The future?

The club are calling out for a major shareholder to come in to bail the club out. The thing is that, really, you need someone with stupid amounts of money so that they have the couple of million to waste on a football club. This needs to be some with Brownsword/Dyson types of money. The thing is that, if that someone was a fan, they would have stepped in by now. That leaves the possibility of someone who isn't a fan coming to invest in the club and therein lies a whole new nest of vipers.

Someone like that is going to want to see quite a return from the club and that is going to involve seeing the ground as an asset. I know I am the harbinger of doom about this but I have just seen a club that I love completely transformed for the worse by two owners only in it for a return and a ground sale. Indeed, it has to be said that even a fan with a few million is going to look long and hard at what their returns are going to be as, otherwise, you would assume they would put the money into the companies they own. Football clubs are money drains as we can see from our running costs.

There are, as far as I can see, a few options.

Staying at Twerton Park with just Bath City playing there - There are a few ways of doing that. Firstly, as the board have asked for, a major shareholder coming in. As I mention above, it looks very unlikely that this is going to be a fan (or even a couple of fans) with money as they would have come in by now. That leaves the possibility of an asset-stripping shareholder or one of us winning the lottery.

Secondly, the club becoming a community-owned club. This, to me, is the only option that lets us remain at TP but would involve a lot of work not least at getting the whole community to get behind the club. Otherwise 500 of us are going to have to find a couple of grand each just to get us out of this hole. However, it is very doable and the best solution for the long-term future of the club.

Ground-sharing at the Rec Make no mistake, I want us to stay at TP. However, if we couldn't, this is the next best option. The club is still local, it has a cushion of overheads being lower, what we would lose in being local to Twerton (which really would be a shame) we would at least make up for by being in the centre of town where the profile of the club would be greater etc. Seeing as we rattle around at TP, we would definitely rattle around at the Rec but you hope for crowds to increase there. It also gives us somewhat of a Swansea scenario which works out well.

Groundsharing with the rugby at TP. Now I am not even sure how seriously this has been offered to Bath Rugby. It would certainly take the wind out of the sails of some of their holding the city to ransom by constantly threatening to move elsewhere unless the council budges on the Rec. There are two problems to this, as far as I see it. Firstly, I am not sure that we can increase the ground capacity to what they need and, secondly, they just aren't going to do it.

Moving to Odd Down/Lansdown. To me, this is a non-starter. Either of these options would lose any potential walk-up crowds we have by being local down here and may even reduce the attendances that we have already. If you wanted a template to destroy the club, I reckon that a move to either of these locations is it. The oft-put benefit of better access for travelling fans is a red herring as well. For Saturday games, certainly, away fans like coming by train, spending the day, visiting the city and the local pubs. I don't think they are going to be put off by then having to take a bus up to Odd Down or Lansdown exactly but, equally, the number that are put off by TP now is negligible. The club, as we know, need to attract more local people through the turnstiles. Those people are not Bath City supporters presently, those are the core 500. The extra people are going to come from supporters of other clubs that have moved to the area or who can't get tickets to the Premiership clubs they support who fancy seeing live football and often want to bring their family. I know that many of those like the fact that they can walk to TP and that it's local. Put the ground in a less easily accessible location and you are not going to attract those people who, while perhaps not being regulars, could be bringing kids who will turn into regulars.

So there you have it, as far as I can see -

Staying at Twerton Park because a hitherto mysterious multimillionaire fan (or a fan that wins the lottery) buys the club and doesn't want to sell the  ground

Staying at Twerton Park as a community-owned club

Groundsharing at the Rec.

Personally, I think the board are hoping for the first whereas I think one of the latter two are more likely. Anything else - an outside owner who doesn't have the interests of the club at heart or moving to OD/Lansdown - would likely kill the club.

Have I left anything out? Has anyone got any more information on the options?

A very good summary, Marc. Like you, I favoured a move to the rec when it looked a possibility that the rugby club would throw their toys out and move off to Swindon or Bristol. Frankly i don't bother following all the Chronicle debates any more and assume they will get what they want despite the justifiable opposition. And as our board rep told the recent Society AGM, with moneybags Bruce chucking his millions at them, BathRugby no longer need to get into bed with Bath City. And from what we were told a while back, TP would not be what they are looking for.

