Re: The future?

[Bristol Mike]

Ok not majority but largest shareholder. If all the people that would allegedly jump on board with community ownership joined the society the sum of money raised would enable the purchase of a greater shareholding.

[SteveBradley]

Ok not majority but largest shareholder. If all the people that would allegedly jump on board with community ownership joined the society the sum of money raised would enable the purchase of a greater shareholding.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple Mike :

- The club isn't issuing new shares, and appears to have no intention to do so. So a greater shareholding can't be purchased. The Society has asked about buying more share a number of times now, and been told no.
- Even if more shares were made available, there would be no guarantee the Society could go from its current shareholding (which would also be diluted by a new share issue) to 50%+ of total ownership.
- There are 4 key shareholders on the board who between them own almost 50% of the club. Within about 24hrs of the Society floating the Community Club idea to its membership in 2013, those shareholders issued a joint press release opposing it. Their argument was that it was the wrong time, given the club's stadium move proposals, and that the club needed instead to see through its 3 year plan. This was despite senior figures in the club at that time publically challenging the Society to come up with it's own plan for how the club could progress (they appear to have laid down that challenge in the expectation that it wouldn't be taken up).
- From what I understand there has been no change in the approach of the Board towards the community club idea (though others would know more on that than I would).
- A cornerstone of the community club idea is that it gives the club a reason to secure support from people in the city who otherwise would have zero interest in BCFC. Without a commitment to having a different type of football club, you can't start appealing to those people.

We're now in 2015 - a crunch year for the club. The year in which the 3 year plan ends, and two major loans fall due for repayment. The idea of addressing our debt via a stadium move appears to be dead in the water, and with it the three year plan. It is unclear what the proposal now is to address the fundamental challenges facing BCFC - particularly the loans. All that appears to have been alluded to recently is the possibility of selling the club.

The Community Club proposal remains on the table should the Board wish to explore it seriously as an option for moving Bath City forwards. We've tried running Bath City the traditional way for decades, and it's just seen us continually rely on debt and our support base decline slowly. Perhaps it's time to look seriously at a different way of doing things.

[Marc Monitor]

Am I right in thinking that the only way that the Supporters' Society to get any more shares presently would be for a new owner to buy out those four shareholders and hand the shares over to the Society? I can't see that ever happening but, I assume, it's technically possible?

[bone ash]

Beau Nash, for someone who refuses to disclose the details of your acquaintances with the necessary funds to save the club, I find it amazing that you don't see the irony of posting details of major shareholders. I'm not going to risk the fall out from some some of those people making complaints so have removed your post. Once the moderators have discussed this, we'll decide if the post, or part of it, can be restored to this thread.

[Beau Nash]

All the factual information in my post is in the public domain so why censor it here?  There are no valid complaints about my post and anyone making one should make it to me instead of hiding, so pathetic.

The details of my "acquaintances" are not public knowledge so I do not make public confidential information.

[Marc Monitor]

In the meantime, it is non-controversial to say that the four shareholders that opposed the Supporters' Society's plans last year (for fear that it would scupper any new stadium plans at the time) were Andrew Pierce, John Reynolds, Geoff Todd and Paul Williams – who each hold a 12 per cent shareholding.

[Bristol Mike]

Thanks for the detailed response Steve.
Have any of the smaller shareholders been approached regarding selling to the society.
If the society was to raise sufficient funds would that not force the board to issue more shares.

[davebart]

All the factual information in my post is in the public domain so why censor it here?  There are no valid complaints about my post and anyone making one should make it to me instead of hiding, so pathetic.

The details of my "acquaintances" are not public knowledge so I do not make public confidential information.

I am afraid I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague on this matter. The publishing of the names of a number of minor shareholders is entirely gratuitous and unnecessary.

Your subsequent justification is disingenuous.

Any similar further posts will not be tolerated.

[comrade powell]

Thanks for the detailed response Steve.
Have any of the smaller shareholders been approached regarding selling to the society.
If the society was to raise sufficient funds would that not force the board to issue more shares.

The Society have done this in the past and in fact bought a large number of shares from an individual last year. I really don't know the answer to your 2nd question, but I very much doubt it.

To correct something stated above - the 48% owned by the 4 people listed above are now in fact shared with a 5th person.

[Eddie Hitler]

I don't get it?
I read the censored post and found it very informative and non-controversial, and it contained a clarification of the situation which some supporters have been asking for for years!
If it is public information, why should it be censored? Dodgy ground in my opinion.

[bone ash]

It is not a case of censorship, but of the moderators removing a post from public view while they decide the best course of action to take.

The poster subsequently claimed that no one had made any valid complaints about the post. That was possibly because few had seen it before it was removed. You are saying that you didn't have a problem with it - one other forum member did and sent me a pm saying so. Incidentally, I have sent a copy of Beau Nash's post to one of the shareholders listed, asking for his reaction.

I'm sorry if this all sounds heavy handed. Unfortunately Beau Nash has a history of posting information which is in the public domain, with little thought as to the possible consequences. And, of course, he preferred to bleat about the moderators' action above rather than following the forum ruling which he signed up to on registering...

12. The administrator has the final word.
If you have a problem or a complaint, privately direct it to the administrators. Do not make it a public issue. We will then take the appropriate actions accordingly. This includes all moderation issues regarding deleted threads or posts.  

[bone ash]

The moderators have decided to restore the post below, minus the list of shareholders, as we could see no point to their inclusion and possible problems for the forum if they remained. It should also be pointed out that some of those shareholders listed are no longer alive. Should any forum members wish to query or challenge this decision, they should contact us by pm.
Thanks

The share holdings below are for the financial year ending 31 May 2013

Bath City Football Club Limited
Company Number 176565

Major shareholders: list deleted by moderators

Companies House will have a full list of Shareholders, the authorised share capital is £500,000 and fully subscribed.

The club is currently / has been trading at a loss of c.£50-100k per annum.
The club ground is the only significant asset which has been valued, but not shown in the accounts, speculation value is a minimum of £3million.
There are Directors and other loans of c.£0.5million.

So my best assumption is that when people speak about the "debt" being £1-1.25million they are estimating the amount needed to satisfy all liabilities.  

So simply the Shareholders would have c.£3million less c.£1-1.25 million to distribute. This equates to each £1 share being worth c.£5 but each share is probably losing value £0.10 - 0.20 per annum.

The problem is cash flow, which in the past has been covered by directors loans / overdraft but these original sources of funding are no longer available / "maxed out".  My curiosity is how will future trading losses be funded?

[Dodgycarpet]

The problem isn't simply cashflow - we are making a loss!

[Beau Nash]

Losses in themselves don't cause terminal problems if there are injections of cash to offset them, which has been the situation previously, BUT even with the generosity of our directors digging deep the time has now come that they can't dig any further so...

[Dodgycarpet]

Losses really are what does the damage. Our cash injections were only loans, not that that makes the donors any less generous but they do need paying back! No business can carry on just making losses unless they are only "operating" losses and there is some capital to sell off which happened in 60s and 70s (eg free view road, land behind bath end and the frontage onto the high street). Now we are at the end of that era as all that is left is TP itself.

[Marc Monitor]

Did the ground used to look straight onto the high street? That must looked awesome

[Sponsored content]