The Supporters Trust

[bwfcfan5]

The trust emailed members to say that it was free to renew and to cancel DD many folk me including me chose to pay the tenner. Quick question folk who are anti the trust is there any way that it might be possible to be pro trust? What would they need to do? Or has that horse bolted forever. If it's the latter why not just let those who feel a trust is required get on with supporting it.

All those running it or involved in setting it up to step down and leave the ST. At that point I would consider rejoining if proper elections took place.

[Big E]

Mounts with regards to how to become pro trust:

1. the current lot step down and move away. 

2. we find guys who are pro bwfc and not just in it for themselves (they just appear to want to be i told you so kind of people)

3. the trust works closely with fans to build backing of the club.

4. their twitter feed is overhauled. 

 

 

fans would be happy with a trust if it wasn't being run by people with axes to grind because they have been hurt by previous regimes. i would imagine a fair few are still smarting from losing their shares which they thought were worth millions rather than fuck all like ED paid. 

[Carlos]

proper elections

The whole thing will never work unless the common goal is "save our club", everything else will be subject to (too much) disagreement - see any thread on here. And as usual the outspoken folk will shout down those that aren't, who hold an opinion but aren't uber passionate in the way they put it across.

 

BUT when the phrase "proper elections" is being used and not in the context of Syria or North Korea, something is really really wrong!

[Ani]

The whole thing will never work unless the common goal is "save our club", everything else will be subject to (too much) disagreement - see any thread on here. And as usual the outspoken folk will shout down those that aren't, who hold an opinion but aren't uber passionate in the way they put it across.

 

BUT when the phrase "proper elections" is being used and not in the context of Syria or North Korea, something is really really wrong!

 

 

I agree with this , and if the club does not currently need saving why are the ST kicking up a storm and chirping every time there is a rumour, as Big E says they seem desperate to say 'I told you so'

 

As mentioned I am still in the camp of not being 100% comfortable with KA but he seems to have more financial strength than the ST and seems to understand the wheeling and dealing that goes into running a skint football club.

 

I know Casino is already running a poll but the telling question would be 'Who do you trust more to run BWFC - KA or ST' - It is slightly unfair on the ST as Kens' popularity has been boosted by promotion but we do not know at what cost that has come.

[Traf]

...Kens' popularity has been boosted by promotion but we do not know at what cost that has come.

 

I'd be happy with the current position even if we hadn't gone up.

 

12 months ago, I seriously doubted we'd still be here.

[ErnestTurnip]

I was like Sweep so I've read the info on the link to the supporters direct site and I've been through the BWFCST site and I'm still none the wiser as to what they can actually do in the event of things going tits up? It all just looks like a group of supporters who have no real influence on anything especially not if the club just choose to ignore them ?

 

The idea of supporter representation is one thing but it feels to me like the ST is pretending to have more power and be more important than it actually is, although maybe it's a necessary first step in a longer game. My eldest lad and some of his mates have a romantic idea that it's how we become a fan owned and run club but they're still at the age where the world is your oyster. 

[bwfcfan5]

I was like Sweep so I've read the info on the link to the supporters direct site and I've been through the BWFCST site and I'm still none the wiser as to what they can actually do in the event of things going tits up? It all just looks like a group of supporters who have no real influence on anything especially not if the club just choose to ignore them ?

 

The idea of supporter representation is one thing but it feels to me like the ST is pretending to have more power and be more important than it actually is, although maybe it's a necessary first step in a longer game. My eldest lad and some of his mates have a romantic idea that it's how we become a fan owned and run club but they're still at the age where the world is your oyster. 

 

Why would we want to be a fan owned club? I've never understood why anyone would want that. Unless of course you have a Jack Walker fan type situation. I want us run by whoever is best able to manage the club and support it financially as required. 

[gonzo]

Why would we want to be a fan owned club? I've never understood why anyone would want that. Unless of course you have a Jack Walker fan type situation. I want us run by whoever is best able to manage the club and support it financially as required.

Last time we were fan owned we ended up in the high court like a pissed up lottery winner that spunked all his dough.

[Sweep]

I was like Sweep so I've read the info on the link to the supporters direct site and I've been through the BWFCST site and I'm still none the wiser as to what they can actually do in the event of things going tits up?

I'm still none the wiser, I just don't get it.

[Traf]

In the event of administration a supporters trust gets "first refusal" at taking the club on.

 

When Ken took over, our running costs were £1.5m a month, 

By frugal management and interest-free loans from his own pocket, the running costs were last reported to be £800k a month.

 

The Trust think they might be able to cobble together £140,00 from their high net-worth supporters. 

