WORCESTER City shareholders face an historic vote on Thursday over changes to the club’s 90-year-old constitution that would enable community ownership. 

The five-pronged alteration would see all unallocated shares – approximately 138,000 which is 46 per cent of the business – gifted to Worcester City Supporters’ Trust.

EXPLAINED | The special resolution Worcester City shareholders will vote on at Thursday's AGM

The trust itself a community benefit society (CBS) operated by directors with larger decisions taken on a one-share-one-vote basis. 

The club’s seven-strong board, all bar two of whom are affiliated to the trust, would continue to run City with Worcester City Supporters Limited essentially acting as a parent company. 

It will take 75 per cent or more of the club's shareholding that takes part in the ballot to pass the changes. 

Votes are weighted by the number of shares at the annual general meeting (AGM) to be held at Worcestershire Cricket Club’s Graeme Hick Suite (7.30pm).

For example, someone who has the maximum of 3,000 shares would have more clout than 50 people with 50 shares each. 

We asked the opinions of fans who attended City’s game with Long Eaton United on Saturday for their thoughts on the proposed fan-owned model.

Anonymous supporter and shareholder

“I don’t think it is the best idea.

“We need to get rid of the constitution that stops people owning more than one per cent (of the club), we have to be available to someone who has some money and would look after this club.

“We put 300-odd people through the gate. If we went fan owned, even if they all put in £50 it would not support the club for very long. We have to have something on top and a name behind it.

“Through fan ownership anyone with that kind of money can only have one share and one vote, anyone would want a bit more say than that.

“We just need the cap lifting, that’s the bit that needs to change.

“I am sick of the stupidity I keep hearing that he should fold the club and start again. Why would you want to lose all the history?

“I don’t want to lose that badge, whatever the level. If the club is protected it can always get better.”

Tony Spear, supporter and shareholder

“It is the only way the club is going to be able to go forward.

“Unless someone comes along with a bit of money, what is left will soon melt away.

“It is going to be a long struggle to get back to where we were.

“I cannot attend the AGM but have returned my (proxy) vote, as have the rest of my family, in favour of the changes the board is proposing.

“It needs a big financial input to get it back up and running as opposed to living from hand to mouth like we are now – if I was lucky enough to win a few bob on the lottery the football club would come into the equation.

“Unless something like that happens there is no alternative (to community ownership), we can carry on muddling along until all of the money has gone but what happens then?

“At least the board is trying to do something before that happens and can only do that with the help and backing of the shareholders.”

Tony Partridge, supporter, shareholder and former club director

“It is the only way forward.

“Hopefully it is major step towards Perdiswell. It would allow extra funding to help build a stadium which may sway the council to give us permission to use the land.

“I have been supporting the club for more than 50 years and no private investor has come along in that time. I cannot see one coming now.

“We have nothing to offer, there is the team and the name. Unless one of the fans wins the EuroMillions it is wishful thinking. What is any business person going to get in return for coming in?

Andrew Smith, a Hereford supporter who watches matches locally

“I come across to watch Worcester occasionally so don’t know the ins and outs but the public should have more say in the running of clubs.

"I know you need to have the people with money to put into a club but it is still the supporters that help to keep it running.

“I just don’t understand the stance of the council, not giving help (with regard to Perdiswell).”

Brian Jones, supporter and shareholder and trust member

“I am all for it, everything they are proposing.

“It should have happened a long time ago because of that sorry excuse for a board that went before, they screwed us.

“Now the money has been spent there is no other way. We had more than £3million when we sold St George’s Lane, where has it all gone? It is too late and we are starting again from the bottom like Newport County.

“Who would want to put £1million into Worcester City? Some fans might but I wouldn’t.

“I have been asking questions of those in the know – I have shares, so does my wife and daughter but not many, it is down to whether we can persuade these big shareholders to go with it.

“From the questions I have asked they seem to be heading the right way. There is no choice, it is this or the club goes, finished.

Peter Clarke, supporter

“It is the only chance we have of surviving quite frankly.

“Since getting trust members on the board it has been good to see how the general atmosphere has improved quite considerably, even if the results have not improved quite as much.

“It has to be a niggling concern that this might get blocked but if it does I think everyone realises it would be the end.”

Simon Copson, supporter and trust member

“I think it is a good idea, the constitution as it stands holds the club back.

“There is too much power in the bigger shareholders, it takes things away from the everyday fan. I think it is only right everything is on an equal footing.

“Shared ownership is only way for the club to go.

“If investment came along we would be in a worse position without this (change). No one can buy any more than 3,000 shares but if this goes through we can look at investors and make that decision, it opens up that possibility rather than driving it away.

“It is good to have a bunch of people who have the interests of the club at heart, I fully believe that.”