Glasgow Buddie

Please see my other thread in the alternatives thread. As said I am not necessarily against the CIC, I possibly just need to be convinced further! Edited as link not working!

Guys, My understanding of the CIC is still slightly vague so I caveat everything said below by acknowledging I may not have picked everything up. There are certainly positives the whole concept would bring - The fact no one individual can come along and break up the club (e.g Reg Brealey) Better utilisation of club facilities resulting in greater income for the club Greater services/facilities being offered to the community Regular fans feeling a part of the club I see the drawbacks being as follows - The transaction will involve debt, albeit not in the club's name. As such some money which comes into the club will be used to pay off interest and therefore not going to the club. There does appear to be a lack of planning/thought given to what if members lose interest and cancel their DD (people are saying there is no risk as we would then be in the same position as we are now. Maybe so but what assets are the debt secured over? Money would have to come from somewhere to pay back debt and the way I see it the club have assets, the CIC do not). Current shareholders will surely feel disillusioned with it all (say I put £10k into the club a couple of years ago - I now have less say than someone paying £10 a month? Surely that is not right?). Decision making could be a long process as everyone needs to have their say and we are already talking about 3 different boards for what is effectively running a football club. The whole model is untried (I'm not even sure this is a real consideration tbh as someone has to be the first to try anything) To benefit from the advantages above, do we really need to go through as large, risky and complicated a scheme as being proposed by Richard Atkinson? Could discussions not take place with the selling consortium and current shareholders with a view to the following - The articles of the club are altered whereby one individual cannot own more than - say - 5% of the club? This would therefore protect us against another Reg Brealey type scenario. Now I know the selling consortium would have to push this change through (and also agree to sell shares individually) however those individuals have regularly stated they want what's best for the club and IF the consensus was this was best, would they push the change through? They would probably have to be paid over a few years also. The same sort of "offers" as the CIC would offer could be replicated whereby businesses acquring £10k of shares get various perks. Individuals acquiring £3k of shares (or whatever value) could get perks too. Shareholders can then elect a board of directors to run the club. 1 Board made of of X number of people. Re-appointed on an annual basis. Directors have to act in the interest of shareholders therefore major issues could still be voted on by the ordinary shareholder. No debt would be involved therefore any money paid into the club would not be lost to interest payments. Shareholders/fans could simply pay money into the club if they wished on any scale. Greater use of facilities and integration with the community is simply made to happen. This does not require a CIC set up. Shareholder meetings held on a regular basis, say quarterly to discuss and vote on major issues. As I have said above perhaps I am missing something and if so let me know. I am not against the CIC, I just think all avenues should be considered before we go down a particular route. Overall I see the above approach being a way of incurring the benefits without as many drawbacks.