 

So fear not, if the shit hits the fan, the Trust can keep us going for 5 days.

[ErnestTurnip]

Is the first refusal to run the club actually a thing ? I'm very confused as to whether the idea of running the club and owning the ground are being mixed up, especially in my head.

 

I know that getting the Macron listed as an asset of the community was supposed to be a big thing which meant the trust could buy the ground but I'm not sure that even gives them first refusal on it.

 

 

 

The Community Right to Bid is not designed to force landowners wishing to sell to do so to some person or organisation they do not wish to sell to, nor will it force them to sell at an inferior price. There is no restriction on the freedom of landowners to sell to whomever they choose after the six months have expired and there is no right of first refusal for community interest groups. In fact the owner can sell the asset for less than the community bid if they wish, which is one of the weaknesses of the act.

 

That's from the supporter's direct site here : http://www.supporters-direct.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Locality-Paper_pdf.pdf

[Ratwhite]

In the event of administration a supporters trust gets "first refusal" at taking the club on.

 

When Ken took over, our running costs were £1.5m a month,

By frugal management and interest-free loans from his own pocket, the running costs were last reported to be £800k a month.

 

The Trust think they might be able to cobble together £140,00 from their high net-worth supporters.

 

So fear not, if the shit hits the fan, the Trust can keep us going for 5 days.

More like 5 hours....

[bwfcfan5]

Is the first refusal to run the club actually a thing ? I'm very confused as to whether the idea of running the club and owning the ground are being mixed up, especially in my head.

 

I know that getting the Macron listed as an asset of the community was supposed to be a big thing which meant the trust could buy the ground but I'm not sure that even gives them first refusal on it.

 

 

 

 

That's from the supporter's direct site here : http://www.supporters-direct.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Locality-Paper_pdf.pdf

 

If it goes into admin apparently so. However, they'd have to agree a commercially acceptable rate to purchase it. Just like anyone else. They get first chance to do so though. 

[Traf]

They couldn't run a fucking bath

[Zico]

When Ken took over, our running costs were £1.5m a month,

By frugal management and interest-free loans from his own pocket, the running costs were last reported to be £800k a month.

Weren't the loans short term to pay wages and taken back shortly after? As in they've kept things moving a couple of times but won't have reduced costs, and hes had them back?

 

Or have there been some more long term loans since he got most of deano's shares?

[ErnestTurnip]

I know I have to be being thick and missing something somewhere but I honestly can't find anything that says the ST has any sort of baggsy on things if it goes wrong, can't see anything on their site, can't see anything on supporters direct either. If anyone is in the ST maybe they can link to something that explains how that side of things actually works?

[Traf]

Weren't the loans short term to pay wages and taken back shortly after? As in they've kept things moving a couple of times but won't have reduced costs, and hes had them back?

 

Or have there been some more long term loans since he got most of deano's shares?

 

He's lent money to the club short-term interest free.

Yes he's had it back.

 

He's cut running costs by frugal management.

[frank_spencer]

Weren't the loans short term to pay wages and taken back shortly after? As in they've kept things moving a couple of times but won't have reduced costs, and hes had them back?

 

Or have there been some more long term loans since he got most of deano's shares?

He's said on a few occasions he's willing to put more in long term once the mess dean created with Blue Marble is sorted out.

[Sluffy]

I know I have to be being thick and missing something somewhere but I honestly can't find anything that says the ST has any sort of baggsy on things if it goes wrong, can't see anything on their site, can't see anything on supporters direct either. If anyone is in the ST maybe they can link to something that explains how that side of things actually works?

 

I'm not sure they have a bagsy on things either.

 

This is what I know.

 

In January 2016 a report was presented to Government.

 

It has been prepared by football, with the authorities that run the game, working together with supporter organisations that speak on behalf of fans up and down the land. The report sets out a number of recommendations for what more can be done to encourage greater engagement between supporters and those that run their club, while also helping to remove barriers to supporter ownership, when such opportunities arise for credible supporters’ trusts to bid to own their club.

 

The link to it is here -

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-expert-working-group-on-football-supporter-ownership-and-engagement

 

Click on to the document and go to section 3.0.

 

Basically it says in the past it has been difficult for ST's to make a bid to bring a club out of Administration at short notice.  What they recommend is that ST's are given access and funds to get professional people to do this within the Administration time scale - the money being for 'professional fees' and not to buy the club with.

 

Speaking of which the Administrator is required to 'market' a club in Administration for 21 days before taking any decisions - and this must include the ST -this is where the 'first dibs idea' has crept in I think BUT I can't see anywhere where it says the 21 days is exclusively for the ST to submit its bid before everyone else.

