Re: Bid progress

by Bristol Mike Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:43 pm

stillmanjunior wrote:
comrade powell wrote:Would last night's attendance of 330 be the lowest ever for an FA Cup tie at TP?

Since they were recorded (early 80s), yes. Comfortably beat 388 for a 2nd Qualifying Round replay at home to Basingstoke in 1997, which we also lost.

Oh dear, that is a very worrying thing to read.

I will no doubt be attacked for being negative but that surely says a lot for our community ownership bid. After months of promoting the club in the community we manage one of our worst fa cup crowds in twenty years. Does this tell us that when it comes to match day the community are just not interested in Bath City.

by comrade powell Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:53 pm

To be fair, Tuesday evening games are rarely well attended and a fixture with a team 2 levels below is basically one for the die hards. I think the next 2 Saturday home fixtures will be a truer indication of interest, but news of last night's debacle is not going to attract newbies. A positive response by the major shareholders to the Bid is needed to kick start the push for community ownership but as far as I'm aware, nothing has of yet been received.

by Marc Monitor Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:55 pm

Bristol Mike wrote:
stillmanjunior wrote:
comrade powell wrote:Would last night's attendance of 330 be the lowest ever for an FA Cup tie at TP?

Since they were recorded (early 80s), yes. Comfortably beat 388 for a 2nd Qualifying Round replay at home to Basingstoke in 1997, which we also lost.

Oh dear, that is a very worrying thing to read.

I will no doubt be attacked for being negative but that surely says a lot for our community ownership bid. After months of promoting the club in the community we manage one of our worst fa cup crowds in twenty years. Does this tell us that when it comes to match day the community are just not interested in Bath City.

Well, the first home game had a very high attendance which can only really be due to the Bid Bounce. Presently, it is quiet on the Bid front as preparations are taking place so that the next phase of the bid can be planned efficiently and professionally and not suffer from the somewhat 'on the hoof' approach of the short timeframe that we had to work in over the summer. Of course, the club is supposed to publicising the matches, raising the club's profile and attracting crowds themselves as well.

by Too Late... Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:36 pm

Marc Monitor wrote:Presently, it is quiet on the Bid front as preparations are taking place so that the next phase of the bid can be planned efficiently and professionally and not suffer from the somewhat 'on the hoof' approach of the short timeframe that we had to work in over the summer.

Is that an official announcement revealling that there definitely will be a continuation of the bid?

Surely the continuation of the bid could only have any credibility if it is supported by the majority shareholders but at this moment it would appear that those majority shareholders don't have much confidence in any continuation of the bid effort acccording to the statement issued by them which was posted on this forum by Comrade Powell on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 12:58 pm!

by Marc Monitor Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:40 pm

There was an email outlining what is happening with the bid to all pledgers and, I believe, all participants in the survey. In case you didn't receive it, here it is.

We're conscious that we haven't been in touch for a little while so want to update you on what's happening. The following is our statement which will be released in the Bath Chronicle on Thursday 8 October:

"The Big Bath City Bid was launched in June 2015, and since then has worked tirelessly to put Bath City FC into the centre stage of life in our city. In the three months that followed we achieved widespread support across the city and beyond - from residents, businesses, charities, politicians, community groups and celebrities - all buying into the vision that community-ownership would finally give our city the football club it deserved. Having sold over £300,000 of community shares up to September, we have since run a consultation process which gave a resounding endorsement from fans and investors to continue pursuing the aim of community ownership.

The Big Bath City Bid team has therefore made the best possible offer it can to the five people who together are the majority shareholders of the current Bath City FC Limited. That offer was for a staged approach towards community ownership - ensuring the short term security of the club by addressing its urgent debts, injecting working capital, and beginning a renewed campaign to generate the balance of funds required to complete the conversion to full community ownership within an agreed timescale. We have thus far been unable to reach agreement with the five major shareholders on this proposal, but discussions continue between the parties in a positive and constructive spirit. We will provide further updates as negotiations continue. We’d like to thank everyone who has committed to the Bid so far, and other supporters, and assure them that we remain committed to the aim of community ownership as the best way to ensure a sustainable and prosperous future for Bath City FC."

Thank you for your patience while we continue to work hard to ensure the best possible outcome for the Club and the Bid. We will get back to you just as soon as we're able to take further positive steps forwards.

by Bristol Mike Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:47 pm

Marc Monitor wrote:
Bristol Mike wrote:
stillmanjunior wrote:
comrade powell wrote:Would last night's attendance of 330 be the lowest ever for an FA Cup tie at TP?

Since they were recorded (early 80s), yes. Comfortably beat 388 for a 2nd Qualifying Round replay at home to Basingstoke in 1997, which we also lost.

Oh dear, that is a very worrying thing to read.