Hopefully the idea of Lansdown or Odd Down is no longer seen as an option, which leaves staying at TP. Unless the board come round to supporting the idea of a community owned club, we had better hope they have more success than in the past in finding a solution to the club's woes.

The thing is, if the Rugby want to stay at the Rec, they may have no choice who they share with however much money they have got. So this would mean that they would have to get Brownsword to move them elsewhere and that would mean right out of Bath. Like you, I don't pay much attention to the endlessly circular Rec debates so am not sure how much they would gain or lose by moving out of the area. However, there are a number of influential fans who would welcome a ground share with us in order to stay at the Rec.

As I say, though, this is very much only to be considered if we couldn't stay at TP and all options there had been considered.

Maybe I need to buy the Chronicle again, as I was under the impression that the rugby club's future at the rec was all stitched up. However I do know Brownsword is not part of their future - Bruce is the crown prince of Farleigh Hungerford.

Brownsword has nothing to do with Bath Rugby now. Bruce Graig has been there for a few years up to recently not involved too much but has recently taking over the day to day running of all activity from Nick Blofelfd . Any thought of sharing with Bath Rugby is fruitless, Bath Rugby have been rejecting the idea for years and although some might say it's not their decision to make, think again.

Good to hear from you, Ian, and I'm afraid you're correct...

Many thanks for putting this summary together Marc. I agree that if a moneybags investor was interested in City, he or she would have come along by now. As only a recent supporter (since last year), I agree with your points about a Lansdown or Odd Down move making it even harder to get local supporters through the gate. I am the example of the Dad who started to bring his kids to the game and becoming a regular - being at TP makes this relatively easy.
The community-owned club route seems the best option, but my only concern is how the 500 odd supporters would keep the club going at TP with all it's outgoings, when the current set up haven't managed to do this. Excuse my ignorance, but would community ownership only come into place once the debts had been wiped following the club in its current form going bust?

I am appalled and dismayed that none of us seems to know the maths of this.  Like it or not, it is the finances which will determine the outcome.  I have asked these questions before and got a few vague responses.  Perhaps the real question is, who does know?:

1. How much is the debt?
2. When is it due?
3. At what rate are we losing money at the moment?
4. What is Twerton Park worth?

Assuming we are losing money and there are no funds to pay the creditors (and that they won't defer payment) then there can only be 2 outcomes surely:

1.  The extra funding is brought in. Where is the plan to do this?  Who is doing what to make this happen?
Failing that or, more likely, as a pre-req:
2.  Twerton Park is sold.  This assumes the value of the sale covers the debt and that alternative playing options (venue and costs) reverse the losing making entity that is Bath City.  

Realistically, no amount extra pies or raffle tickets / sponsored walks is going to make the slightest difference.  We are way beyond that stage.  The reality is that we appear to be playing way above means.  These things have  a habit of righting themselves and this can be in a controlled way (preferable) or in an uncontrolled way.

People in other threads have talked about lack of leadership in the squad.  It feels like this is a common theme in the club and we have no leadership any where at all - at a time when we most need it as we appear to be heading for the rocks.

Ian Jones wrote:Brownsword has nothing to do with Bath Rugby now. Bruce Graig has been there for a few years up to recently not involved too much but has recently taking over the day to day running of all activity from Nick Blofelfd . Any thought of sharing with Bath Rugby is fruitless, Bath Rugby have been rejecting the idea for years and although some might say it's not their decision to make, think again.

It would be good if you could expand on this, Ian, as you appear to know more about the Bath Rugby than certainly I do. The last I heard, if Bath Rugby want to move the stand next to the river (the only one they own?), the fact that that infringes upon the already suffering cricket wicket means that they are effectively the only club that can use the Rec and that is against the rules (covenant/whatever) of the Rec. Therefore, they would need another club to share the Rec.

I know that there are many in the Friends of the Rec who actively would like us to groundshare there now. However, of course, staying at Twerton Park is the perfect solution.

Dusty Lynfield wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but would community ownership only come into place once the debts had been wiped following the club in its current form going bust?