 

I may be wrong on this but I can't see anything stated as such in the recommendations.

 

Also the ST is required (like every other potential purchaser) to submit 'a credible bid'.  In other words in needs to show how it can take over a run the club as a going concern.

 

 

Following from this the Football League were going to change its rules.

 

However I can't seem to find them actually stating anything about ST involvement under their insolvency section part of their rule book -

 

http://www.efl.com/global/section3.aspx  (see section 12.3)

 

That's not to say they aren't somewhere else in their rules (or more likely in their guidance documentation probably in an attached appendix).

 

 

Bottom line - ST can be at the table to buy the club from Administration, they will be given substantial help to put in a professional bid but I can't see anywhere where they have first bagsy on the club or even that their bid will be accepted by the Administrator whose job it is, is to get the best result for the clubs creditors.

 

Hope this is in someway helpful to you.

[Mounts Kipper]

I'm not sure they have a bagsy on things either.

 

This is what I know.

 

In January 2016 a report was presented to Government.

 

It has been prepared by football, with the authorities that run the game, working together with supporter organisations that speak on behalf of fans up and down the land. The report sets out a number of recommendations for what more can be done to encourage greater engagement between supporters and those that run their club, while also helping to remove barriers to supporter ownership, when such opportunities arise for credible supporters’ trusts to bid to own their club.

 

The link to it is here -

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-expert-working-group-on-football-supporter-ownership-and-engagement

 

Click on to the document and go to section 3.0.

 

Basically it says in the past it has been difficult for ST's to make a bid to bring a club out of Administration at short notice. What they recommend is that ST's are given access and funds to get professional people to do this within the Administration time scale - the money being for 'professional fees' and not to buy the club with.

 

Speaking of which the Administrator is required to 'market' a club in Administration for 21 days before taking any decisions - and this must include the ST -this is where the 'first dibs idea' has crept in I think BUT I can't see anywhere where it says the 21 days is exclusively for the ST to submit its bid before everyone else.

 

I may be wrong on this but I can't see anything stated as such in the recommendations.

 

Also the ST is required (like every other potential purchaser) to submit 'a credible bid'. In other words in needs to show how it can take over a run the club as a going concern.

 

 

Following from this the Football League were going to change its rules.

 

However I can't seem to find them actually stating anything about ST involvement under their insolvency section part of their rule book -

 

http://www.efl.com/global/section3.aspx (see section 12.3)

 

That's not to say they aren't somewhere else in their rules (or more likely in their guidance documentation probably in an attached appendix).

 

 

Bottom line - ST can be at the table to buy the club from Administration, they will be given substantial help to put in a professional bid but I can't see anywhere where they have first bagsy on the club or even that their bid will be accepted by the Administrator whose job it is, is to get the best result for the clubs creditors.

 

Hope this is in someway helpful to you.

My understanding is that if the administrator cannot sell the club then the ST take control of the club it is a last resort scenario which means the club survives. What the ST do with the club at that stage depends what money can be raised via supporters of high Wealth and whatever ordinary trust members can raise. I might be wrong but that's my understanding and that it is as a last resort if a credible buyer can't be found.

[bwfcfan5]

My understanding is that if the administrator cannot sell the club then the ST take control of the club it is a last resort scenario which means the club survives. What the ST do with the club at that stage depends what money can be raised via supporters of high Wealth and whatever ordinary trust members can raise. I might be wrong but that's my understanding and that it is as a last resort if a credible buyer can't be found.

I could be wrong but I cannot see any business in administration being given away for nothing if creditors are still owed.

[Casino]

I could be wrong but I cannot see any business in administration being given away for nothing if creditors are still owed.

 

 

tbf, it happens regular

 

but the debts still sit with the business

 

just how the trust would look to service said debt, lord only knows

[Casino]

must admit, it amuses me how terms like 'high net worth individuals' get slipped in to everyday convos

[Carlos]

Me too, you get to being high net worth (usually) by being astute, not chucking your money about.

 

Also, any due diligence would have you running a million miles from anything that involves Mr Bridge, surely?

[Sweep]

My understanding is that if the administrator cannot sell the club then the ST take control of the club it is a last resort scenario which means the club survives. What the ST do with the club at that stage depends what money can be raised via supporters of high Wealth and whatever ordinary trust members can raise. I might be wrong but that's my understanding and that it is as a last resort if a credible buyer can't be found.

 

So at least that means the ST aren't first in line if we went into administration, which is what I was worried about.

 

I'm not sure, how if it got to that stage that the ST would be able to guarantee the club would survive, does it just mean they would get the rights to use the name "Bolton Wanderers Football Club" if the club has to start 7 or 8 divisions further down the football pyramid