Potential Investor

[Uncle Peter]

Pete- nowt- the issue is the loans, debentures and mortgage. I know you don't agree Peter, but the unwise loans, while given to keep the club going, stymie the whole process.

And yes Dave, I agree 100%. I want him to listen but he's not to be given an easy ride because we are angry at the present incumbents.

If we all agreed, it wouldn't be as fun would it!

[Three Lie Ins]

Peter, the bid isn't for an asset (the ground), it's for the Club. Therefore you cannot 'forget' the debt and creditors.The ground may or may not be worth £600K, but what ever it's value, the value of Club is much less because of all the debt and creditors.

The bid, as far as i see, is for the assets of the club and not the club itself.

The club, as it stands cannot be sold due to the way its structured and It can't simply be converted into a share capital company. Therefore any investor would have to set up a new company and purchase the assets, which would be the ground and the ability to play football in the Conference. The old company would then be wound down, with any surplus cash being distributed as decided by the members in line with the constitution.

Interesting Pete, hadn't appreciated that point. In that case we return to where we started, i.e. what is the true and fair value of the ground? A secondary point is whether that value is greater or smaller than the liabilities. If smaller than creditors may have to take a loss. If a surplus then as you say distribution to members. The crucial point then is agreeing a fair value for the ground. If the bid is to proceed, there will have to be a revised independent valuation carried out on a basis agreed by both parties.

[Uncle Peter]

Interesting Pete, hadn't appreciated that point. In that case we return to where we started, i.e. what is the true and fair value of the ground? A secondary point is whether that value is greater or smaller than the liabilities. If smaller than creditors may have to take a loss. If a surplus then as you say distribution to members. The crucial point then is agreeing a fair value for the ground. If the bid is to proceed, there will have to be a revised independent valuation carried out on a basis agreed by both parties.

Spot on.

[Reg]

Distribution to members?

So, does that mean if there is £100k left over and there are 200 members, they would get £500 each?

Seems like a fair gamble to me for £20.

Where do I sign up

If the above is true though, I hope that some people don't take a short sighted view for the sake of a few quid and start to overvalue the ground in their minds eye.

[Spanner]

Distribution to members?

So, does that mean if there is £100k left over and there are 200 members, they would get £500 each?

Seems like a fair gamble to me for £20.

Where do I sign up

If the above is true though, I hope that some people don't take a short sighted view for the sake of a few quid and start to overvalue the ground in their minds eye.

Distribution BY (not TO) the members, and must specifically be "given or transferred to some other company or association, or to any charitable company or institution or institutions in each case having similar objects to and (without creating any binding trust) operating within the Furness area of Cumbria" or the the FA Benevolent Fund as a last resort.

[Jim]

The present company limited by guarantee was formed in the dark days of 2000 with the clear intention to avoid a situation where any one person had control over the club. The Articles of Association were drawn up to ensure that the members ultimately owned the club. Authority to run the club was invested in the Board, who are elected by the members. If we are considering handing the club back to any individual (and I am not doubting Mr Casson's motives and honesty), we are in effect saying that the membership model is a failure.

Members (I am one) need to be clear about why they are considering this move. Is it dissatisfaction with the Board and the way the club is run, or is it a recognition that, without investment, the club will fold. If it's a case of "sell out or go bust", perhaps there is no option, but are we sure that the membership model can't be made to work?

There is a huge element of risk in returning to an ownership model. As far as I can recall, every owner of the club over the years up to and including SV has had to put money into the club to subsidise its activities. Each time the money runs out or the owner gets tired of doing so, the club hits a crisis.

I agree that we need to hear what Mr Casson has to say, and that the Board and he need to have some discussions about how they can best look after the interests of the club and its members. However, we should not forget why the present membership structure was created and the massive amount of time and effort that brought it about when the club was facing extinction. It should not be thrown away unless we are absolutely sure that we have no other option.

[barrowfan_chris]

There is a huge element of risk in returning to an ownership model. As far as I can recall, every owner of the club over the years up to and including SV has had to put money into the club to subsidise its activities. Each time the money runs out or the owner gets tired of doing so, the club hits a crisis.

The same thing is happening even under the membership model if it wasn't for the directors putting money in we would be in a financial crisis.

The simple problem is be it sole owner or membership is we mostly each season spend more than comes in.

[blue nige]

one of the biggest gripes about the present board is the lack of transparency,when the invester first made an approach it was agreed to have a non-disclosure agreement why?
all the board had to do was call an e.g.m. and let the members know that a non -disclosure agreement was in the offing,whether this is the norm or not the membership should have been informed and then give the go ahead for it to take place or say no to secret talks!

i have an open mind as to why this didn`t happen but now look at the mess this has become with claims and counter claims!

i can understand if we were a massive club but it doesn`t seem logical in our situation to have an agreement in place,all the time we hear it`s your club!,i personally think we have been taken for mugs for a long time and whatever happens the club has to change or we will die!