I will no doubt be attacked for being negative but that surely says a lot for our community ownership bid. After months of promoting the club in the community we manage one of our worst fa cup crowds in twenty years. Does this tell us that when it comes to match day the community are just not interested in Bath City.

Well, the first home game had a very high attendance which can only really be due to the Bid Bounce. Presently, it is quiet on the Bid front as preparations are taking place so that the next phase of the bid can be planned efficiently and professionally and not suffer from the somewhat 'on the hoof' approach of the short timeframe that we had to work in over the summer. Of course, the club is supposed to publicising the matches, raising the club's profile and attracting crowds themselves as well.

I agree that the club is primarily responsible for boosting attendances but if the bid wants to raise more money from more people then surely the first step should be to create a larger catchment of people (ie attendances)

Please don't view this as a criticism of the bid but more as a suggestion for a more proactive first step.

by Marc Monitor Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:03 pm

Quite simply, Bristol Mike, the club isn't community owned presently, it is owned by the major shareholders. We were able to raise awareness and profile of the club during the slow summer close season and improve attendances while fulfilling the primary task of assembling a team to raise what was an incredible amount of £300,000 in 3 months.

However, there is a limited amount that the Bid team can do presently. Obviously the sort steps you are talking about have spoken about at great length and in great depth - quite a lot of it in the public consultations. Funds and efforts have to now be concentrated on organising fundraising.

by Bristol Mike Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:17 pm

The point I was making was that it's in everyone's interest to increase crowds, I raised this month's ago and the response i received at the time meant that the bid team lost a lot of credibility as far as I was concerned.

by Marc Monitor Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:21 pm

Out of interest, what was the response? Raising crowds has always been on the agenda of the Bid team but, as I say, to a certain extent, our hands were tied even though the club were helpful in many ways.

by stillmanjunior Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:28 pm

If all the people attending had donated a grand we could have doubled the amount raised Smile

I'm sure the Harlow fans would have chipped in.

by Too Late... Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:53 pm

Marc Monitor wrote:There was an email outlining what is happening with the bid to all pledgers and, I believe, all participants in the survey So not a public statement then???

...We have thus far been unable to reach agreement with the five major shareholders on this proposal...

Perhaps you should re-read the statement you bring to my attention (which I had already seen at http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Talks-Bath-City-Football-Club-Big-Bath-City-Bid/story-27946078-detail/story.html) because it admits that continuing the bid does not have the support of the major shareholders yet.

So going back to my original question which was not answered. Were you making an official announcement revealling that there definitely will be a continuation of the bid?

by BenE Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:24 am

Marc isn't in a position to make an official announcement. He isn't the official mouthpiece of the bid team. Yes he supports the bid and has done an awful lot of work but he isn't expressing the bid views here but his own. This is the bath city forum.

Official announcements should be made officially.

by BenE Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:36 am

I don't understand why the bid team should be expected to contribute towards boosting attendance. Their remit was to raise sufficient funds to save the club and moreover they were asked to do it during the close season. How was increasing short term attendance any part of that?
If the bid is sucessful then the strategy is to build the fan base. How can you build the fan base if the club does nothing to keep it?

by Midsomer-steve Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:27 am

BenE wrote:I don't understand why the bid team should be expected to contribute towards boosting attendance. Their remit was to raise sufficient funds to save the club and moreover they were asked to do it during the close season. How was increasing short term attendance any part of that?
If the bid is sucessful then the strategy is to build the fan base. How can you build the fan base if the club does nothing to keep it?

Absolutely right. As Pete Mac has said earlier, the bid effort is losing momentum, and this is worrying. The fabric of the current Club is crumbling before our very eyes. I understand that the current Board admitted that they had run out of ideas about how to save Bath City, and that is why they gave their assent for the Community Ownership scheme to take off. I am pretty sure that there is not a 'bad egg' amongst them - they are all devoted City fans, who, like us, want the Club to resolve its current financial crisis, and then march onwards and upwards to higher levels eventually. So, I am now utterly bewildered by every inactive day that passes. Thrashing out the way ahead for the Bid Team to continue to attempt to reach their target should surely not have taken as long as it has already? We ALL want Bath City to continue functioning don't we? Come on Board - pull out all the stops now before it is too late. Oh - if it is self-preservation of your positions that is worrying you - have a really good 2015/16 season that we can all crow about - increase the fan base - then you just might get re-elected!

by Timbo_b-o-a Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:00 am

Midsomer-steve wrote:
Absolutely right. As Pete Mac has said earlier, the bid effort is losing momentum, and this is worrying. The fabric of the current Club is crumbling before our very eyes. I understand that the current Board admitted that they had run out of ideas about how to save Bath City, and that is why they gave their assent for the Community Ownership scheme to take off. I am pretty sure that there is not a 'bad egg' amongst them - they are all devoted City fans, who, like us, want the Club to resolve its current financial crisis, and then march onwards and upwards to higher levels eventually. So, I am now utterly bewildered by every inactive day that passes. Thrashing out the way ahead for the Bid Team to continue to attempt to reach their target should surely not have taken as long as it has already? We ALL want Bath City to continue functioning don't we? Come on Board - pull out all the stops now before it is too late. Oh - if it is self-preservation of your positions that is worrying you - have a really good 2015/16 season that we can all crow about - increase the fan base - then you just might get re-elected!

