We learn from the past. Or at least we should.

Leaving aside blame, personalities, spin, points of view and guesses I would like to know the answer to the following question.

In 1988 the old club went bust. Supporters of that club formed a new club. Shares were issued at £10 to finance that club. Everyone who bought shares then, from kids who spent their pocket money to buy one share to adults who bought many all felt part of the club. We were a truly fans owned club.

When in the twenty-seven years between owning the club outright in 1988 and buying the club again in 2015 did we cede ownership and control of the club?

No guesses please. No explanations. Just when.

while I don't think cede is the right word, my answer is 1999

Come on Mr Bryant. Surely with your depth of knowledge and compulsion to invigorate us all with your bottomless pit of wisdom you can let us all in on a great big secret that's had me baffled for twenty odd years.

Amberexile wrote:while I don't think cede is the right word, my answer is 1999

How so ?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:while I don't think cede is the right word, my answer is 1999

How so ?

What happened to no explanations?

Regime change moved focus

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:while I don't think cede is the right word, my answer is 1999

How so ?

What happened to no explanations?

Regime change moved focus

No explanations as to why, in fairness that was not clear.

However, we owned the club and then we didn't. Imagine you came home one night and found you no longer owned your house. You could carry on living there, but your mortgage payments were now rent.

You would want an explanation don't you think? And if you had been paying off the mortgage for ten or twenty years and then you were told that actually you had been paying rent but the new owners were willing to sell it to you, you'd be ever so slightly curious? And if having bought your house twice you were told new owners were ready to take over and rent it back to you, perhaps deep down a little voice might say.....

What the f@ck is going on?

My take on this is that, yes, it's ethically wrong.

However the answer is simple - shareholders have donated money to fund a third party (the trust) who have in turn taken over the club.

rncfc wrote:My take on this is that, yes, it's ethically wrong.

However the answer is simple - shareholders have donated money to fund a third party (the trust) who have in turn taken over the club.

But that was not what Stan's original question was..

Stan A. Einstein wrote: No explanations as to why, in fairness that was not clear.

However, we owned the club and then we didn't. Imagine you came home one night and found you no longer owned your house. You could carry on living there, but your mortgage payments were now rent.

You would want an explanation don't you think? And if you had been paying off the mortgage for ten or twenty years and then you were told that actually you had been paying rent but the new owners were willing to sell it to you, you'd be ever so slightly curious? And if having bought your house twice you were told new owners were ready to take over and rent it back to you, perhaps deep down a little voice might say.....

What the f@ck is going on?

19 years later is a bit late to be asking but basically what happened then was very close to the hybrid model that is being suggested now.
Ownership is one thing, control another.