Quote: Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza "It's a none starter. The length of time it would take to set up the trust - given the legal undertakings required - and then setting up a bank account for it would have meant the club would have been liquidated long before it happened.
It was talked about at the time but it would only work in setting up a brand new club or taking over one that was solvent.
The pledge meant there was cash in the club to keep it going a little but longer. Ultimately it did help save the club although it wasn't what the donations from us were intended for.'"
Quote: Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza "Could be worth a visit for anyone interested in setting up a Trust'"
We already had then (and still have) a Supporters' Trust in situ. But MBBB is nevertheless dead right.
As was explained at the time, there was no way, in the very tight "Pledge" timeframe, the Trust (by which you really mean a handful of volunteers) could have done ANYTHING to come up with an alternative to what happened. And we sure as hell spent a very great deal of time (our OWN time - since we were all working) trying to find a way.
Don't forget that, contrary to popular myth, a significant proportuon of the "pledge" £1/2m was NOT contributed by fans (e.g the club counted the extra Leeds attendance money as part of it, and there were significant corporate contributions). The club was able to put its whole resources behind the fundraising campaign. Had anyone gone up against the club saying "give US the money not the club", firstly you would have been competing against the club, leading to the pledge failing and certain administration, and secondly I cannot conceive you would have raised anything like as much in the timeframe.
So the division amongst the fans would have been blamed for bringing about immediate administration.
And it was never about the cost of the shares. It was about how the hell you would raise enough to pay off the existing creditors, AND cover the £100k/month forecast losses for the foreseeable future. How many fans would have put their hands in their pockets every month to raise that £100k? I believe around 1,700 individuals contributed to the fomal pledge. EVery one of those would have needed to pledge a further £60 a month or so to cover the losses. You tell me how realistic an aspiration that was?
And what about all the practical issues - like "I contributed £1,000, he contributed £10, so I deserrve 100 times more say in what happens?" or "I contributed goods which were sold, so I want to know what you got for them because that will be the amount of say I expect in things" - or a shedload of other legal and constitiutional issues which I could list examples of [iad nauseum[/i? The idea is great...until (as we did), you start to look at the practicalities at a time when the fans had a gun to their heads.
And in any case, it was a total, utter and complete non-starter whilst the existing shareholders were in place. And in an environment where there was a general perception (as you will all recall) that certain shareholders were using the situation as a means of getting even with certain others, and certain others were determined to proceed as was, having misled the fans over the Odsal sale and the true financial position, and damn the consequences.
We realised very quickly there was no way any of the key shareholders, let alone a majority, would be prepared to sell their shares (except, maybe, at a totally ridiculous price given they were worthless anyway!) to any third party. So the only alternative was to wait for (or maybe even try to force, by undermining the Pledge) administration or (worse) liquidation. But, again, there was a general assumption (only those involved will know the truth or otherwise of it) that that was precisely what some of the shareholders were wanting, so they could step in and buy the business off the administrator that they appointed.
The die was cast, IMO, when Caisley announced - the day before the Pledge closed, by which time it had become reasonably clear from a late surge of support that it was likely to succeed, that he was caling an EGM to sack the board. This stymied any further financial contribution, such as from the "investors waiting in the wings" that Hood reckoned to have. Because of the intervention, we never got to see whether these were real or fantasy.
This is all raking over old ground, and does not change what happened.
And anyway, any action required - and requires - a large groundswell of fans to come forward at very short order to get involved with the Trust. Few actually did. And that continued to be the case.
It was the case when Hood and Bennett resigned; when administrators were appointed; when I pointed out to the assembled masses at the Guidepost meeting that we already had a supporters' trust in place so why start trying to set up a new one; when the wheels came off any plans Caisley might have had; when the Trust set up and ran the Hardship Fund that allowed key staff to keep working with no pay after the joint administrators sacked them all; when OK stepped in; and indeed now.
The trust was effectively made dormant last January, since (notwithstanding the outstanding financial gestures by a number of fans) there was hardly any appetite for fans staying involved, or coming on board and running it. The trust is still there, still dormant, although the caretaker board has nevertheless been involved in a great deal behind the scenes not in the public domain - including means of supporters taking a shareholding in the club.
And the situation remains the same - if enough fans were prepared to get involved and try and make a difference, and enough of those were prepared to take on the workload involved and run it, then maybe - and it would still take time - there might be a way forward.
