This document tidies the automated transcript of the 17 May 2026 community meeting into a readable record. Place names and technical terms have been normalised where the meaning was clear. Some phrases were unclear in the recording, so they have been rendered cautiously rather than over-corrected. This is not a legal, financial, building, or heritage opinion. It is a cleaned record of what was discussed in the room. Figures and models cited by speakers — including examples drawn from the Castlemaine Community Investment Co-operative Ltd — are illustrative references only and do not constitute an offer, promise, or commitment by the Bottom Pub Co-op.
Editorial policy on names. Speakers on the organising side of the meeting (the people leading the discussion) are referred to by first name where they have publicly identified themselves with the project. Third parties — including previous operators of the building, prospective purchasers, the appointed administrator and their agents, builders who inspected the building for previous prospective buyers, and other commercial counterparties — are referred to by role rather than by name. Receivership-related commercial detail (specific dates, named approaches, characterisation of administrator communications) has been removed. Members may request additional context via the working group.
1. Opening remarks and purpose of the meeting
Billie:
Once you have a look around and acknowledge everyone in this room, it is kind of extraordinary. A couple of flyers, a couple of Facebook posts, and some old media have brought all of us here. Probably the reason we are all here is because there is a building over there that many people have good memories of, and it has been sitting boarded up for too long.
I reckon a few people in this room have big feelings about it as well. This is our first meeting, so we are probably going to leave with more questions than answers. Please keep that in mind.
The main meaning of today is to discuss the idea of cooperative ownership of the pub, and to talk more broadly about cooperative ownership in general. Could Cygnet, and perhaps towns across the Huon Valley more generally, come together to create a community asset through a cooperative structure? Could we collectively have purchasing power and lock assets into our community long term?
It is a good idea. When people say it cannot work, my response is: if you cannot make it work here, where can you make it work? Just look around the room.
I am really thankful that you are all here.
2. Acknowledgements and early community work
Billie:
I am not doing this by myself. A few really great local residents have already put their names forward. They have been consulting, helping, writing, thinking, and researching. We are really lucky to have people here who can share the floor.
You will notice some butcher’s paper in front of you. We will ask you to write things down, and we will get to that later.
I want to introduce Bridget, who has also been working tirelessly behind the scenes for the last couple of weeks while the site has come up.
Bridget:
I just want to say a big thank you to everyone for coming today. First, we want to acknowledge the people in this community who have helped get this idea to this point.
Mary was one of the first people to suggest that the community could buy the pub. That idea has become possible because so many people have stepped forward with ideas, knowledge, skills, and support. It has already been a genuine community effort.
People have shared special memories, local history, building knowledge, business experience, financial thinking, legal knowledge, hospitality ideas, practical support, past experience, and hopes for the future. Everyone has contributed what they can to the library of knowledge.
Thank you for getting us to this point. It is really special.
3. Framing: exploratory, not a rushed purchase
Billie:
Before I introduce Molly from the Co-op Federation, I want to make something clear. You might have heard my voice on the radio. For those who have not: we are not buying the pub tomorrow.
We want to recognise that there is a lot of complexity around the Bottom Pub. Many of us remember a previous operator and the difficult period the building has been through. We are not talking about this site naively. We saw it, imagined what it could be, and asked: how could we do it?
This room is basically the answer to “how could we do it?”
There are a few things to differentiate. I will talk later about the structure we might propose as a successful model, but I want to say up front that this is not cooperative management.
If everyone in this hall signs up for the co-op, it does not mean that everyone is making day-to-day decisions about bar snacks. The idea is that we collectively own an asset and employ a publican, executive chef, or hospitality operator to lead and run the business properly. (No co-operative exists at this stage, and no financial instrument has been designed.)
The building is rich with possibility. There is a huge garden. There is accommodation upstairs. We can dream big around what those things are. However, we believe the profitable business is within the pub, and in hiring a publican who can succeed while using and stewarding that asset.
I want to make sure we differentiate ownership from management up front. A lot of the Facebook comments I have been fielding are things like, “Does this mean I am cooking in the kitchen?” Which is fine, but I wanted to answer that straight away.
