Firstly apologies for presumption as a recent convert to the site, though a fan for over 40 years, and secondly I realise this topic has been raised on other threads but I feel it deserves to be raised in its own right.

There are a lot of rumours and heresay on the site, but two incontrovertable facts:

1) The fans of the club, and wider fans of the sport are the ones who with little notice appear to have saved the club in the short term by finding £500,000k - and basically passed on the cash in blind faith with no real information. At the same time they have also rescued the existing shareholders from seeing their "investment" zero'd and from potentially having the heavies from the RBS measuring their houses up.

2) In so far as anyone has come up with practical suggestions for finding the rest of the cash to see the club to the end of the season - rather than just "confidential discussions" - it is once again the fans - season ticket holders paying on the gate or real heros like Toonbull and James.

So why shouldn't we discus a potential fans buy-out of the club? I know a lot of the fans are feeling the pinch, and that Bradford is not a wealthy city - but I think it is very different to offer something tangible in return for their money, and that many of the season ticket holders who have been rightly suspicious of the pledge might be persuaded to join in? Also the sums involved even in SL are not of the same magnitude as football - so it would not require astronomical amounts to work - at least a small multiple of the cash raised to date.

To be honest there are few examples of this in professional sport ( though as mentioned see: www.packers.com - Green Bay is smaller than Bradford and its industry shared a simiair fate to textiles) and yes fans of clubs are seemingly happy for Russian gangsters or dodgy shieks to lash their money on the club, but lets be honest I don't really think the current shareholders are going to find anyone like this interested in the Bulls.

So what would need to be done:

An existing fans organisation fronts up the bid and offers shares to fans in a non-profit making company - guess it would need to find enough to buy out the existing shareholders - though you would hope after being within days of seeing their shares wiped out -and if they really have the interests of the club at heart - they would sell for a nominal price. The offering would also need to be large enough to sort out the existing working capital requirements, and address the issue of the ground.

As part of the offering a formal business plan would need to be in place - but you don't need this to be complicated as the business itself I think is straightforward - the club needs income: tickets, sky, tv, sponsorship to cover its costs. I think our current salary cap in £1.6m, and maybe double that for running costs - so £3.2m a year to field a competitive team in SL.

You need to set up the constitution: say cap on shareholdings to avoid majority holdings, shareholders vote to appoint the board, maybe elect a figure head club president ( Robbie or Nobbie - both more widely known than Mr Preston on TV), regular shareholders meetings - where the real state of the business in made clear, shareholders approval required for key decisions and appointment of capable management. But the key is openess and transparancy and direct shareholder involvement.

I am sure there are lawyers (not that one though!) and accountants probably on this forum who could do the documentation - and I would suggest using the web to reach out to the fan base - issue the propectus, collect investments, issue share certs etc

A successful club needs two things - a skilled, competitive and committed team, and after the weekend I would say we are about there? and a solid fan base - and again after the last week I think it has been adequately demonstrated we have thousands of those.

Maybe I am just an idealist in a cynical world, but as the fans have bought time for the club, they deserve the option at least of taking a real "share" in the club.

The Peoples Team - more than just a tag line?

People often cite the Green Bay Packers and Barclona as examples of clubs owned by the fans and those clubs have indeed been very succesful. But they started from scratch and developed in an earlier era, when it was possible to do that. Before their sports became multi billion dollar industries.

It would be totally impossible for an equivalent to Green Bay to start out today and gain acceptance to the NFL. They just wouldnt have the financial resources to do it and there is no route that they could travel that would allow them to grow to that level. They would always remain minnows, small fry compared to existing NFL teams, college teams and even many High School teams.

It would obviously be easier to do that in RL because the resources required aren't that great. But when compared to the resources available to Wigan, Leeds, Warrington, St Helens etc it would still be out of reach. It isnt the cost of creating the club that matters, its having the resources to compete. Its having adequate funds available, working capital, bank facilities etc. Its being able to provide collateral to the banks, being able to obtain credit facilities. Being able to convince an agent that his client in the NRL will have his contract honoured if he comes to Bradford.

If the existing Bradford Bulls went bust I would be happy to get involved in a new community owned club. But it would have to be one that started life in the lower leagues and grew over time. It wouldnt initially be a SL club.

Worth pointing out, as I did elsewhere, that it costs over £4m a year to run the Bulls. And that is with so many resources on a shoestring. Indeed, IIRC one of the SL criteria is a turnover of at least £4m p.a.? So even at break even that is £4m costs.

That's because the NFL have made it impossible now through a rule change brought about by wealthy owners. It's nothing to do with the ownership model of the Packers. Whilst you're right that people bring up these examples without necessarily knowing more about them, equally it would also be wrong to dismiss them without knowing very much about their history and how they function in practice.



Precisely



I don't see how any of this is a problem given we'd still be a limited company have a CEO and a Board and pretty much the same working capital we have now, if not more were we to have a further share issue. Our collateral etc wouldn't change, nor would our capacity to gain credit facilities, nor would the ability of the management of the club to negotiate contracts. In fact we would be in a far stronger position on all those fronts if the current ownership structure was clarified in the way suggested on the VAT thread.



I don't think you've demonstrated why this is the case, and given an alternative ownership model is viable within RL as you've agreed, then it would be a shame to undermine such a discussion from the outset. I also think that given the supporters are the only people who have seriously invested in the club (as yet) during its moment of need, we should at least consider the possibilities of greater supporter involvement in how the club is run.

Why does that matter in respect of supporter ownership? It's a business being run at break even with some voluntary input from a BoD, the same thing would still apply if the ownership structure were different.

You asked the question on another thread about a supporters trust buying out the existing small shareholders and suggested that might solve the problem once and for all. Be a shame to undermine your own argument by throwing in comments that imply the supporters would have to stump up £4m in costs as if there were no income on the other side of the balance sheet.

Maybe a different ownership structure that wasn't hamstrung by vain middle aged men fighting each other through social media and the newspapers could produce new revenue streams that were a little more sustainable than the £300k loss on the last set of accounts?

Eh?

I was merely responding to the poster's comment that it should cost £3.2m to run the club. Its a long way from £3.2m to £4m+ when you have already factored in the Sky/RFL money and the gate receipts and related income. No agenda - merely seeking to avoid any misapprehensions.

Please read my post. Nowhere did I say what you say I implied. I have no idea why you would want to suggest otherwise. I made it clear that on £4m turnover at breakeven that is £4m costs.

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.