More important now than ever I would suggest to see far greater fan ownership at clubs given the mess that Rangers as well and many other clubs are in.

For the smaller clubs such as East Fife this in my opinion would provide greater stability, more accountability, clarity and sense of involvement. It doesn't mean everyone has to get involved as some are happy to pay to watch their team and come home again, but many would love to own a part of the club and help to run it as a community club.

What do people think? What are the pro's and cons over the current set up? Would it encourage more people to the club if they felt more a part of it? Or are they happy with a young female who probably never goes to Bayview running the show?

You have to give youth a chance!

From The Herald 18 Feb 2012

Rangers crisis gives fans a game-changing opportunity

tom cannon

THE turmoil at Rangers highlights so many of the problems that beset football in Britain.

The only long-term answer surely lies in a radical rethink of the ownership model that dominates the game. At its heart, the situation at Rangers illustrates how easy it can be for individuals to get control of clubs, spend vast sums of the club's money, take the glory and leave the club – rather than themselves – in debt.

Football clubs like Rangers are not simply businesses but important community assets and enjoy unique levels of commitment by people who mean it when they say "Rangers or Celtic or Hearts or United 'til I die". This loyalty is crucial to the appeal of clubs to potential investors. When they talk about the brand value, this loyalty is what they mean.

Anyone owning Rangers knows they can rely on the loyalty of millions around the world. When I was researching football in Asia, only Liverpool and Manchester United had higher name recognition than Rangers. But fans have virtually no say when the ownership changes. Even the Rangers debenture holders who put the best part of £10m into the club will have little say unless they turn up to a creditors meeting.

An outgoing owner can choose to whom and at what price to sell. Sir David Murray's sale of his shares for £1 is not the first such trade in Britain. Sellers can wash their hands off the club with no level of accountability for any deficits or liabilities incurred under their watch. Even major creditors like HM Revenue and Customs have limited power. Exceptions can exist, for example, at Liverpool when the creditors forced Tom Hicks and George Gillett to sell.

One of the great myths of British football is that owners are natural philanthropists who risk their wealth and health for their clubs. Although Sir David Murray may have lost money, he is an exception. Many others have made massive cash returns besides enjoying the status, glamour and glory.

The football authorities in Scotland and England do have real power through the "fit and proper person test" to determine who can hold any office in the club, notably chairman or director. While supporters and the wider community might reasonably expect this to be a stern test, in practice, it seems hard to fail. The SFA's powers in the matter are "discretionary" but this discretion is typically exercised in favour of the acquirer.

The scale of the crisis at Rangers, allied to the growing concern about the financial state of football in general and the greater freedom to address community issues in Scotland creates a major opportunity to rewrite the rules of the game for Scottish football in favour of the supporters.

For more than a century across the UK, these great community assets have operated as conventional businesses. Groups of players and enthusiasts might have started the club but they were soon replaced by shareholders and investors and, more recently, individuals seeing entrepreneurial profits without entrepreneurial risks. This is not the pattern in other great European football nations notably Germany and Spain. Here, community ownership remains the norm.

Most German football clubs are supporters associations or Mutterveiren with a minimum of 50%+1 of the shares in the club, while the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona have more than 100,000 registered members. It is not possible to purchase shares in the club, only membership. The members elect an assembly of delegates which is the highest governing body of the club.

One of the most striking features of the latest Deloittes Rich List of European Football Clubs is the wealth, strength and increased success of member-based clubs. This is true not only of the Spanish giants. German teams were among those climbing the table most strongly.

Conventional thinking in Britain has dismissed these models as impractical ideals – great if we'd started that way, but impossible now because of the costs and barriers to acquisition. The crisis at Rangers changes this, as the non-debt cost of acquisition is small, while its vast support base could allow for the creation of a mass membership base. The club's existing assets, including Ibrox and Murray Park, could be developed to embrace wider sporting facilities for members.

For more than 20 years, Rangers was firmly established in the 20 richest clubs by turnover in Europe. With average gates of more than 40,000 and with season tickets priced at more than £400, global reach and a powerful brand, it is easy to see a scenario where revenues produced a market value, after debts, of more than £50m and revenues capable of restoring its position in European football.

A model for changing the dynamics of ownership exists, of course, at Celtic. When Fergus McCann took over the club, it was said to be on the verge of administration. When he left the club he worked hard to ensure that small investors could purchase shares ending up with a situation in which they owned 63% of the stock.

The Scottish Government has shown a willingness to embrace radical ideas to develop a distinctive identity for Scotland even within the Union. Out of this crisis, the opportunity exists for the Scottish Government, the Scottish football authorities, Rangers Supporters Trust, Supporters Direct Scotland, and Rangers' major creditors to examine the scope for embedding this principle in any ownership structure at Rangers that emerges from this crisis.

It would not only put control where it belongs – with the fans – but provide a model for the future of British football. The alternatives – from spectacular profits for somebody or the insolvency of a great club are far less attractive. There is little doubt that, if Craig Whyte or others now reported as "interested" can persuade the club's creditors to accept a generous company voluntary arrangement, for example taking 10p or 20p in the pound for the debts, they could end up with a very valuable asset for a relatively small outlay. This is especially true if the club's costs are cut and assets sold.

A radical rethink would not only change the dynamics at Rangers, but could affect the situation elsewhere in Scotland, most immediately at Hearts. The effects could spread across the border. The English Premier League is the most indebted in Europe, while clubs outside the Premiership like Portsmouth face their own crises. Many believe that the current situation across British football is unsustainable – perhaps new thinking in Scotland can bring the game back on to an even keel.

Tom Cannon was founding head of the Business School at Stirling University and is Professor of Strategic Development at The University of Liverpool. He specialises in research on sports finance. He is a member of the University of Liverpool's Football Industry Group and he teaches on their Football Industries MBA (FIMBA) programme.

"There is little doubt that, if Craig Whyte or others now reported as "interested" can persuade the club's creditors to accept a generous company voluntary arrangement, for example taking 10p or 20p in the pound for the debts, they could end up with a very valuable asset for a relatively small outlay. This is especially true if the club's costs are cut and assets sold."

10p/20p generous

See this is the problem,clubs/companies/individuals spunking money they don`t have,wrack up a pile of debt and a long list of creditors then stick two fingers up to one and all and say sorry but we cant pay you all that we owe.Agree a CVA of pennies in the £ and continue on, sometimes not a lot worse- see Dundee/Motherwell/Dundee.

Rangers and the clubs mentioned have basically stolen tax payers money,money that could have been used for vital services,they then negotiate to pay a pittance back.My tax is not negotiable.

In this instance(Rangers)I hope HMRC refuse to agree to the CVA.This would probably result in liquidation and HMRC getting nothing but its time to make a make an example.Now is the time

Oh and one other thing.Its times the politicians shut up and keep out of this.There are companies going down the tubs daily,but nothing from politicians.

How can you equate Rangers problems to our club.I would expect us to be out of business with the trust runing it

The problems at Rangers are on a scale unlike any other in Scottish Football but the principal is the same.

One person has the majority shareholding in a club, does pretty much what they want, takes the club to the brink by deceipt and dishonesty and before you know it the club is in dire trouble.

The fans, (not neccasarily a Trust)run the club elect a board and have transparency, pride commitment, historical and emotional attachment to the club and are therefore running it for the good of the club and not for personal gain.

What makes you think the club would be out of business if the Trust were running it?