nick from SI pointed out earlier, this is a significant financial investment for a small club like Ebbsfleet. I don't believe people are doing it for financial investments either - perhaps they just love football!

zib

chaos, i tells ya