No clubs future can be 100% safeguarded , but this is about as near as you will get . Not what I would want but if things went pear shape as it did with the previous regime it leaves a ground for what is now the well trodden A.F.C. route , i,e not the end of football in the town .
N/F concerns are valid but that is a few years away I guess , credit to BUSA but I would think they realise come the time the committee will have to be beefed up , ie a few members with cash and businees know how .
This isn't really about "the club" though - it's about the stadium itself. As we are all aware, stadiums are the biggest asset any club at our level has (unless it's rented from someone else, as is the case with us), and in many cases it's not the ground that's worth the money but the land it sits on.
Stadium ownership wrangles are probably the leading cause of club failures over the last couple of decades (not a scientific study, just a gut feeling). What placing the ground into the ownership of a CIC will do is hopefully prevent a businessman coming along and trying to take the ground into private ownership (along with assurances such a move is required to make a few new signings). Allowing such an asset to fall into private hands is invariably a terrible mistake.
Of course, yes, the club could easily fall into financial ruin by other means (reckless spending and so on), but at least with the stadium out of harm's way, potential asset-strippers and land-grabbers will be deterred. And a phoenix club will have a ground to play on.
There is no way Newton can truly safeguard Boston United - no-one can do that, unless a millionaire puts a huge cash reserve in some kind of Jack Walker-style trust fund, but he is doing as much as he can. At some point the club, and by extension us as fans, have to take responsibility for the club's well being.
That means ensuring future owners are held up to the highest levels of scrutiny, and not just taking what they say at face value, as well as an absolute insistence that, should full fan ownership cannot be achieved, then either BUSA or another Trust type body have significant representation on the Board. Any refusal to countenance that proposal by an owner should always set alarm bells ringing.
We've been fortunate with the Chestnuts in that it has never felt like we've needed such representation on the current board - I think we've all been happy to allow them to get on with sorting out the hugely complex logistics of restoring the club to working order. in that regard, we've been extraordinarily lucky, although the job isn't finished yet of course.
