How does the trust raise serious capital?

[Ed_Blackburn]

Many micro-donations from an economically repressed fan base? Partly, but I’m not convinced this is achievable within a realistic time frame.

If a sum of £400,000 is required, consider channeling energies into a direct funding campaign. Let’s look at some targets:

4 x £100,000 donations. Perhaps achievable. Seems unrealistic. Those four people or businesses would expect a say in proportion to their donation?

40 x £10,000 donations. Again perhaps achievable? Could the trust find a responsible or ethical lending body so those donators have the option of borrowing the sum, whilst protecting the Trust from lenders?

40 X £10,0000 guarantors / trustees. Can 40 people underwrite the Trust if it borrows directly?

400 x £1,000 donations. Could the trust find a responsible or ethical lending body so those donators have the option of borrowing the sum, whilst protecting the Trust from lenders? Is it possible to directly contact 400 people in a manner personable and persuasive enough to donate £1000?

What are realistic fundraising means? Kickstarter UK, this charity preferred Just Giving.

Thoughts? Ideas?

 

[Stonehouse Mike]

Im all for it as long as its made quite clear what the Trust gets in return for the money.

Exactly GG, there was a thread (i think) a long time ago by someone with some business knowledge that pointed out that 20% gave them nothing, think 25% was the minimum where a share holder had a right of say in matters.

 

[David Fisher]

Im all for it as long as its made quite clear what the Trust gets in return for the money. The PASB Board elections were very fuzzy so it needs to be spelt out in clear terms what the input gets.

I'm not sure the Trust gets anything at all for £400,000 which perhaps explains why they are dragging their feet.

They would need to buy 51% of the club to have any real power.

This would cost at least £1,020,000 at the same "value" quoted for 20%, but if they were buying a controlling share then the price would be higher.

And I've not seen explained anywhere how the £400,000 has been calculated?

The club doesn't own the stadium or the car park so the only assets are a few fixtures & fittings.

And the club is I believe currently running at a loss so the value can't be based on profits.

 

[bandwagon]

Mentioned this on the 'President' thread - we need to tear down all these fans' groups/sites etc and rally behind the only one that makes sense - The Trust!!

 

[TinTin]

Mentioned this on the 'President' thread - we need to tear down all these fans' groups/sites etc and rally behind the only one that makes sense - The Trust!!

Hey Bandy, we live in a democratic world - don't we ????

Keep the Faith :scarf:

 

[Greenblooded1]

Why does the Trust have to actually contribute a significant sum anyhow? Surely the fans have suffered enough...

 

[The Doctor]

This is weird. I was thinking about this last night. I would have thought that it was entirely possible that there are 800 people out there who would pay £500 for a share of the club or even 1600 people who would pay £250. That's something like half to one third of season ticket holders paying less than the price of a season ticket. It's £5 per week for one year - 2-3 pints a week, 2-3 coffees a week - to own part of the club you support. I'm certain that a well thought out and publicised campaign (remember the million dollar web page?) ought to do it if anyone wanted to take this forwards. But as has been pointed out, things seem to be hung up on what 20% of the club actually means, I.e. what the Trust gets for its money.

 

[bandwagon]

Mentioned this on the 'President' thread - we need to tear down all these fans' groups/sites etc and rally behind the only one that makes sense - The Trust!!

Hey Bandy, we live in a democratic world - don't we ????

Keep the Faith :scarf:

Yeah, just take a look at where all that 'democracy' has got us - the biggest split between fans I've ever known at the club!! All this is quite apart from the fact we languish in 18th place in the 4th division!!

The 200 mile round trip is/has become quite tedious TT!!

 

[TinTin]

The 200 mile round trip is/has become quite tedious TT!!

I've said to you before mate, I really don't know how good folk like you actually

do it :nworthy:

I live 5 minutes away and I moan like buggery

I take my hat off to you - and people like you.

Sod democracy :funny:

See you soon ?

Keep the Faith :scarf:

 

[Womble]

If the shares in question are non-voting shares it doesnt bother - a waste of £400k.

To raise such a serious amount of money the trust should insist on voting shares, elso no deal. I dont see any benefit in buying shares with nil voting rights.

 

[Stonehouse Mike]

If the shares in question are non-voting shares it doesnt bother - a waste of £400k.

To raise such a serious amount of money the trust should insist on voting shares, elso no deal. I dont see any benefit in buying shares with nil voting rights.

Womble, from what i recall 20% of shares WITH voting rights still gives you eff all, you need at least 25% (i think) to have a say in a business. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm / correct that.

 

[Trev501]

If the 20% gives a place at the boardroom table, I would think that the transparency that would bring would be more than sufficient. Personally I wouldn't want the trust to have voting rights and I am a member.

 

[Mark Colling]

If the shares in question are non-voting shares it doesnt bother - a waste of £400k.

To raise such a serious amount of money the trust should insist on voting shares, elso no deal. I dont see any benefit in buying shares with nil voting rights.

Womble, from what i recall 20% of shares WITH voting rights still gives you eff all, you need at least 25% (i think) to have a say in a business. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm / correct that.

As long as JB retains 75%, he can do pretty much whatever he likes. The idea that he would let the Trust have any more than 25% in fanciful.

I think that a Trust or other form of supporter involvement is a good thing in terms of sending out a positive message of interaction and putting a bit of money into the club but I cannot see how it would give any real influence.

To go back to the original question, anyone with half an understanding of the rules around "Financial Promotions" will be able to tell you that public fund raisings (particularly small ones) are prohibitively expensive, which is why they are so rare. I have some recollection that the previous board contemplated it but abandonded the process?

 

[Womble]

If the shares in question are non-voting shares it doesnt bother - a waste of £400k.

To raise such a serious amount of money the trust should insist on voting shares, elso no deal. I dont see any benefit in buying shares with nil voting rights.

Womble, from what i recall 20% of shares WITH voting rights still gives you eff all, you need at least 25% (i think) to have a say in a business. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm / correct that.

Even 25% only gets you a monor influence on decisions. As long as James Brent has 51% he can do more or less what you want, within limits.

And I have no problem with that. The fans trust will not initially have actual power (see recent events to see why that is a very very bad idea!) but it will have a voice at the table that will have to be heard, even if it is voted down on occasions.

My problem is not the trust having no control of the club (I really dont want that) but that it may invest £400k and still have no voice to the board. I beleive the trust should be looking for a minority interest voting right and nominee on the board. I really dont want the trust to have control, just a strong voice.

 

[Greenblooded1]

If the shares in question are non-voting shares it doesnt bother - a waste of £400k.

To raise such a serious amount of money the trust should insist on voting shares, elso no deal. I dont see any benefit in buying shares with nil voting rights.

Womble, from what i recall 20% of shares WITH voting rights still gives you eff all, you need at least 25% (i think) to have a say in a business. Hopefully someone in the know will confirm / correct that.

You are essentially correct, however, the current situation (in this scenario) where the other 80% is held by 1 other is very unusual & I wouldn't expect that to remain for too long, which then opens the possibility of "joined forces" to decide decisions. That's how the Trust gains influence / power, by being able to side with other shareholders & become privy to information.