[Dalton Bluebird]

There is a huge element of risk in returning to an ownership model. As far as I can recall, every owner of the club over the years up to and including SV has had to put money into the club to subsidise its activities. Each time the money runs out or the owner gets tired of doing so, the club hits a crisis.

The same thing is happening even under the membership model if it wasn't for the directors putting money in we would be in a financial crisis.

The simple problem is be it sole owner or membership is we mostly each season spend more than comes in.

Please excuse me if this has already been asked, but are there any non league clubs using the membership model?

With any success?

[Richard Ingham]

The same thing is happening even under the membership model if it wasn't for the directors putting money in we would be in a financial crisis.

The simple problem is be it sole owner or membership is we mostly each season spend more than comes in.

Please excuse me if this has already been asked, but are there any non league clubs using the membership model?

With any success?

AFC Winbledon (came up through the leagues using the model), Chester, FC United to name but 3. However, all three have a much bigger support base than we do. If the Barrovian public weren't so generally apathetic to the plight of the club then we might be in a better position under the membership model and be able to raise enough income to carry on under it.

[Dalton Bluebird]

Please excuse me if this has already been asked, but are there any non league clubs using the membership model?

With any success?

AFC Winbledon (came up through the leagues using the model), Chester, FC United to name but 3. However, all three have a much bigger support base than we do. If the Barrovian public weren't so generally apathetic to the plight of the club then we might be in a better position under the membership model and be able to raise enough income to carry on under it.

Thanks for that Richard. So it looks like the membership model will never work here. Revenue from membership is never going to be anywhere near scratching the surface of the clubs current situation, we would need a thousand members paying £1000 each to raise the sort of money PC is talking about.

[blue nige]

"the Barrovian public weren't so generally apathetic to the plight of the club then we might be in a better position under the membership model and be able to raise enough income to carry on under "
even if we had 1,000 members that would only raise an extra 10,000k,the reason it`s not working is well documented on here please take off your "blue tinted glasses" and get in the real world,look at the way the club has (not) been run, bad p.r., creating a debt, shirts not being delivered,pitch not even maintained!,players not being paid,transfer embargoes ,local firms not being paid is it any wonder the public are not interested ,from the outside looking in the club must look to a lot of people like a "sick joke",i know you are barrow through and through but hey i support the club but i can see other peoples views and until there is a significant change in the way the club is being led then people will remain "apathetic"

[Steelworks End]

Revenue from membership is never going to be anywhere near scratching the surface of the clubs current situation, we would need a thousand members paying £1000 each to raise the sort of money PC is talking about.

Without a big investor, the same would apply to the limited company model as the capital is limited to what the individual shareholders put in to purchase the shares. Would we get a thousand supporters buying £1,000 of shares?

The advantage of the company model is that an investor can buy the shares (assuming the existing shareholders were willing to sell, of course) and, on taking control, pump money into the club. The downside is that that person - and I am not in any way suggesting that this may be a potential investor's intentions - sell the company assets.

There is nothing of course under the membership model to prevent a benevolent supporter donating a large sum of money to the club, but that person would not have any greater financial interest in or control over the club other than that enjoyed by any member paying £20 per season.

[John Very Little]

one of the biggest gripes about the present board is the lack of transparency,when the invester first made an approach it was agreed to have a non-disclosure agreement why?
all the board had to do was call an e.g.m. and let the members know that a non -disclosure agreement was in the offing,whether this is the norm or not the membership should have been informed and then give the go ahead for it to take place or say no to secret talks!
i have an open mind as to why this didn`t happen but now look at the mess this has become with claims and counter claims!
i can understand if we were a massive club but it doesn`t seem logical in our situation to have an agreement in place,all the time we hear it`s your club!,i personally think we have been taken for mugs for a long time and whatever happens the club has to change or we will die!

Reading the comments in the Mail (for what that's worth) I got the impression that it was PC who asked for the NDA - it hasn't been stated anywhere who actually asked for it
On the point about telling us about the approach we were told about it at the AGM in August.
I don't think you can call an EGM to discuss every detail of the company business but I do believe we should have more regular meetings.
Out of interest FC United of Manchester have meetings every 3 months (one of which is an AGM) to update their members on what's happening at the club and give financial updates and inform their members of any other relevant business. I think our board need more frequent members meetings or some form of communication to members to update us on what's happening.
In response to Richard Ingham even if we doubled the number of members it would still only raise an extra 10-15K which is peanuts and you seem to forget that arouund 20% of our support can't be members as they're under 18.
I also think the membership model debate wouldn't be happening if the club had been better run and we hadn't racked up the debts we have. Having said that there are other models available such as community clubs and Trusts that could also be used if we don't want the single owner model.

[Alhosk]

The major concern I have is that there is no way that any significant investor can make their money back (legally / ethically). Football clubs just don't make profits.