Well, don't get me wrong, a community-owned club is, by no means, a silver bullet. However, it would mean that any decisions made in the ownership of the club would always be in the interest of the club and, by extension, the supporters. If TP had to be sold, a groundshare had to happen, whatever, at least everyone would know that it was done with the best intentions and, certainly, the finances behind any decision would be transparent.

[quote="Roman Mike"]

1.  The extra funding is brought in. Where is the plan to do this?  Who is doing what to make this happen?

Well, the Plan A for that seems to be what the board are doing - asking if there is someone with money out there to become a major shareholder. They certainly have no interest in community ownership.

Failing that or, more likely, as a pre-req:
2.  Twerton Park is sold.  This assumes the value of the sale covers the debt and that alternative playing options (venue and costs) reverse the losing making entity that is Bath City.  

This is definitely Plan B whether the board are upfront about this or not.

Dusty Lynfield wrote:Many thanks for putting this summary together Marc.  I agree that if a moneybags investor was interested in City, he or she would have come along by now.  As only a recent supporter (since last year), I agree with your points about a Lansdown or Odd Down move making it even harder to get local supporters through the gate.  I am the example of the Dad who started to bring his kids to the game and becoming a regular - being at TP makes this relatively easy.
The community-owned club route seems the best option, but my only concern is how the 500 odd supporters would keep the club going at TP with all it's outgoings, when the current set up haven't managed to do this.  Excuse my ignorance, but would community ownership only come into place once the debts had been wiped following the club in its current form going bust?

One of the driving principles behind the community club idea is the fact that there is a lot of wealth and talent in Bath, the vast majority of which City is currently unable to tap into. By repositioning the club as a community vehicle/asset, it would give us a much better shot at tapping into that talent and money. So it wouldn't just be the usual people involved - it would see new people attracted to us.

Without much effort the Society managed to find a few entirely new people with key experience who were willing to get involved in a community club, as they liked what it was all about. Conference South football is not an easy sell. Helping out a club which is all about building links with and helping out its local community is a much easier sell.

I am convinced that Bath City will neither prosper nor progress if it continues to run itself as a traditional football club. We are missing a huge trick here by not giving the people of Bath a reason to buy into what we are (or could be) all about. For me, that is as a vehicle for community engagement/improvement through the medium of football.

Spot on Steve. If the community can save a pub as a community asset then surely a 125 year old football Club called Bath City FC can do so as well?

The club is in terminal decline, the only uncertainty is exactly when creditors, including shareholders, call it a day and are forced to sell the assets to a property developer.

I don't see any viable future other than the ones I pointed out a few weeks ago AND the option expressed by many, community owned, is by far the best way forward.  

Yes I agree with Steve.
Look around you. Bath is changing.  Huge increase in population through 2 universities and Western Riverside.  2 big new hotels plus casino in the pipeline.  Go into town on a Saturday night and it's absolutely rammed and buzzing - aided by the world famous Bath Rugby brand when they're at home.
Bath has become (or returned to being) a cosmopolitan place of pleasure as well as the new emphasis on education.
Bath City looks increasingly like a throwback to the 1970s run by middle-aged men - completely out of time and definitely not looking like a part of Bath's future.  I thought City were going to benefit from the big sport faculty at Bath Uni but nothing much seems to have happened.  
Only a radical solution will work long term and it needs to be inclusive. If that means starting again from County level, so be it. It's worked for other clubs notably Wimbledon of course.

Dusty Lynfield wrote:
The community-owned club route seems the best option, but my only concern is how the 500 odd supporters would keep the club going at TP with all it's outgoings, when the current set up haven't managed to do this.

I think Steve Bradley has given an excellent answer to your important question. The community work carried out in the club's name is the responsibility of the Foundation, and as a trustee I have been heartened (and amazed) by the number of people/organisations with no previous links to the club who have assisted us in what we aim to do.  

Dusty Lynfield wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but would community ownership only come into place once the debts had been wiped following the club in its current form going bust?

As we made clear a couple of days ago with our brief statement ( https://bathcityfc.forumotion.co.uk/t497-society-committee-s-response-to-recent-board-statement ) , the Supporters Society wish to help the board ensure there is a future for our club. If community ownership is agreed on as the way forward by the shareholders, we would not want a situation where it was only given the green light after the club had gone bust.

