Re: Green light for Community Ownership!

[Marc Monitor]

That's a good point, Ben. In some ways, the club is already owned by supporters and by members of the Supporters' Society.

[Too Late...]

Why have you and other people got an issue with the Supporters' Society taking over the club, TLT, and what alternative do you suggest?

I mainly have an issue with the concept of the community model overall. Mainly because the concept that groups of supporters are in any way equipped to run football clubs as a business and taking business decisions that will make the club work in a better way than if they were run by a major shareholder owner. All of these so called one member, one vote type organisations are supposedly designed to get everyone involved in such a way that the club is then supposedly run by lots of supporters instead of a few members of a board. Unfortunately, I believe that it doesn't actually work like that...

I'll try to explain further by taking the more recent history of Bath City Football Club Ltd as an example of the way that it starts and then reverts to the normal form. This will probably be an essay but I will post it just the same.

Back in the long distant days when Bristol Rovers left (and the debts were only @£200,000) and Chairman Stock left very quickly after. God knows how many supporters took the opportunity to make the business decisions and a board was formed with umpteen directors (read supporters). The club was relaunched by these supporters by borrowing yet more money (heart ruled heads as the money was borrowed from the big bad wolf Foster) and the future was rosy again. Within the following year several of these directors who were real supporters (important point made again) decided that the onus and decision making was not for them and one-by-one they dropped out leaving a few (supporters) left to carry the can, sorry I meant make important decisions that will keep all of the other fellow supporters happy.

Those supporters left (now, for some reason they are called Directors by other supporters) carried on making yearly decisions that enabled the club to continually lose money and rack up more than double the debt they started with. This was despite the fact that those supporters left were almost all local businessmen. The one that did ordinary day-to-day jobs had gone (significant because big business decisions weren't their thing) leaving people.

So these supporters (or Directors, as even I'm confused now) carried on borrowing yet more to buy yet more time hoping that someone would come along with a magic wand. As I understand it they were kind of borrowing it from themselves, which of course must have been a lot easier than facing the local bank manager. But despite this they continued making their loss making budget decisions at the beginning of each season which which meant that they would have to borrow even more money from themselves (get the picture).

Somewhere in among this the same supporters (Directors) managed to put the responsibility of their bad budgeting decisions back to the other supporters and launched a bid to own the Club by buying back shares from someone they described as an enemy of the Club (Foster, an apparent venture capitalist). So the decision was made that they would get other supporters to buy back the Club from this man and that from then on supporters would own the club (isn't this sounding like something you are hearing now). There was an added promise that if successful then the Club would never be able to set a negative budget ever again...

But no! The supporters/directors have made a negative budget every year since. A positive budget takes into account the losses made the previous year and balances this out!

Then one day the supporters (directors) who had been lending money from themselves to themselves realised that they couldn't continue doing this and that they would have to pay back the money to themselves from themselves (hope you're still with me because I'm almost finished).

So they now want to bail out themselves with money raised from supporters who are being asked to buy the Club back from supporters who had already bought the Club under their guidance once before! If only these supporters had made the correct budgeting decisions for the previous 10 years where (I confess I haven't completely checked the accurate figure) something like losses of @£400,000 have been accrued

So, one of my points is that the Club IS ALREADY owned and run by supporters and that hasn't worked to date. Now why would I believe it will work again?

But my main point is that if this Community thing gets off of the Ground you will have a group of up to 2,400 supporters (at a guess at least 1000) from widely differing backgrounds, some interested some not, some businesses, trying to have their say, some demanding their (1 vote) in every decision, especially in decisions that they have no understanding of due to their particular personal circumstances,.

Of course that won't work so what will need to be done is vote to make committees to keep the numbers of meetings down. You will also need to have one EXPERT advising on things like budgets saying things like "trust me, I know what I'm doing...". Some might even say "Listen to me, I have a lot of (recent) experience in this..." and most of the others will need to take their word for it and vote along with them. The thing is, what you will end up with within a few months is just a few people making the final key decisions....

Which to me won't be much more than the equivalent of the current Board of Supporters (Sorry, I meant Directors)!

Which leads to the point about having a major shareholder who is able and capable of making the decisions that the recent Supporter Directors didn't make....

[Twerton Parker]

An excellent post, Too Late, highlighting the pitfalls that lie ahead if the old mistakes are repeated. For this Community thing to work (once the funds are raised) we really do need to know that there is a solid business plan in place that will be stuck to so that the maths will stack up and further debt avoided.

Integral with that is the need to have a product on the pitch that will appeal to the public to produce the revenue needed. Whilst there will be days when things don't go right they must be kept to a minimum so that come the end of each season we will have than more Bristol Rovers type days than East Thurrock ones and that, I guess, is the real challenge that lies ahead.

