SUPPORTERS' SOCIETY & BATH CITY FC LTD EGM 28 JAN 2019

As  the Supporters' Society has a majority shareholding in Bath City Ltd the outcome of the vote on the EGM resolution will depend, presumably, on how the Society decides it wishes to proceed.

In view of this situation is the Society planning to canvass its membership to obtain their views?

Excellent question.

EDIT: No Society EGM has been called, has it? I've not had an email... just the Club EGM?

I would certainly have hoped that the supporters society was asked to give their views to the board members that will be voting on their behalf.

However the danger here is that members would not have adequate information at their disposal to take an informed position. It is all a bit of a rush given that this has been going on for nigh on two years.

What were the results of the earlier consultation?

Society members have been invited to take part in the various consultations and Q&As etc, so there has been an opportunity to give views. The question is whether we should be able to vote at a Society EGM on whether we want our Society committee to support the development agreement at the club's EGM.

Given that the club EGM is in 10 days, there isn't actually enough time to call a Society EGM to hold such a vote, so the club EGM would have to be delayed for this to happen.

The Society committee would be within their rights constitutionally to decide this on members' behalf - I would suggest that Society members who feel they ought to have a vote contact the Society ASAP.

ETA: I'm in favour of the development agreement and would happily vote for it, and wouldn't feel that my democratic rights had been violated if the Society committee just went ahead and signed it, but all things being equal I think a vote would be best. I thought the way that the 3G debate and vote was handled provided a good example to follow.

To redevelop or not, that is the question? Referendum: #build or #no build #peoplesvote.

I shall be attending the AGM in my own right and will be voting in favour of the resolution. I believe the Summary provided to shareholders highlights the worst case risk factors involved in any arrangement but surely, the far greater risk to Bath City Ltd, is doing nothing.

I think, in light of the timescale, we should allow the Society Committee to make the decision to support, hopefully, the resolution.

I'm surprised that this summary has been provided to Bath City FC Ltd shareholders but not Society members!

I think most people realise the importance of an effective redevelopment and it that very importance that justifies why supporters society members should be engaged now. It is one of the biggest decisions that will ever have to be made by the club.
The reason I ask about the results of the last consultation is because the scheme presented suggested that only part of the new grandstand would be completed in the first instance. There was no indication of how much of the final proposal would be built. 
Furthermore there was no indication of the timeframe of the stadium reconstruction within the overall development programme. Would the stadium be started at the same time as the rest of it?
For me these two questions need to be answered.

The summary of the key provisions that accompanies the EGM notification would have been provided, to all Bath City Ltd shareholders listed on the register. I assume the Supporters' Society would simply be shown as a single listing and receive the same communication as all other registered individual shareholders.

The resolution is not about the actual development itself but to give the Board authorisation to enter into a Development Agreement with the developer.





.

I may have misunderstood the situation, but presumably if the development agreement isn’t signed by the board the re-development doesn’t go ahead? If that is the case then voting against would appear to be fairly pointless if we want the club to survive, at least at it’s present level.

I can’t be at the EGM but the report by Clarke Wilmot does I think raise a few questions that hopefully will be answered on the evening.

Do Shareholders in The Supporters Society receive a copy of the Club's audited accounts?

kingswood charlie wrote:Do Shareholders in The Supporters Society receive a copy of the Club's audited accounts?

I don't recall receiving this - they are public information via Companies House, but yes, it would be nice to get something from the Society when the accounts come out each year, as I am a co-owner of the club via my Society membership.

I am no longer involved with the Society committee or the club, but my sense from various conversations that I've had is that, post-community ownership, the Society committee has focused very much on achieving "alignment" with the Club board (particularly around the pressing matter of the redevelopment) with member communication, engagement and involvement put on the backburner for now. (Or perhaps, they simply haven't yet found the people, skills and resources to really get on top of the democracy bit).

This seems to be in part because of the complexity and urgency of the redevelopment issue, and in part through a desire to bury the ghosts of past Society-Club tension dating back from before community ownership. I understand the former motivation, although I'm a bit baffled by the latter as we are now the majority shareholder and have appointed most of the board. But that said, given where we were 8-10 years ago, it's no mean accomplishment that the club chair and Society chair now have a strong and healthy working relationship.

It's also, perhaps, in part because there doesn't seem to have been much proactive demand for more democracy, transparency or involvement from Society members themselves. We're sort of sitting around waiting to see what's given to us. A handful, such as Peter and myself, post questions about this stuff occasionally, but it's difficult to tell whether we are "saying what everyone is thinking" or whether we are just the awkward "governance/member democracy" squad. (In fairness someone from the Society or club board always seems to contact me directly whenever I post anything like this, which is lovely enough from a one-to-one customer service perspective, although I'd rather see the energy go into member-wide communications).

So at risk of becoming a broken record, I would just again encourage Society members to use their voice and make clear how much involvement, engagement and power they want as members (even if it's "none"). The Society committee are making their best efforts to judge how much resource to put into member engagement (against a lot of competing demands on time/attention), but I imagine are doing so in something of a vacuum of information.

(Again, the way that 3G-skeptics used the AGM structure to secure the right to a vote on 3G is a good example of how members can guide the Society/club on how much democracy and transparency we want around particular issues.)

The Society will be holding two information and consultation meetings prior to the club EGM to update members and obtain feedback.
These meetings will be on Thursday and Friday of this week, at Twerton Park with a 7.30pm start.
We would urge as many members as possible to attend one of these meetings.