Supporter's Trust v Supporter's Club?

[Magnus]

Apologies if the wrong forum - mods please move as you see fit.

Can somebody explain to me the difference between a supporter's club and a "supporter's trust"? Does the trust own shares in RFC or something like that? Or is the difference merely in name - ie a marketing exercise? (Don't mean to downplay that if it's the case!)

Does a trust negate the need for a club or could anyone foresee a time when we might have both? What are the pros and cons of each?

Could it be argued that a supporter's club would actually be more effective than a trust as it was more independent?

[STAR Voice]

Sure!

Supporters' Clubs, traditionally, have been there to help people support the club, and typically they have had fairly "loose" constitutions - legally usually "unincorporated corporations" -where the members could so what they liked with the organisation. Frequently, too, any money raised tended to be handed over to the football club for the club to do what they want with.

A Trust, however, is a different legal entity. Legally we are an Industrial & Provident Society, governed by the Financial Services Authority with specific legal rules which ensure we are fully democratic and stay that way. And the Supporters' Trust movement is also primarily about ensuring supporter participation in the way football is run and football clubs are governed. All the supporter-owned clubs are owned by Supporter's Trusts, and there's no blindly handing over money to FCs any more. Trusts who make a financial contribution, including STAR, decide what their members' money will be spent on and want something back for it - like shares, participation or influence. It's not practical for us to have ownership because of the sums involved, but we do own shares in Reading FC and our participation and influence are growing all the time.

I'd direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supporters'_trust for more info on Supporters' Trusts.

Finally, we converted from the Reading FC Supporters' Club, and I think we offer the best of both worlds - one of the things that other supporters' organisations envy about us is that we're the only supporters' organisation at RFC. At many other clubs the rivalry and jealousies between the different Trusts/Supporters Clubs stop them getting anything done, and make "divide and conquer" really easy for the football club.

[Magnus]

A very comprehensive answer - thank you.

I guess having just one club is a strength providing it allows for differences of opinion within it. The danger is that disenfranchised fans have nowhere to turn and that the trust just becomes another wing of the club.

It's a bit of a weird one anyone in these days when football clubs are primarily businesses first and community football clubs second. Money talks - presumably louder than any group/trust of fans.

[STAR Voice]

A very comprehensive answer - thank you.

You're welcome.

I guess having just one club is a strength providing it allows for differences of opinion within it. The danger is that disenfranchised fans have nowhere to turn and that the trust just becomes another wing of the club.

Yes, that's always something to guard against, but the opposite extreme is that you have lots of single-interest groups of half a dozen people all with different aims and agendas - and you can be sure than no football clubs would talk to them, and they'd spend all their time and energy slagging each other off and not actually achieving anything!

We do try to represent the majority of supporters' views, as best we know them - but we need to hear from people about what's important, and posts on HNA? aren't necessarily representative of the majority of supporters. But we definitely welcome input from all!

for instance, we had our survey a few months ago which gave us some really useful insights into what people like, hate and want about STAR and RFC. We've had a detailed meeting with Compass 2 weeks ago to discuss the numerous comments about catering, and we're meeting the club soon to discuss the traffic/ground/safety issues that came out of the survey.

But really the ultimate safeguard is that our constitution as an IPS says that every year 1/3 of the Board that runs STAR has to stand for re-election, which means that no-one can be on the Board for more than 3 years without standing for re-election. So disenfranchised supporters are always able to stand for election. (elections each summer, by the way!)

It's a bit of a weird one anyone in these days when football clubs are primarily businesses first and community football clubs second. Money talks - presumably louder than any group/trust of fans.

Agreed - and the bigger the club the more than applies. But the tide is slowly turning, especially at smaller clubs where the sense of community is greater and the sums of money involved are smaller. Stockport, Exeter, Brentford & Notts County are all owned by their Trusts, as well as non-league/rugby clubs.

It just remains to be seen how the Trust ownership model "scales-up" to bigger clubs - and how clubs which are Trust owned (and so are legally committed to good governance) compete in the leagues against the non-sustainable "sugar-daddy" ownership model. But undoubtedly the Trust model is the correct legal framework for supporter ownership and participation. And SaintsTrust is a very strong, well organised Trust, who can call on the votes of a significant number of shareholders, so it could be interesting what happens down there ......

[readingbedding]

Still looking for Saints Trust to make their move.

See ya later Soton!

[Forbury Lion]

I guess having just one club is a strength providing it allows for differences of opinion within it. The danger is that disenfranchised fans have nowhere to turn and that the trust just becomes another wing of the club.

Yes, that's always something to guard against

can I suggest that, if it isn't already the case, that STAR write into their constitution that persons currently employed by Reading FC in a position of power (or associate companies) or with a material shareholding or interest in these companies are prohibited from serving as members of the STAR board and that anyone with familly links has to declare them publicly before election and be prepared to stand down if these links materialise during their term in office.

I'm sure this must already be written in the rules, anyway I doubt anyone would vote Nigel Howe or John Madejski in as STAR board members anyway.

[STAR Voice]

FYI, STAR's Board membership policy includes the below rules :

30. No Member shall be permitted to seek election to the Board if they are, or are reasonably likely during their three-year term of office to be an employee of the Club (whether part-time or full-time, whether for consideration or voluntary).

31. In addition, unless disclosure of the same is made in the election manifesto, no Member shall be permitted to seek election to the Board if they are in, or are reasonably likely during their three-year term of office to fall into, any one (or more) of the following (whether part-time or full-time, whether for consideration or voluntary):
a. a proprietor or editor of a fanzine or football magazine;
b. a sports journalist or broadcaster;
c. a proprietor or editor of a website relating in whole or in part to sport, football or Reading Football Club in particular.

[Forbury Lion]

STAR campaigns is on the ball today!

Interesting point about volutary employment for the club.... If the club ask for help doing something and people volunteer then technically that is voluntary part time employment is it not?.... whereas if they volunteer to help star to perform the same volunteer service that isn't (possibly more favourable for the club as the employer would be the one liable for safety etc).