[SteveS]

There are a few points regarding Too Late's post which I would take issue with (do not want to go into those really) but I can understand what he is trying to say.
In the context of the clubs situation I would say:

At the end he makes the case for a major shareholder but whether you agree with this route or not, there have apparently been no candidates to take on this role.

This takes us back to the options on the table and at this time community ownership is the only one. Everyone must appreciate that the threat to the club is real and not a scare tactic being employed by the Society, Action Group or whoever.

Obviously it is the individuals decision whether to support community ownership or not but if they decide not to then they must realise the seriousness of the situation facing the club and the potential consequences if co fails.

If you are putting yourself forward as a supporter of the club and decide not to support community ownership (your choice) I think you must put forward a viable alternative. Easy to say majority shareholder but the real test is coming up someone to take this role.

Community ownership may not be everyones first choice and everyone has the right to ask questions, but if you are a real supporter and there are no other options then surely the survival of the club must be the prime issue.

Too Late for regrets once it's gone.

[Too Late...]

At the end he makes the case for a major shareholder but whether you agree with this route or not, there have apparently been no candidates to take on this role.

Just about to go away for the weekend (might have internet) so I'll answer your question as simply as I think I can (I won't have the time to edit it).

The buyout from Foster closed the route for a major shareholder (or controlling shareholder) by fragmenting his 51% shares into several hundred different owners. Of course there has been no candidates for this as it would be impossible to buy a 51% share in the club due to this. Come to think of it I suspect that it would be pretty much impossible to even buy a 5% share in the club at present so no-one with any business sense would even consider it.

It would require the board to prepare and present to the public at large a business plan that would enable this. I haven't seen or heard any suggestion that there is such a business plan that has been considered by the board. It is the boards responsibility to consider and present these options, not mine.

It would appear that the only proposal that is available is the community share issue simply because the alternative major shareholder would simply have always been shouted down by members of the Society (part of my beef with them) if the subject had ever been discussed at an AGM. The biggest taboo subject at Bath City Football Club.... A complete non-starter!

For it to have happened it would have to have been discussed at the AGM's as it would take a major share re-issue in order for the club to provide an open door for this person to appear. This option would NOT cost current supporters who have already bought the cub once any more money. It would only have cost them an assumed devaluation of their current shareholding by 50%.

So there IS a business plan for the Community option.

And NO business plan for the major shareholder option.

The one and only option you keep talking about has been manouvered into place.

Case closed.

[SteveBradley]

At the end he makes the case for a major shareholder but whether you agree with this route or not, there have apparently been no candidates to take on this role.

Just about to go away for the weekend (might have internet) so I'll answer your question as simply as I think I can (I won't have the time to edit it).

The buyout from Foster closed the route for a major shareholder (or controlling shareholder) by fragmenting his 51% shares into several hundred different owners. Of course there has been no candidates for this as it would be impossible to buy a 51% share in the club due to this. Come to think of it I suspect that it would be pretty much impossible to even buy a 5% share in the club at present so no-one with any business sense would even consider it.

It would require the board to prepare and present to the public at large a business plan that would enable this. I haven't seen or heard any suggestion that there is such a business plan that has been considered by the board. It is the boards responsibility to consider and present these options, not mine.

It would appear that the only proposal that is available is the community share issue simply because the alternative major shareholder would simply have always been shouted down by members of the Society (part of my beef with them) if the subject had ever been discussed at an AGM. The biggest taboo subject at Bath City Football Club.... A complete non-starter!

For it to have happened it would have to have been discussed at the AGM's as it would take a major share re-issue in order for the club to provide an open door for this person to appear. This option would NOT cost current supporters who have already bought the cub once any more money. It would only have cost them an assumed devaluation of their current shareholding by 50%.

So there IS a business plan for the Community option.

And NO business plan for the major shareholder option.

The one and only option you keep talking about has been manouvered into place.

Case closed.

TL - your analysis isn't accurate I'm afraid.

The route for a single major shareholder is far from closed, and wouldn't require a share re-issue.

There are 4 individual members of the Board who between them personally own approx. 50% of the club. They made it clear in the media last year that the club was looking for a buyer.

If anyone had stepped forward, those 4 board members would have sold them their shareholding, and doubtless recommended to the rest of the shareholders to do the same. Even if the Supporters Society had wanted to 'shout down' all of that, it wouldn't have been able to.

The hard, cold fact is that no-one has come forward to buy the club, even though it's there ready and willing to be sold.

