Fair enough.. I didn't 'want' to suggest otherwise just read your post quickly amidst replying to Cibaman and was concerned that anyone reading it on it's own might confuse costs with required investment.



I'm really pleased you've made the suggestion concerning supporter buy out of the small shareholders and would be interested in putting energy in to that, but am working a long way away at present. Might still be able to contribute though. See PM.

Bramley Buffaloes are a community owned club with legal status as a mutual society. I would suggest they could offer a great deal of advice if this (rather splendid) option was to be pursued.

Just to clarify my points



Cibaman - i was using the Packers as an example of the way they have structured ownership - no large shareholders aka Caisley/Bates/Hood and they way they have maintained a successful team in a brutally commercial league by putting down deep ties into their community, and being totally transparent with their shareholders ie the fans. Not suggesting they could do this from scratch, but equally a fans bid for the Bulls would not be from scratch but about saving the existing club - with its place in the SL

Adeybull - I am happy that your figure for the annual running costs of the club is more accurate than my guess, but whatever the figure it needs to covered by a combination of sponsorship, TV money and the fans via tickets. I suspect whatever suggar daddies the shareholders are looking to intice into the club - now the fans have so generously thrown them a lifejacket would not suddenly put millions into the club, indeed if fear a much smaller amount than that given by fans already would allow them to maintain a good part of the status quo.

So however you look at it the majority of income for a club like the Bulls is always likely to come from the fans - so why shouldn't they have a closer involvement - or at the very least have a chance. Lets face it the current situation is due to a combination of a massive underpricing of the season ticket and or being less than honest about the numbers of tickets actually sold. I would think if you said to the fans if you want to have a team to challenge for the play offs then the price will need to be£xx then at least they know what they are being offered.

The other interesting point is that if this was considered there would need to be some proper due diligence which I am sure we would all like to see, and suspect the pledge total would have been much higher if this had been forthcoming in the first place?

This is a truly excellent idea. If a supporter's association could accrue as much ownership of the club as is practical, and commit to doing it when opportunities arise down the road, then for me the actual percentage doesn't matter. A representative fan's body would automatically gain moral authority through it, particular since that group's other remit is the availability of players for the future well being of the club.



I would gladly increase my donation for this.

+1

Ditto.

Bullbuilder would have to agree with this and I don't think (iirc) they were that keen last year when they started - with this sort of development.



Although a lot has changed since last year.



It might be worth discussing again.



There will probably be about 500 bradford families who own 50 shares or less.

You were well trained.

Not quite. I'd never move to Ilkley.

vbfg wrote:I would gladly increase my donation for this.



So would I.

Is this the only option. Is it not possible to acquire enough shares for the fans to have some representation on the BOD

If you look at the accounts and returns filed at Companies House (£1 a go) then you can see total shareholding of 199,774 £1 ordinary shares. The full list of shareholdings must be quiet large so you have to order it on a CD, but on the last return which was filed on the 19th Jan this year Mr Hood was shown as holding about 81,000, and J Bates about 43,000 shares, if Mr Caisley holds 25% then he would have about 50,000 - so it would appear that between them they control over 87% of the shares.



In terms of what options you have to gain some representation you could either: buy shares from one of the existing holders - assuming they can be sold - but in this case though you get rights as a shareholder the consideration goes to the owner of the shares, or alternatively the club could issue more shares - assuming the shareholders agree - and in this cash the consideration goes to the club. The second option would get some representation if you have a sufficient holding but from the existing shareholders point of view would dilute their holdings - another test as to whether they put the club before themselves.

But a key point here is how you value the existing shares? but on thing is certain if the fans and supporters of the game had not stepped up to the plate last week they would be worth precisely zero now - or less than zero if there were some guarantees in place with the bank.



So what about the next £500,000 is raised from fans for shares at par - which would give the fans control - assuming they can co-ordinate their interests - say by giving Bullbuilder a group proxy. I realise this is a radical concept that the fans should get something tangible for their hard earned cash?

I can't see the major shareholders wanting to part with them, or BullBuilder being able to afford to do it in a way that takes a sizeable chunk.



The other 13% I presume are mostly people who were involved in 1964 and are very small shareholders. Either fans of the club or family members they were passed on to. I would have thought these were the targets if it's possible - I imagine some of the others have tried before.



Their say in the running of things now is very diluted. Their say in the running of things under BullBuilder would similarly be very diluted, but they would be consolidated under one banner that already has increased moral authority and in enough numbers to be more powerful than the previous sum of parts.

Misreading the (admittedly misleading statutory form) document.



Hood holds about 20% (he bought Jack Tordoff's holding)



Bennett holds about 5%.



Caisley holds about 27%



Agar about 11%



Bates around 9%



Coulby Holds around 6%



Tasker around 3.6%





You can see from the above why the current board has consistently faced a near-impossible task in trying to sort the investment out for taking the club forward.



The board can decline to register any share transfer.