Beau Nash wrote:The club is in terminal decline, the only uncertainty is exactly when creditors, including shareholders, call it a day and are forced to sell the assets to a property developer.

I don't see any viable future other than the ones I pointed out a few weeks ago AND the option expressed by many, community owned, is by far the best way forward.  

So Rob. Your talks with the 2 Bath-based multi-millionaires to get them involved with the City came to nothing

kermit wrote:...So Rob. Your talks with the 2 Bath-based multi-millionaires to get them involved with the City came to nothing

One is aware, replied to me, spoke with at the Gosport game.

If you want to be reminded of the dangers of moneymen with no connection to the club investing then this makes for grim reading http://saveedgarst.blog.com/ (Warning - very strong language but, as you will see, it needs to be included)

2weirdtown wrote:
Look around you. Bath is changing.  Huge increase in population through 2 universities and Western Riverside.  2 big new hotels plus casino in the pipeline.  Go into town on a Saturday night and it's absolutely rammed and buzzing - aided by the world famous Bath Rugby brand when they're at home.
Bath has become (or returned to being) a cosmopolitan place of pleasure as well as the new emphasis on education.
Bath City looks increasingly like a throwback to the 1970s run by middle-aged men - completely out of time and definitely not looking like a part of Bath's future.

This comment, unfortunately, hits the nail on the head. The Bath City of the 1970's still had a large working-class industrial hinterland to tap into, with virtually the entire Lower Bristol road devoted to commerce. Twerton Park at that time was a perfectly logical place for a football ground to be situated, and was part of the fabric of the city. The current incarnation of Bath has precious little of its industrial past remaining, and Bath City is beginning to look like an industrial relic itself, unable to compete with the extravagantly-funded professional rugby game. Depressing though it is to say, other than continuing to attend and support there seems little which can be done apart from living in hope that an investor emerges who can raise the profile of the club and turn back the clock.

Corstonian wrote:

2weirdtown wrote:
Look around you. Bath is changing.  Huge increase in population through 2 universities and Western Riverside.  2 big new hotels plus casino in the pipeline.  Go into town on a Saturday night and it's absolutely rammed and buzzing - aided by the world famous Bath Rugby brand when they're at home.
Bath has become (or returned to being) a cosmopolitan place of pleasure as well as the new emphasis on education.
Bath City looks increasingly like a throwback to the 1970s run by middle-aged men - completely out of time and definitely not looking like a part of Bath's future.

This comment, unfortunately, hits the nail on the head. The Bath City of the 1970's still had a large working-class industrial hinterland to tap into, with virtually the entire Lower Bristol road devoted to commerce. Twerton Park at that time was a perfectly logical place for a football ground to be situated, and was part of the fabric of the city. The current incarnation of Bath has precious little of its industrial past remaining, and Bath City is beginning to look like an industrial relic itself, unable to compete with the extravagantly-funded professional rugby game. Depressing though it is to say, other than continuing to attend and support there seems little which can be done apart from living in hope that an investor emerges who can raise the profile of the club and turn back the clock.

That's an unnecessarily defeatist attitude in my opinion Corstonian.

A growing group of supporters believe that the answer isn't to pray for a sugardaddy to swoop on the club with unknown intentions and unclear consequences. But instead to reinvent Bath City as a community-centred club which DOES offer something to the modern day city that it's based in.

I personally see no other way that we can effectively compete in the city that 2weirdtwon so accurately describes. The current model of running Bath City just isn't working. It's time to rethink our club in a way which not only offers it a better future, but does so with fans and community at its absolute heart.

SteveBradley wrote:

That's an unnecessarily defeatist attitude in my opinion Corstonian.

Steve, I'm delighted to hear your positive take on the future - I was at Tuesday's game and felt extremely gloomy afterwards despite the win. The embarrassing attendance seemed to be another lowest point in a continuing downward tailspin for the club and I admit to feeling defeatist. However I would get right behind any strategy which could make a meaningful and permanent improvement to the current situation.

Admittedly I am a relatively new supporter(5 years) but surely the society is open to the community and being the majority shareholder does that not make us community owned,

I may be missing the point, if so help me, and I am sure others to understand!

The Society is the largest shareholder, but with around 18% of the shares it is not the majority shareholder.