There is no conspiracy. Bath City FC has no Plan B if the Community Ownership bid doesn't succeed. Two major debts are due next month, from people who have made it clear that they want their money back. I don't think people genuinely appreciate how serious the club's position is, and how limited the options for survival are.

[2weirdtown]

And Archie's comments to the press re players drifting away made it publicly clear how serious the situation is.
Note: He may have been acting as an unofficial mouthpiece for the club in an effort to push things along. I think his comments were perhaps ill advised as they won't have helped morale for those trying to fix the problem.

[SteveS]

I do find Too Late's latest second post a bit worrying. He (or she) admits to having 'a beef' with the Supporters Society.
I am on the Supporters Society committee (not part of the Action Group) and in the context of his post feel that I am being cast as some sort of anarchist. I look around at the others on the committee, mostly people I have known for many years, and I am confident that they are 100% committed to the club and would never act in any other way than in the clubs best interests.
Certainly I am not 'stay at Twerton Park whatever' as I have also said in previous posts. If there was someone who wanted to come into the club, invest, and had the genuine interests of the club at heart I would back that person totally. If I felt there were others within the Society Committee blocking this then I would no longer wish to be part of that committee.
I am aware that over recent years it has suited a few people to cast the Society in a poor light and it has been convenient to point the finger for the clubs problems in that direction, and a few seem to have fallen for this tactic.
Yes, I do say that community ownership is the only option at this time. Too Late says it is not his job to come up with alternatives and this is the job of the Board. Surely he must see that community ownership is now the only option on the table precisely because the Board have failed to come up with any other alternatives. To me he seems to be defeating his own argument here.
I do find it sad that some seem to be putting what seems to be a sort of personal grievance before the future of the club.
Finally, I do consider myself a reasonable judge of character, but if anyone does have any evidence of actions contrary to the interests of the club by any of my colleagues I would like to hear from them so that I can amend my christmas card list.

[BenE]

I think TL speaks for a number of fans even though he is the only one who has put his head above the parapet.

From my observation there have been personality issues between various factions within the club. It is hard to avoid that.

For this reason I can see the reason why the Supporters' Society might set up a separate vehicle for community ownership. However given that it will still be manned by the same people there is no point. Furthermore a Trust or Society is exactly the right vehicle to pursue it.

The Society first mooted the idea of community ownership in 2013. This was rejected out of hand by a group of major shareholders which stopped it in its tracks, despite the Society membership voting in favour of investigating the idea further.

The reason it has resurfaced now is purely down to a change of attitude within the board and more importantly amongst those major shareholders. Without that change we would not be talking about communty ownership.

No reason has been publicly offered why there has been a change of heart and everyone assumes that it is related to the statement earlier in the season that we were at last chance saloon unless a buyer (single major shareholder) was found. The conclusion is that we are down to our last bourbon before the shootout at high noon.

I personally have reservations about how a community owned club works in practice but I know the idea is to bring in experts to address specific areas of club activities eg legal, finance, commercial from within that community base. Hopefully the prospectus will give us a better idea of how the club will be run longterm.

[Marc Monitor]

Firstly, TLT obviously has an issue with the whole idea of community ownership - which is fair enough - so I am not sure it is possible to change his mind about one for Bath City in particular.

However it is worth addressing a couple of issues. The first has been addressed already. The current directors spent a long time trying to attract a major shareholder and couldn't.

Secondly, many many football clubs at many different levels are appallingly run, often with massive debts by one or a couple of major share holders who are either inept, corrupt, asset strippers, power hungry or publicity/status seekers. Many of them have no real interest in the football clubs they own/are major shareholders in. Research has shown that 4 times as many business leaders show psychopathic tendencies than the general population so bringing someone who is a business person doesn't necessarily lead to better decisions and the experience of many football clubs backs that up. In other words, "having a major shareholder who is able and capable of making the decisions that the recent Supporter Directors didn't make...." could be even more disastrous.

As Ben E says, aside from the financial investment of the supporters, the Supporters' Society will bring on a whole load of experience, skills and knowledge of people from a whole load of different walks of life. Not only that but those people will be monitored, supported and moderated by other members.

As someone who has seen a football club that has been run by Sam Hammam, Peter Ridsdale and Vincent Tan, I am not convinced that having a major shareholder is a recipe for success. Not only that but it isn't even an option now.

[Marc Monitor]

It is as ridiculous to say that community owned clubs are a surefire recipe for success than it is to say having a major shareholder/owner is. However, I think there are enough examples of success such as Boca Juniors, Hajduk Split, Wimbledon, Exeter, Portsmouth, Portimonense, Athletic Bilbao, Barcelona, Osasuna, Wrexham, St Pauli to show that they can and do work as well, sometimes much better than traditionally run clubs.