Spot on Steve. Many people I know who chipped in for shares who live away or aren't regular attendees at Twerton and it's getting embarrassing having to tell them we don't know what's happening well over a month since the deadline.. I understand it's a difficult time for the board but if they don't make a decision on this ASAP all momentum will be lost and I feel the Bath public will lose patience.

Depressingly, given the last 5 or 6 zombie-like performances this malaise feels like its spreading down to the pitch.

by Bristol Mike Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:07 am

Marc Monitor wrote:Out of interest, what was the response? Raising crowds has always been on the agenda of the Bid team but, as I say, to a certain extent, our hands were tied even though the club were helpful in many ways.

The response was similar to what we are getting here, we can't do this as we are not community owned, we can't do that as the board have control.
Ok so I won't surprise me if the main problem is communication but surely as everyone has a common long term goal why does it need to be so them or us.
Would it not make more sense to work together than against each other for a controlling share of the club.
Like I said if I am missing the point due to poor communication I will get my coat but to me it appears to be one group against another and not working together.

by comrade powell Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:30 am

Bristol Mike, I can assure you that members of the Bid team have regular dialogue with the major shareholders and it is not a case of 'one against the other'. Have you posed the same question to the board?

Too Late, the official announcement you ask of can be found at the Bid's official website at...

http://www.bigbathcitybid.org.uk/

by Bristol Mike Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:58 pm

comrade powell wrote:Bristol Mike, I can assure you that members of the Bid team have regular dialogue with the major shareholders and it is not a case of 'one against the other'. Have you posed the same question to the board?

Too Late, the official announcement you ask of can be found at the Bid's official website at...

http://www.bigbathcitybid.org.uk/

That's a fair reply but these things should be communicated better. And I don't just mean the bid team.

As has been said by others on this thread long periods are going by without updates re the bid.

Even less has come from the board, I am not even sure if they back the bid, don't back the bid, looking for investors, have a plan, don't have a plan or are just crossing fingers and hoping that something works out.

Tuesday was classic for a lack of communication from the club, 24 hours after the game people were still discussing if Mccootie was in Australia, Portugal or injured, that is embarrassing!

by Marc Monitor Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:04 pm

Either I haven't been clear or my comments are being misread. It isn't a case of 'us vs them' with the Bid and the major shareholders. It is a case of 'us and them' obviously because the majority shareholders are not the Bid team and the Bid team are not the majority shareholders. We are seperate entities. When I said that there were things that the Bid couldn't do because we don't own the club, it was just a statement of fact. The Bid team, like the Supporters' Society, have a certain amount of access to the club but, at the end of the day, don't own the club so can't go swanning in running things, just like any other supporters can't.

There is the other element, of course, in that all the bid team have their own work to do, some have their own companies to run and the amount of work that they can do on a voluntary basis is restricted. Personally, I could do a lot over the summer as it was the school holidays. As it happens, there are other teachers who helped as well but we all need to go back to our jobs.

Raising attendances was a by-product of the raising of awareness and profile of the club by promoting the bid. A lot of excellent coverage was in the media over the close season due to the Bid so this helped. However, with time and resources limited, the priority has to be raising funds not running the club's operations for the current board.

As comrade says, perhaps these questions need to be addressed to the board. When we had our consultation meeting after the deadline closed, two members of the board were present and yet the questions for the board were addressed to the Bid team while no-one, as far as I could see, asked the directors.

At the end of the day, the Bid team are focused on raising funds for community ownership and rightly so. If anything else improves, great but the majority shareholders run the club and, presently, rightly so. They have, as I said, been very helpful with making the ground and players available but the Bid Team can't force their way into the club and run things.

by turnstyle13 Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:04 pm

As comrade says, perhaps these questions need to be addressed to the board. When we had our consultation meeting after the deadline closed, two members of the board were present and yet the questions for the board were addressed to the Bid team while no-one, as far as I could see, asked the directors.

Were the two directors present at the meeting
1.in the capacity of formal representatives of the board of BCFC,
2. part of the bid team,
3. people backing the bid but not part of the bid team or
4. just interested bystanders?

