Now, we're thinking alike

Most of us never differed that much (apart from the odd vulture) - its just that arguing for one particular course of action over another - or seeking to explain why we are stuck with a particular course of action - invariably leads those who do not agree to immediately associate you with who they see as the bad guys.

And, sadly, too many folk use that as a means of trying to undermine the argument.

I completely agree with that sentiment and it always is the small local businesses that get shafted as they have little say as to the acceptance of any CVA. It is [isometimes[/i a necessary evil though.

[iIf[/i the financial situation is as bad as painted then administration could be inevitable at some stage regardless of the pledge.

This is why I'm particularly astounded about the complete secrecy around the financial truth while asking for a bail out. Btw I do understand the sentiment but that would only go so far with me when it comes to my money benefiting someone I don't trust.

I haven't seen too many bad guys (or girls!) on here, mostly concerned folk who care passionately about the club.

However I would be really interested if Bullbuilder - the only obvious and viable vehicle for this sort of move did raise such a question though. I'm also fairly sure that the fan base would respond positively to such a move if it were to happen, and I appreciate why such a move would have been difficult over the last couple of weeks given the desire to be all pulling in the same direction, but surely now is the time to start raising this possibility if we're serious about changing the ownership structure and preventing a takeover by another oligarchy with little interest in the supporters?

I'll post the link again, as in the absence of said sugar daddy its the only way - Community Shares!

rlhttp://www.fc-utd.co.uk/story.php?story_id

Adey, could you ask the question if the shareholders would be willing to 'sell' to the fans?

I meant "bad guys" as in Caisley or Hood or McNamara Noble or Hetherington or the tooth fairy or whoever folk deem to be responsible, from time to time!

Any activity by Bullbuilder would have to be one for the membership, in the first instance. I can't speak for either the membership or the board, other than to observe that the board is elected by the members to carry out their wishes.

But I'd ask an open question now. And of Mr Caisley and Mr Hood in particular, since I know they are both aware of the traffic on these forums:

In the interest of resolving this impasse once and for all, would you sell your shares, for face value, to a democratic entity owned by a large body of fans?

If they say "no", then its hard to see how we resolve the impasse without resorting to administration...or judicious use of a bazooka?

See above!!!

And same applies to Messrs Bennett, Agar, Bates, Coulby and Tasker, in particular - if any of you guys are reading this (or anyone who knows you is) - what say you?

At least you'd have an idea of whether they'd have any appetite for what I guess most fans would see as putting the club first?

Don't forget, of course - if you sack off the whole lot of them (I'd exclude Ryan at least from that) you'd need to find some replacements prepared to go up there in harm's way.

I'm not sure that the general body of fans would be that interested in buying shares. a) They've made their contribution and will not be doing it again any time soon (especially once they realise that they'll be paying a lot more to watch the team next year); b) They really want someone with deep pockets running the club, someone that could keep it going in the bad times, someone who will not have to resort to them to bail out the club again; c) Sorting out any problems caused by the current shareholder structure is of absolutely no interest to 99.99% of fans.

And guess what? That is pretty well my conclusion too. I really doubt most fans give a flying you-know-what who is in charge, as long as they have someone to moan about and blame.

A very dedicated fan said to me (whilst collecting last Friday) that Coco the clown could be chairman for all he cared, as long as we had a club to follow and a decent team to watch.

Was he that wrong? Was he heck, IMO.

Internet forms attract fans who tend, on average to take a more active interest in such things than most, I suggest? Having been involved twice now in establishing supporter organisations and doing petitions and surveys and things, I know only too well just how hard it is to raise any significant body of supporters.

And how much work is involved.

What happened with the good friday deadline????

How did a deadline change from one bank holiday to another. I never understood that deadline for the £500k. I can't think who would be demanding money on Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Sunday or Monday???

For the most part I'd agree, ordinary fans don't want a direct day to day say in how the club is run (excepting team selection of course!) but you'd be surprised how many people would change their mind if they could demonstrate they were an 'owner' of their club by having a share certificate, even if they only stuck it on the wall. I'm sure I have my Bullbuilder certificate attached to something, solid, somewhere (even if it's not framed and suspended with blu-tac...) and if this allowed them a vote in who represented their interests on the Board then this might become the beginning of a cultural shift in which people can begin to take an interest. This is quite different than getting people to attend regular meetings or stand around getting petitions signed. I'm afraid we've become conditioned to one way of doing things and believe that is the only way things can be done, but you might be surprised if things start to be done differently how quickly attitudes can change.

I've seen it at first hand when visiting Green Bay in the frozen tundra of northern Wisconsin, the Packers are one of the most successful franchises in the NFL and are a community owned not for profit, prospering in the cut throat world of the ultra capitalist NFL amidst a legion of billionaire owners whilst building their roster bottom up, just as we've begun to do through investment in the academy. This is a small hard working industrial town whose civic pride is totally invested in the idea of community ownership and whose model of doing things remains an example of how things can be done very differently, if you don't believe me then have a read of the countless articles from sporting magazines to management journals. It doesn't mean we could replicate such a feat with the Bulls, the scale of the competition and revenue streams are vastly different, but now and again in the past I'm sure some of us liked to believe we were the people's team and did do things a little differently. Just because things are as they are now, doesn't mean they need always be that way.

I'd love to see more fan ownership. You mention the Packers, there's Germany where I think at least half of all clubs in the Bundesliga must be owned by fans. Rugby league can offer something football can't in the UK, what did the Glazers pay for Manchester United - £1.6bn - RL is small money and the finances make fan ownership a realistic and viable option. Rugby league is very community orientated and I'd love for the sport to be in the hands of the very people who turn out every week watching the sport. National media coverage of the sport is poor, the main competition can't get a paying title sponsor... power to the people!

It is, but usually it is necessary only because businesses that could cheerfully muddle their way along get backed into a corner, often by their own bank who is supposed to be "supporting" such businesses, but whose beancounters couldn't actually give the tiniest shiitt about the business, if their spreadsheet says "pull", out comes the rug, and fsck you. I understand entirely why HMRC are of late taking a hard line with sports clubs - it is only a surprise that they haven't done it before given how many times they been "Rangered" - but in general terms, you can at least have a dialogue of some sort with HMRC. You can't with Basstards Bank.

As for the shareholding - well, what a disaster. Whilst Rome burns, apart from a late foray by Caisley, so far as we all know, the majority of the shareholders are doing fsck all, and care fsck all. Surely in such an hour of need there would be a line of communication, or a hint of some sort of action, if they did? Or does Caisley actually speak for them all, and have they been therefore content to sit and watch while we all emptied our piggy banks?

That is such a pathetic attempt by GB I had to check the post date in case it 01-04-12 again, I bet the BoD's pi$$ed themselves looking at it, some fans may think its serious what he's insinuated, but again surmised and some of it in the realms of of fantasy, if he is guenuine he should have done it under his own name, if he had I would perhaps given his diatribe serious consideration, when you go throwing e a lot of it will stick to your hands as the saying goes.

GB is absolutely spot on!
To argue in support of him on this forum is clearly pointless.