Also, what they are guaranteed to be is run for the good of the club and the supporters. If the club were to fail, I would rather Bath City fail through the bad decisions of the supporters made with good intentions than the bad decisions of shareholders with other agendas.

[SteveBradley]

Why have you and other people got an issue with the Supporters' Society taking over the club, TLT, and what alternative do you suggest?

I mainly have an issue with the concept of the community model overall. Mainly because the concept that groups of supporters are in any way equipped to run football clubs as a business and taking business decisions that will make the club work in a better way than if they were run by a major shareholder owner. All of these so called one member, one vote type organisations are supposedly designed to get everyone involved  in such a way that the club is then supposedly run by lots of supporters instead of a few members of a board. Unfortunately, I believe that it doesn't actually work like that...

You raise a lot of issues here Too Late, but they seem to boil down to that old discredited allegation that 'fans can't run football clubs'.

There are about 25 clubs in Britain that are run by fans which will prove you wrong on that. And not one of those clubs is facing calls to return to the previous model of running their club (the one which, in every case, killed off their club).

Compare that to the approx. 100 examples of bankruptcy which have hit Football League clubs since the Premier League was founded. The facts are that it isn't fan-run/community-owned clubs that the evidence shows can't run themselves properly - it's the others.

As for the argument that we've had something akin to community ownership already at Bath City - absolutely not. For decades the club has run itself in the same well-intentioned but fundamentally unsustainable fashion that so many other clubs have done and continue to do. Following a model of spending money that doesn't exist, relying on the financial goodwill of a tiny number of people to make ends meet, and racking up debt to chase the dream etc etc. It's sad that most clubs that have gone into fan and community-ownership have faced an extinction-level crisis to force the realisation upon them that change was desperately needed . Bath City isn't extinct yet, but it is down to it's proverbial last breeding pair. The club simply cannot continue running itself on the old model of doing football. Community ownership is about an entirely different and more sustainable way of running a football club. Something we haven't seen at Bath City.

[stillmanjunior]

It is as ridiculous to say that community owned clubs are a surefire recipe for success than it is to say having a major shareholder/owner is. However, I think there are enough examples of success such as Boca Juniors, Hajduk Split, Wimbledon, Exeter, Portsmouth, Portimonense, Athletic Bilbao, Barcelona, Osasuna, Wrexham, St Pauli to show that they can and do work as well, sometimes much better than traditionally run clubs.

I'm not dismissing the idea of a Community Club at all, but surely they're all a success (looking at Wrexham's league position has it worked?) as they have far bigger fan bases than us? Barcelona could probably raise £1m in a week if they asked people to dip their hands in their pockets to pay Messi and Suarez's wages for a few weeks.

Whatever happens I'll just keep my fingers crossed that we won't end up having a Farnborough situation where we have to rely on various loan/cheap signings to complete a season. I like to think I'm pretty loyal but I would find it very hard work watching rubbish like that every week, a case of us not competing that is. At least in the Conference we were losing to sides with far more resources than us, the thought of watching us lose 5 or 6-0 to Concord or Bishop's Stortford would be soul destroying.

That's about all I can say on this matter. I'll just stick to doing what I can for the club on a voluntary basis rather than purely financial. I know those behind this scheme have the club's best interests at heart.

[Bristol Mike]

I do support the community ownership idea but I have concerns. With our small fanbase to raise such large sums we will need a lot to come from outside the core support. This could end with the majority having very little interest in the club compared to those of us who go week in week out. With this in mind comparing us to many other fan run clubs Is possibly not very accurate unless you throw myfc/ebbsfleet into the mix, and that didn't go well at all.

[yuffie]

It is as ridiculous to say that community owned clubs are a surefire recipe for success than it is to say having a major shareholder/owner is. However, I think there are enough examples of success such as Boca Juniors, Hajduk Split, Wimbledon, Exeter, Portsmouth, Portimonense, Athletic Bilbao, Barcelona, Osasuna, Wrexham, St Pauli to show that they can and do work as well, sometimes much better than traditionally run clubs.

I'm not dismissing the idea of a Community Club at all, but surely they're all a success (looking at Wrexham's league position has it worked?) as they have far bigger fan bases than us? Barcelona could probably raise £1m in a week if they asked people to dip their hands in their pockets to pay Messi and Suarez's wages for a few weeks.

This was one of my concerns when the idea was first raised 18 months ago. None of the successful examples - to my mind - were of clubs comparable to City. The only two that were similar were Dorchester and Merthyr Town and I think it was said that neither were exactly the same model.