My Mum used to say 'you've got a tongue in your head so use it' and I suspect the reason that nobody posed the questions to the directors was because they were there under the third option.
The meeting was convened and chaired by the bid team to seek feedback on which way the bid should proceed. Hence why questions were directed at the bid team. It would be wholly inappropriate to put the two directors on the spot and expect them to give formal responses on behalf of the board, if they didn't have a mandate to do so.

As the bid press release has said the bid team have met with the board/majority shareholders (are they one of the same?), and they have yet to reach agreement but I would assume the bid team know what the BCFC boards/majority shareholders terms and conditions are. In which case that, I assume, is the direction in which it is moving.

Two open questions and the figures are hypothetical
1 If you are a majority shareholder and have invested £100K in BCFC and which is secured against the freehold of Twerton Park. If someone offered you less than £50K to give up your claim would you?
2. If you are a majority shareholder and have already invested £100K in BCFC and, knowing the state of the finances, can only foresee a future for the club if you made further personal loans to the club which may or may not be secured against the value of Twerton Park. Would you?

This thread started about 'tonights game', which personally I thought we were woeful, and has gone onto another area not directly related to the FA Cup exit. I suggest we split these threads, start one regarding Bid progress and, from a football perspective, start talking about the next game and how Ross Stearn is going to score a hat-trick of own goals and deliver a BCFC win on Saturday.

by **bone ash** Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:04 pm

That is a good suggestion at the end and you will see that the necessary split has been made.

(Forum Moderator)

by Marc Monitor Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:51 pm

turnstyle13 wrote:
Were the two directors present at the meeting
1.in the capacity of formal representatives of the board of BCFC,
2. part of the bid team,
3. people backing the bid but not part of the bid team or
4. just interested bystanders?

My Mum used to say 'you've got a tongue in your head so use it' and I suspect the reason that nobody posed the questions to the directors was because they were there under the third option.
Good question. I assumed it was the 4th with 'interested' in bold

The meeting was convened and chaired by the bid team to seek feedback on which way the bid should proceed. Hence why questions were directed at the bid team. It would be wholly inappropriate to put the two directors on the spot and expect them to give formal responses on behalf of the board, if they didn't have a mandate to do so.

More appropriate than the Bid team having to answer questions that only the Directors could answer which is what I was referring to. I appreciate that the directors weren't there in an official basis and couldn't speak for the majority shareholders but they are in more of a position than the Bid team who are wholly separate and can only speak for the Bid and community ownership. There are members of the board who are also on the Bid team and this has always been known but they aren't part of the majority shareholders.

As the bid press release has said the bid team have met with the board/majority shareholders (are they one of the same?), and they have yet to reach agreement but I would assume the bid team know what the BCFC boards/majority shareholders terms and conditions are. In which case that, I assume, is the direction in which it is moving.

That's how I read it.

Two open questions and the figures are hypothetical
1 If you are a majority shareholder and have invested £100K in BCFC and which is secured against the freehold of Twerton Park. If someone offered you less than £50K to give up your claim would you?
2. If you are a majority shareholder and have already invested £100K in BCFC and, knowing the state of the finances, can only foresee a future for the club if you made further personal loans to the club which may or may not be secured against the value of Twerton Park. Would you?

I think that these are questions that could only really be answered by the people in those positions. There are lots of variables to take into consideration. Just like pledgers, they have personal and financial commitments to consider so my answer would probably be vastly different from everyone else's

by SteveS Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:40 pm

A couple of questions that I think need an anewer
a) When is the club going to hold an AGM? There are other shareholders besides the 5 that often get mentioned. If there was an AGM and the latest accounts circulated shareholders would then have a better idea how much the majority shareholders have invested and be able to equated this against any Bid offers to them.
B) When is the Board going to publish the results of their 3 Year Plan? I understood that the previous Chairperson made the club a loan over 3 years which was to give the Board time to come up with proposals to secure the longer term future of the club. The 3 years is now up and I have seen no proposals but the loan is having to be repaid.
If the Board do not have any options to put to Shareholders then my personal view is that we should push on with the Bid, unless of course you just want to give in and sell up.

by Marc Monitor Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:51 pm

The results from the survey certainly indicated that the majority opinion is to carry on with the Bid. However, the Board generously gave the Bid three months leeway to raise the funds. That period is over and they are well within the rights to look at other options while these negotiations are taking place and, I suppose, after.

I can't speak for anyone else but, personally, I am always going to push on the Bid (albeit personally I am going to be involved in a slightly different manner) as I believe that community ownership is the ideal for a football club even if the club is doing brilliantly financially.

by LB Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:40 am

Interesting that SteveS should bring up the '3 year plan'. I seem to recall that this was based on selling Twerton Park and moving elsewhere, and using some of the money raised from that to clear the debts. Once that ceased to be a reality - if it ever was - there was never any real likelihood of the plan succeeding.

by Sponsored content