Ken Loach speaking on why people should support the Big Bath City Bid

Ken Loach and Paul Williams giving their support to the Big Bath City Bid at last night's game with Oxford City.

https://soundcloud.com/bath-city-internet-radio/ken-loach-on-why-people-should-get-behind-the-big-bath-city-bid

Great stuff! Good to see the total ticking up!

He did not look at the financials statement where it would seem that under new ownership the losses will increase. The reason being that costs will increase because of the appointment of an employee whose role will be to bring in more income!
It all seems like BREXIT where things will be better but nobody knows how it will actually happen.

Major Icewater wrote:He did not look at the financials statement where it would seem that under new ownership the losses will increase. The reason being that costs will increase because of the appointment of an employee whose role will be to bring in more income!
It all seems like BREXIT where things will be better but nobody knows how it will actually happen.

The plan, as stated in the prospectus, is to get the club to break-even/a small surplus after 3 years of community ownership. To do that will require the club to increase its income significantly, which will require someone to do the work involved. Hence it makes sense to have an employee. There's only so fare you can get with volunteers. We need to professionalise Bath City off the pitch if its to progress through the ranks.

Unlike Brexit, there is both transparency and a plan with how the Community Club would alter the fortunes of Bath City.

Good to see the crowdfunder is now in place for new pledges.

www.crowdfunder.co.uk/bigbathcitybid

Now over £121k and rising

SteveBradley wrote:[We need to professionalise Bath City off the pitch if its to progress through the ranks.

This always worries me, I have no interest in City getting into the Football League (I'd obviously be delighted if we did, but it isn't an aim.) What I want the Bid to do is ensure there is a club for me to still be supporting when I am in my old age, I fear too often in the various things I've read from the Bid it highlights the Football League, and having a "Football League ready main stand" etc.

***Edit, assuming by progress through the ranks Steve meant rising to the FL. If not, ignore me.

Jon_BOA wrote:

SteveBradley wrote:[We need to professionalise Bath City off the pitch if its to progress through the ranks.

This always worries me, I have no interest in City getting into the Football League (I'd obviously be delighted if we did, but it isn't an aim.) What I want the Bid to do is ensure there is a club for me to still be supporting when I am in my old age, I fear too often in the various things I've read from the Bid it highlights the Football League, and having a "Football League ready main stand" etc.

***Edit, assuming by progress through the ranks Steve meant rising to the FL. If not, ignore me.

I didn't clarify how far up the ranks Jon - just getting back into the National League/Conference proper would be progress Like you, I'd personally be very happy to see us in the Football league at some stage though, and I see no reason why a City like Bath couldn't sustain a League club.

The main aim of community ownership, however, is to make the club viable, sustainable and stable. And to do that by tapping into the city that the club has largely turned its back on for years. Within that I see no reason not to be ambitious for the level at which the club plays at, so long as anything done in pursuit of progression keeps the club viable, sustainable and stable. In many ways the two are inter-linked - a Bath City playing at a higher level is a much easier 'sell' to the residents and businesses of Bath and surrounding area. And we're much more likely to have the resources to progress through the ranks if we're more closely linked into our community. But running the club sustainably is the priority.

Steve, you're talking a lot of sense here. But while I agree totally with you about the advantages of the paid employee (ie general manager), let's not lose sight of the wonderful work done by the many volunteers up to now (both inside and outside of the boardroom) and who will stay have a huge role to play in the future.

A group of us are still raising money via easyfundraising.

Link to follow

www.easyfundraising.org.uk

We have raised over £170

Not wishing to rock the boat (and I support the bid 100% and will retain my original share) but one thing that has slightly bothered me about the bid nonetheless....

When the bid failed to reach the original target, a survey was sent out immediately afterwards asking the pledgers what should be done next. If my memory is right the three choices were a) give up b) carry on c) investigate a "go-between" with the supporter's society or something of that nature.

The result was definitely to "carry on" and so in that case has the bid's new prospectus actually been undemocratic by not properly respecting the original outcome of that survey?

It seems to me that the new prospectus is perfectly sensible and the best way forward so I will support it, but I really hope that I've got my information wrong about that survey! I must admit to not reading every single detail since the original bid closed (so I may be totally wrong on this) but as someone who did pledge first time around, I honestly thought that "carry on" meant to simply reopen the bid and try to reach that original £750k target with no third parties involved at all.

Again though whatever happens, I support the bid and it's great news that so much as been raised already, but I am still curious about what that survey actually meant.

Dear all -

Apologies for not answering these points earlier (I receive notifications of new postings in the Bid threads I post, but didn't see this one until now)

Financials: as Steve points out, the financial projections predict further losses for this season, next season and the one after that, before returning to a small surplus in FY19/20. These losses will be covered by a £300,000 interest free loan facility, drawn down as needed. We would hire a general manager to ensure that the great work of our volunteers is properly co-ordinated and that we are squeezing every drop of revenue out of Twerton Park both on matchdays and more importantly non-matchdays. The Brexit analogy is rather unfair as we have published a full business plan alongside the prospectus - you may or may not agree with it or find it credible, but we have spelled out where we see the potential to increase income.

"Professionalise Bath City off the pitch" - this is not the phrase I would have chosen although I think I know what Steve means. We can and will get very far with volunteers, existing and new, especially in a city like Bath where there is such a diverse range of professional talents. But there is also a strong business case for having a paid General Manager at the centre of operations, pushing forward the really critical revenue drivers (e.g. room hire), and making sure that everyone is coordinated and nothing is falling through the cracks.

Football League: It's important that the Bid expresses a sense of ambition to the people of Bath and supporters. However unlike most clubs, "ambition" for a community-owned Bath City FC will not and cannot mean spending money we don't have to "buy success". Also, I don't think we have made chasing Football League status a central part of the prospectus or business plan - it is a long-term ambition, to be achieved through sustainable growth in income, if members democratically decide that that's the way forward.

September 2015 survey: The survey aimed to canvass the opinions of pledgers and supporters on what they wanted to happen next. At that point, however, there was no guarantee that any of the options would actually be a possibility, because the new negotiations with the majority shareholders had not restarted. So it was, to follow Major Icewater in using Brexit terminology, "advisory and non-binding".

As negotiations with the majority shareholders continued into the winter of 2015, it became clear that the £750K target figure (which was always a time-bound offer) no longer held. So that option was effectively off the table - there was no point in the Bid team trying to pursue it.