I also think that what can get lost in all the current talk about fan run/owned clubs is that is what we currently are. All the current board are supporters who have almost all spent a lot more time on the terraces than in the boardroom, though fully I understand that they now feel they have no other option than to give the community club plan a go.

[BenE]

I made the same point when it was first mooted and was advised that Community Ownership is not the same as Fan ownership. Clearly Bath City would find it extremely difficult to find suitable continued resource from its fanbase.

With community ownership you diversify the interest in the club so that it is not just fans of the football team that want to be involved. The appeal is to a wider audience.

[2weirdtown]

I thought the time for debating the pros and cons had passed about 12 months ago.

[yuffie]

I made the same point when it was first mooted and was advised that Community Ownership is not the same as Fan ownership. Clearly Bath City would find it extremely difficult to find suitable continued resource from its fanbase.

With community ownership you diversify the interest in the club so that it is not just fans of the football team that want to be involved. The appeal is to a wider audience.

Yes, fair enough.

[Marc Monitor]

Yes, the onus is very much on community ownership and not the oft-mentioned idea of 500 people paying £2800. Of course, this makes it extremely hard work to achieve and it was very nerve-wracking for a proponent of it like and, I am sure, many others. However, it is not insurmountable as has been shown by all the other club's that have done it. Of course, it will not happen if everyone shoots it down before it has even started. This wouldn't be so much of an issue if there was an alternative but there isn't. It would be great to have the luxury to debate the options in front of us but we don't.

Here is a list of community-owned sports clubs for anyone interested to have a look at. It isn't just big clubs that are successful at it.

[Beau Nash]

The bottom line to all this is that average league game attendances MUST rise to 800, was that the board's break even point, currently we are on 505, or we take relegation to regroup. So it is not just fresh ownership / management it requires radical new ideas.

I await the business plan in the share prospectus with interest.

[Marc Monitor]

I am not sure of your logic. Why do we need to take relegation to regroup? The outgoings aren't likely to be any less if we go down a division.

As I have mentioned, casting the net wider via community ownership means not only financial input but an input of skills, experience and knowledge bringing also new ideas. The problem with having a small talent pool of a handful of people is that ideas can become narrow, outdated and tired. I say this who was trying to convince a previous incumbent of the benefits of the enormously popular, fast and free Facebook for advertising matches as 'events'. I was told that it wasn't considered worth it. The the enormously popular, fast and free Facebook, that is. Bearing in mind that I have no idea how to promote the club via Twitter or whatever else is out there, there is loads of scope for people to bring in expertise and new ideas and a community ownership model will let this happen.

Large football clubs have to pay a fortune to get the most up to date ideas about marketing, publicising, digitally managing and running their clubs. With community ownership, you get those sort of skills on board not only for free but with a financial as well as supporting vested interest in the success of the club.

[yuffie]

Don't confuse questioning the plans with trying to shoot it down in flames. I think the vast majority of City fans, even if they harbour doubts about the move for whatever reason, want it to succeed and then see where it takes the club.

I think the relegation point is a valid one.

I have always been of the view that the only way crowds will increase is when the side is regularly winning games. Therefore you could argue that dropping down a division or two should mean that the this is more likely. Apart from our first season in the Conference Premier our two highest crowd averages this century were the 2006-07 and 1999-00 - one wgere we won the league and one where we were challenging until late on.

It was also mean that the wage bill could be lowered and still be competitive.

If a floating fan picks up the Chronicle and sees that City have won again and are near the top of the division is it really going to make any difference if that division is the Conference South or Southern League? Two or three seasons of this and that floating fan may have come enough to become a regular fan and a hardcore of 500 may have become 700 (with the hoped boost to crowds from the whole community aspect). Then an average of 800 back in the Conference South may be a realistic aim.

Of course, whether this situation would be easily accepted by the current supporters is open to question but if it was stated as a possibility to secure a more stable future then I wouldn't view it as unreasonable.

[Marc Monitor]

It's an interesting point but an issue is, if the club accepts relegation (anathema for most supporters, I would have thought), any floating supporters are probably are going to be dubious of the ambition of the club, even with any success from the lower placing.

Also, it is hard enough to entice supporters to a Conference South club let alone a Southern League club. Only one club has better average attendances than us - Weymouth. This is important as, not only do we need the home supporters but our attendances need propping up by away supporters.

Finally, the gamble is that we would be highly successful in the Southern League. It is as much of a bottleneck to come back up as this league and we could end up trapped down there.

[Dodgycarpet]

can someone remind me where the definitive document is on this?

[BenE]

definitive document to what?

[Sponsored content]