Ownership of the club

I read the piece on the Website asking for new directors. Nick Bloefeld wants to step down but states that the club is community owned. If we are community owned then why are we not qualified for the benefits of community ownership. Also, why are we called a Limited Company that have to final accounts at Companies House? I thought that Bath City football club is a limited company where a society ownes just over half the shares. Being neither one thing or the other might hamper our progress. If we were community owned we might be able to get more grants for our projects.

It depends what you mean by the benefits of community ownership - yes it's possible that if we were fully community-owned we may be eligible for more grants, although it's hard to say whether those would have a decisive impact on the club's future. Funding for 4G might be easier for example but it's hard to say.

As you say, Bath City FC remains a limited company that must file accounts like any other limited company. The Society (a community benefit society) owns around 55% of the shares, which makes the club "community-owned" in the common understanding of the term (e.g. the Football Supporters Association's definition), but yes we're not 100% community-owned.

It's interesting that Welling United are a Community Interest Company but I can't find many other examples at our level or above.

Enfield Town is supporter-owned and Eastbourne Borough are a Community Interest Company owned by a charitable trust.

City 'til we're relegated wrote:I read the piece on the Website asking for new directors. Nick Bloefeld wants to step down but states that the club is community owned. If we are community owned then why are we not qualified for the benefits of community ownership. Also, why are we called a Limited Company that have to final accounts at Companies House? I thought that Bath City football club is a limited company where a society ownes just over half the shares. Being neither one thing or the other might hamper our progress. If we were community owned we might be able to get more grants for our projects.

What benefits of community ownership are you referring to there ?

Thank you Steve. I must admit that my knowledge is very limited on the subject of community ownership. I am only thinking that there must be a benefits that community clubs can have compared to Limited company ownership, as is the case with city. I'm thinking of grants in particular and O.H. wrote above that it might be easier to get grants for our 4g pitch plans. He did put 'might' though. I seem to remember reading of the benefits of wholly community owned clubs when this model was initially sought, but I can't remember any of the details.

Yes many grant funders will only award funds to non-profits. FC United of Manchester managed to attract significant grant funding for the construction of Broadhurst Park. But it's really on a case-by-case basis.