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.

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

So would I.