A speaker discussed the Castlemaine Community Investment Co-operative Ltd as one Australian reference point. To be accurate: Castlemaine’s asset is a mixed-use community building (offices and community space), not a hotel or pub. It is cited here only as one example of community capital-raising under Australian law, not as a template for the Bottom Pub.
In a co-operative structure, members typically vote on how any surplus is used, subject to the structure’s legal rules and any registered disclosure document. None of those rules has been drafted for the Bottom Pub proposal.
Molly is going to give us a rundown on cooperative structure. There will be time for questions. We want to outline a few of the ideas first, then take clarifying questions, and then move into breakout spaces.
4. Cooperative structure overview
Molly, Co-op Federation:
What an incredible sight: so many people invested in some kind of community dream, all coming together, not really knowing exactly what is happening, but wanting to be part of it.
I work for the Co-op Federation, which is a peak body that supports cooperatives in Australia. We are a co-op ourselves, and our members are the co-ops that are part of us.
To jump straight into the structure: every cooperative has a board, and that board is elected by its members. If, in the future, you are all members of this cooperative, then you would vote in a board each year. It would probably change each year depending on who is stepping down or not. What membership looks like is up to you.
Why a co-op?
Cooperatives are a structure used globally. In the UK or the United States, many people grow up already knowing what a cooperative is. A co-op might run the local supermarket or provide housing for an elderly relative. They are well accepted and understood overseas.
In Australia, co-ops originally formed strongly around dairy cooperatives. Dairy farmers came together to collectively market their milk and take it to market. It was a shared-resources and shared-overheads model.
That has changed across the decades. You see co-ops springing up in response to broken parts of society. There has been a huge surge in housing co-ops because of the housing and affordability crisis. There are also many fresh-food co-ops emerging, where people want access to local food without depending on supermarkets for fresh fruit and vegetables.
Another major movement is worker ownership: people who do not want to just work for a big corporate, but want to work collectively with others and have a say over their working conditions and what they get paid.
Another huge part of the co-op world right now is owning your main street. That is where this project seems to sit. You have found a site that is potentially a community hub for a really vibrant community, and you are asking: what if we all owned this instead of just observing it from the outside?
A co-op sits somewhere between a for-profit and a not-for-profit model. The purpose is that members have a say. When people have a say, they have more investment and care in the project. They feel like they own a little part of their community — which, if you buy the pub, they literally will.
How co-ops work
You can be a member of a cooperative in different ways. If the co-op is a wholefoods store, membership might mean you get a discount there. If it is a worker-owned co-op, working in the co-op may make you an active member.
Active membership is a key part of cooperatives. It is what makes them different from a regular not-for-profit. To have a say, you need to be showing up and doing something toward the cooperative. That might be spending a certain amount at the pub, volunteering, or contributing in another way. You get to decide what active membership means here.
Some people think co-ops are old-fashioned. That is true in one sense, but they are also having a renaissance. They are newly relevant.
Another misconception is that co-ops are inflexible, or that everyone has to decide everything together. It is not like that. You have an elected board acting as collective owners. In the case of a pub, you would have a publican and management making day-to-day decisions. You would not all come to the town hall to decide whether it is Parma night or Palmer night.
The structure is flexible. You can build it how you want. Membership can mean what you want it to mean. It could be spending ten dollars at the Bottom Pub each month. It could be volunteering in the garden. You decide.
Another piece of baggage is that co-ops can sound suspiciously like communism. That is not what this is. This is a structure that can exist within our existing systems, but can repopulate and put the heart back into businesses. Small businesses are great, and co-ops often support small businesses. But once a business reaches a certain size, the goal is often to extract money out of the business and send it away to shareholders. In a co-op, the community is the investor, and value flows back to the members and the place that supports it.
5. Funding options and comparable models
Molly:
In terms of funding, there are a few options.
One unsuccessful example happened in New South Wales in a town called Kentucky. A group tried to crowd-fund to buy their pub. It was like a GoFundMe with a cut-off date. Unfortunately, they did not get enough pledges to buy it outright.
