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.

Even if the club is in administration? This is a serious question.

If it goes into administration, and (as is usually the case) the administrator sells the assets to Newco, then its a clean sheet.

Just a load of creditors who have not been paid. Maybe even including some on here, or firms they work for.

ok, so how does the Administrator decide who should be paid?

Could he decide the shareholders get nothing and every other creditor is recompensed, would that work? I'm with you on defaulting on debts, Adey, you know me from long ago.

Statutory order.

Fixed charge holders paid out of sale of their security

Preferential creditors (mainly employees nowdays)

Debenture holders, secured by floating charge

Ordinary creditors (nowdays incl HMRC)

Shareholders.

Usually the unsecureds get sod all if anything, and the shareholders lose the lot anyway cos the business is insolvent before you even start realising assets.

IMO administration > phoenix next day > screw the creditors is legalised theft.

Agreed.

With that spread of ownership and Agar and Tasker in camp Caisley, I would suspect we'll have a new chairman after the EGM!

Going back to the point on fan ownership I don't see how a co-operative can't work, with membership presenting an opportunity for a genuine equity stake and more importantly a voice I would invest considerably more than I've pledged, as my pledge was made with grave reserves about the lunatics running our particular asylum

If the last two weeks have taught us anything its how creative we are as a supporters body, the amount of good ideas I've heard talking to other supporters over the last two weeks has been heartening, from turning the coral stand into a leagues type club we ACTUALLY have access to between and during games to volunteer working parties to fix stuff at Odsal (which now looks to be falling apart).

We should have insisted upon more for our first £500k, but we were all rightly focussed on saving the club - If they come back for more we need to say 51% please and thanks for coming!

Under administration is that strictly true ?

I was under the impression that the administrator would invite offers for the club ( including the debt ). Any proposed owner would have to enter into a CVA that has to be accepted by 75% of the creditors ( % of total value of monies owed ).

So if 75% of the monies owed is to HMRC and Mr X's offer of 20p in the pound was accepted by HMRC then all creditors by default would get 20p in the pound for their debt.

In that case if HMRC didn't accept and no better offers were on the table they would then apply to liquidate the company ensuring creditors received nothing.

I wonder if the club have any of the current or former Directors listed as creditors ?

OK - while I still think for a town and team like Bradford more general fan ownership would give the team a stronger base going forward, and give the fans a real voice in the club - guess these things aren't easy to organise - and like other potential "investments" get mired in the current disfunctional shareholding.

Another idea. Bullbuilder - which has been a voice of reason through the current crisis - said in its responses that: a) it supported the pledge as the best way to avoid administration- which like it or not unless there was a very wealthy person in the wings would leave a very different and much reduced club, b) there was not enough time to organise anything else. So though there are "discussions" going on behind closed doors, which the fans despite just stumping up £0.5k cannot be trusted to know about, we do know that another £0.5m is need to put the club back on an even keel and get it into next season.

So what if Bullbuilder launched a "pledge scheme" - which it could then put on table to the club, but this time as it would be a single point of contact - which we know has the best interests of the club as it's objective - and it could have the financial clot to be taken seriously by the BoD and be able to get either representation, or more openess on the facts. I know from the group I attend matches with that from a group of 5 - 2 of us backed the pledge, but 3 took the view that they did not wish to back the current management with a blank cheque - so I would guess there is still a significant % of season ticket holders who would like to contribute, but would like to see what was going to happen to their hard earned cash.

Clearly this would need to be supported by Bullbuilder - but is this a way to both get more needed cash into the club, but at the same time to get something tangible in return for the fans? I would put my hand in the pocket again for the team but not I think directly to the current BoD and by extentsion the shareholders. I guess it would also be a way to say publicly to the shareholders - do you really value the club - or are you only interested in your own agenda?

A small minority of us, Bulls' fans express their opinions through this forum. The question is "can we galvanise the fans in big enough numbers?" IMO it is an exceptionally worthy goal, but look at the result of Wakefield - £30,000. Also, its not the BoD that have to be convinced - its the shareholders. BTW Coulby has less then 1%

Thanks for the comment Incredibullman - have a bit of time on my hands this morning thanks to wonders of air-travel. I assume some of the forum members are also involved with Bulbuilder but I will contact them directly to see if they would be interested in acting as a conduit for fans to "invest" in the club.

Guess one of the positives about pledge schemes is that you don't actually have to take the cash if nothing comes of the scheme - but it can give you a powerful bargining chip.

I cannot say I have any expertise of orgainsing a mass movement but would suggest ways of trying to reach out to the wider fan base could be:

1) Via Bullbuilders membership - web site
2) Via the press - given some of the other threads on the forum i say that slightly tounge in check - but it is a story afterall
3) My son says twitter but i thought that was something to so with the birds in the morning
4) Leaflet fans at the match
5) Call a mass meeting
6) Maybe the club would publisize it - you would have thought is was in their interest even if they would have to surrender a bit of control
Though I do remember the 1963 events too young to have taken part - but out of interest how many fans (some of whom I assume have minority shareholdings still in the club) actually stood up to be counted at the St Georges meeting?