|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Aug 17, 2015 20:19:55 GMT
There may be valid reasons for looking at the CIC route, although it is complicated by the different types of CIC, limited by shares or guarantee. The Chairman, in response to a question regarding "why would companies look to invest in a CIC model?" answered that it was a good investment for them as they would get a dividend. This is only true of a CIC limited by shares. The issues with limited by shares is that it does not provide a "one member, one vote" constitution. This would mean that a large corporate investor would have far more say than fan/supporter investors. Also, funding bodies, for items such as grants etc. have a preference for CIC limited by guarantee, because they know that a dividend cannot be taken. CIC limited by guarantee also operates as a true "not for profit" organisation. And contrary to the Chairman's comments that CBS are really only for corner shops and pubs, over 40 sporting clubs have gone down the CBS route to community / supporter ownership. Only a small handful have gone CIC. All community benefit models are worth looking into in detail, which is why Supporters Direct, together with other bodies have been working closely with the Supporters Trust, advising on the pros and cons of all models for the last 10 years. It is well worth supporters reading information at www.supporters-direct.org/homepage/what-we-do/community-ownership
|
|
|
Post by maybe1day on Aug 19, 2015 19:37:43 GMT
All of the above makes me glad I don't go and watch City anymore,
What a sad affair it has become.
It clearly is becoming a power struggle between the club directors and the trust and certain individuals, they know who they are!
There will only be one loser and that's WCFC.
Shame.
|
|
|
Post by adycrean on Aug 19, 2015 20:11:17 GMT
All of the above makes me glad I don't go and watch City anymore, What a sad affair it has become. It clearly is becoming a power struggle between the club directors and the trust and certain individuals, they know who they are! There will only be one loser and that's WCFC. Shame. Or adopting a slightly less jaundiced outlook..... This is about passionate people who are devoting a lot of personal time and energy to try and ensure our club has a future.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Aug 20, 2015 10:55:37 GMT
Power struggle? With no positive ideas from the current board about a new ground were it not for the amount of effort and time put in by the Supporters Trust where would any vision for the future of our club be. They cannot even hold a AGM to provide any idea of the current financial circumstances, an absolute disgrace.
|
|
bj
Squad Member
Posts: 182
|
Post by bj on Aug 20, 2015 11:37:39 GMT
Unfortunately I wasn't at the Lowestoft match so missed the Forum. Can somebody direct me to the statement that the Chairman read out. I would have thought it would appear on the WCFC Web Site.
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Aug 20, 2015 11:53:55 GMT
All of the above makes me glad I don't go and watch City anymore, What a sad affair it has become. It clearly is becoming a power struggle between the club directors and the trust and certain individuals, they know who they are! There will only be one loser and that's WCFC. Shame. Power struggle? Show me anywhere that it says any person currently on the Trust Board will be on any new Board that runs this Club. This is about changing how the club runs, so it is fit for this century & giving people the chance of having a say in who runs it and how it is run. The Trust has a mandate from its members who have voted every step along the way since we put an alternative ground forward. Three of those meetings have had 100+ people in attendance where the developments have been clearly presented & on each occasion a vote was taken to proceed to the next step. That is a clear agenda as someone has correctly claimed above. I am one of the people who has taken Perdiswell to where it is in the past three years and at the same time preparing for Community Ownership by demonstrating how important this club is within the City, by actions not talk ,as it is our intention to go for a Community Asset Transfer. The good thing about this is we as a Trust have raised 75% of the costs with it costing the club just over £10,000. Everything else we have sorted out ourselves. It cost £350,000 to get to the same stage at Nunnery Way. If the Shareholders decide they don't want to do this then that is entirely up to them. Throughout this period we have encouraged the Board to come up with a Plan B incase it didn't work, which is and has always been a possibility, but those of us involved in Plan A did not have the time to also come up with a Plan B. Up until three weeks ago there wasn't one even mentioned. A lot of time has been put into this in the past three weeks looking at alternatives for which neither me nor anyone else on the Trust has a problem with at all. If it is of the general opinion that I or in fact anyone else from the Trust are doing this for Power then it is very easy to demonstrate that it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Aug 20, 2015 12:19:19 GMT
I want an AGM and as soon as possible to stop all the negative rumour and speculation that currently prevails. I understand that the Chairman stated on Saturday there was no requirement to hold an AGM? My understanding is it is only optional with effect from October 2007 unless the Articles of Association specifically require one. I have asked Mr M Davies if he can clarify this point and I await a reply.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Aug 20, 2015 15:21:04 GMT
I have to leave immediately after matches, as my passenger can't leave his wife for too long, so I'm not able to attend a forum; judging by what I read here I'm glad I didn't go!
I thought we were all on the same side; it would seem this is not the case. If there were players or managers at the meeting it will hardly have helped put them in the right frame of mind for Tuesday evening, and look at the subsequent result.
I sincerely hope I read more positive news in the days to come or I fear it's going to be a season of struggle.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Aug 21, 2015 9:32:32 GMT
And therein lies the problem with WCFC, and a lot of other football clubs. Ignorance is bliss! I can assure you that the management are very much in the right frame of mind.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Aug 21, 2015 11:38:04 GMT
So, why the aggro then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 17:39:58 GMT
I think Jem means the football management, rather than the board. This "aggro" appears to have been generated by the chairman.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Aug 21, 2015 21:29:01 GMT
Yes Archie, the management being the football management side.
|
|