A successful example, around three years ago, was the Yealering Community Pub. The funding model was based on shares. Members put in a chunk of money that they could be paid back when they left the cooperative. Shares are one way to raise funds in a co-op structure.
There are probably two big member funding options:
- a crowdfunding model, like a GoFundMe-style pledge process;
- shares or member investment;
- and another option is a large community loan.
In co-op language, those loans are often called community debentures. They are small or large loans from people in the community that the co-op then pays back. Castlemaine used this model, and the Co-op Federation helped with that.
You can also go to a bank and ask for a business loan, but that takes more behind-the-scenes work. You need a business case in the same way anyone seeking a bank loan needs one.
6. Castlemaine model and broader use of the building
Anna Ritter:
It is amazing to see so many people here.
I normally work as a director at a firm that has been employee-owned for many years. That model allows us, as employees, to provide independent advice and act according to our values. I think that is relevant here. If you own the pub together, it can bring profit and function as a community hub, but it can also run in line with the community’s best interests.
The Castlemaine model is not the model, but it is important when thinking about what is possible. The community there was able to buy a pub. Around 300 people contributed loans. Looking around this room, there are already many people here.
The Bottom Pub is not just a pub. It is a large building with land attached. There are many options. In Castlemaine, the building is not currently running as a pub. It has offices. That might sound boring, and we do not have to do that here, but it is revenue. It ensures the building is looked after, maintained, and can coordinate a whole range of things the community wants.
Yes, we all want a pub. But it is also a very large building. Please use your imagination. There are many things it could do. I would love a little co-working or hot-desk office space where I can work with other people. There are many things that could raise revenue and make the project stack up.
A business model needs to bring in enough revenue to keep the building going. I understand there are issues with maintenance and upkeep, but there are also lots of opportunities.
The key thing is to think broadly. It does not have to be only a pub. There are many things we can do.
The loan model seems quite effective. It probably will not be easy to get a bank loan because a bank does not know who we are as a community group. But if we can raise enough funds, we may be able to convince others to contribute as well.
I encourage everyone today to think broadly, think of every possible idea, and remember that this does not have to be only a pub.
7. Proposed early structure
Billie:
We have written up a couple of working models. They are only working models. The reason we are here today is, hopefully, to form a steering committee: a group of well-intentioned and well-experienced people who can steer this project in the right way and move it toward legal formation.
The steering committee would be the body leading the pre-cooperative structure.
The working proposal is a cooperative with membership buy-in. We have not settled the funding, but for example, if someone put in $200 to $500, that could make them a member. Members would then vote in an elected board. Democracy in action.
The board might be seven to twelve people, overseeing governance. It would then hire a publican, executive chef, or similar person if we are going forward as a pub. That person would be in charge of management. We would trust them to make business decisions. It is their job to run a profitable business.
Members get the benefit of having the community space, the pub operating again, and a beautiful business to visit and be proud of. Members are not making everyday nitty-gritty decisions.
The board terms we looked at were around two years, with people re-elected over time. We would want positions filled by people with relevant experience: secretary, finance, legal, hospitality, and other skills relevant to this particular cooperative structure.
The biggest question today is financial. I know that.
Speakers in the room discussed hypothetical capital-stack questions, drawing on the Castlemaine Community Investment Co-operative as one Australian reference point. No debenture, repayment term, or interest rate has been designed, modelled, or approved for the Bottom Pub proposal. Any specific amounts, percentages, or timeframes raised by speakers in the room are working examples, not offers. Stage 1 is gauging interest only; decisions about capital structure would require feasibility analysis, legal advice, and later community decision.
8. Heritage, opportunity, and the need for proper preparation
Speaker:
Looking at a range of co-op models, particularly for pubs, we found that many were formed because a pub was closing, insolvent, abandoned by owners, or at immediate risk of being lost to the town. That is where our pub seems to sit.
We cannot speak too much about all the financial aspects yet, and we acknowledge the complexities. We have ideas, and we want to involve people and advisors with greater experience.
