WORCESTER City could face legal action from some shareholders if changes are made to the club’s constitution, warns chairman Anthony Hampson.

However, Worcester City Supporters’ Trust, who want to make City a community benefit society, insist the board’s fears are an “excuse not to do anything” and continue to run the Vanarama National League North outfit on “a wing and a prayer”.

During a heated meeting last week, Hampson said the “majority of the board” refused to back the four proposed changes to the constitution, which will be voted on by shareholders tomorrow night.

The first amendment would see the removal of a restriction on anyone owning more than one per cent of the company.

Hampson said they would welcome an uplift of the capital limited on individual shareholders, but insisted that was the only part of the resolution they were in favour of.

“It makes provision for shares to be allocated at nil cost,” he said. “In other words, for free, which would dilute the value of the current shareholdings. This will cause a legal issue for the club as shareholders who will feel disadvantaged by this move could take legal action against the club.”

Hampson said many directors were also against offering any new shares to existing shareholders first (resolution two) and handing over unsold shares to the trust (resolution three).

“There are £140,000 worth of these unallocated shares at the moment,” he said. “We understand there may be tax issues, which will disadvantage the club significantly and this does not raise any fresh capital.

“The whole reason of having shares is to be able to raise fresh capital and resolution three does not do that.”

The fourth resolution allows current holders to gift shares to the trust and Hampson said this would have “tax implications”.

Speaking after the meeting, trust member Rich Widdowson insisted they had received advice from tax experts in their bid to keep the club alive.

“They (the board) first raised this issue four years ago and we have answered it many times through Supporters’ Direct’s solicitors. They have had four years to get their own advice and they have always chosen not to.

“We are in this position where we have answered these question and they don’t accept them.”

He said shareholders would have to pay a “small amount” of tax transferring shares.

He added: “If people’s only answer is ‘We are going to take the club to court’, then that’s fine.Vote against it, we lose, and they (the board) will continue on a wing and a prayer.”