We have contacted Huon Valley Council, Heritage Tasmania, banks, mortgage brokers, town planners, and previous potential buyers. Now is the time to come together and start developing the ideas properly.
The Bottom Pub has captured our imagination. It has made us speculate about how our community can come together and work together to ensure that community assets stay within the local community.
It takes time to create constructive systems and structures that can make something like this work. We wanted to use this opportunity, while we are all watching the Bottom Pub go through hard times, to prepare as best we can, understand the risks and opportunities, and set ourselves up properly.
We could not make the decisions before holding this initial meeting and lodging community interest and support. We also want to look broadly at this cooperative structure beyond the pub. The pub is the site that sparked our interest, but there is also the possibility that this becomes a community investment vehicle for other assets as well.
9. Building condition and construction assessment
A local builder:
I am amazed. Well done to all of you. This is incredible. It shows such support for a beautiful building.
I have lived in Cygnet for many years. I own a construction business and have worked on heritage buildings in the area, including the Port Cygnet Cannery project. That building had been abandoned for a few years, and old buildings like that start to deteriorate.
That is my fear with the Bottom Pub. The bones of that building are absolutely beautiful. It is a stunning building inside. I would love to see it brought back to working life.
I have been right through the building. I know exactly what it needs. There is a long list of things that need doing. It has to be done properly. What is underneath is one of the most majestic buildings you can imagine. Once you open it up and realise what is there, it would be beautiful.
Yes, it will cost a fair bit of money. But in a growing, booming town like this, it should not be sitting boarded up. Between us all, we have to remedy that as quickly as possible because it is such an amazing place.
I spent a lot of time there years ago, and it was so much fun. I want to see that come back in whatever form it takes — whether part of the building is offices or something else. I just want to see the building alive again.
Immediate building observations
The commercial kitchen needs work but is not terrible. The upstairs rooms need to be pretty much renewed. The upstairs bathrooms were done a few years ago but have degraded again. Downstairs is pretty good. The backspace, commercial areas, freezers, and refrigeration need upgrades.
The facade is heritage-listed. The veranda and exterior details matter.
I will be around if anyone wants to ask specific questions.
10. Previous buyer information and estimated works
Billie:
A prospective purchaser had planned to come today and speak. They had to cancel, but gave permission for me to share parts of their written notes.
The prospective purchaser and their partners were close to going ahead with the pub. They were among the people the local builder above inspected the building for. They shared the Tasmanian asbestos report and the building report before deciding not to proceed.
In summary, they reported that the pub has had very little capital improvement in around forty years. Everything needs doing: roof, veranda, external works, fridges, beer chillers, moving HVAC to dedicated plant areas, revising layouts so it can run efficiently in terms of staff, new toilets, new car park, bitumen and landscaping, mortar repairs, asbestos removal, colours and possibly returning externally to more brick, fire detection and suppression — especially around the commercial kitchen — and revision of the commercial kitchen.
Their view was that the kitchen was not too bad, but not ideal. The building needs stabilising. They said one could possibly take on that list with less capital, but with higher risk.
Their ideal model was to do everything properly and not take a capital return in the early years of trading.
Their business planning considered renovations in the range of roughly $900,000 to $1.2 million, with upstairs left out for the first five years. There may be more capital-effective ways to do it, but the business needs to be something we would be proud to run.
The local builder:
To get it open, I think you need to get out of your mind that it can be done for very little. The veranda alone could be over $100,000, depending on timber and sourcing. It does not need to be made from gold, but it will be a significant cost.
The toilets and amenities need refreshing, but they are not the first priority. They can function as they are for a while. Gutters and roof work are more immediate. The electrics would need to be gone over. Fire safety would have to happen: smoke detection throughout, fire separation between areas, and so on.
Upstairs, the key is getting the rooms back to functionality. That means stripping out asbestos, rewiring, doing the work properly, and re-plastering. Some of it is old set plaster; it is messy but safe once handled correctly. You would also want to think about sound insulation so noise does not travel through the walls the way it does now.
A rough estimate of $900,000 is me working at a very minimal margin. I would be running my company to survive and pay people, not to make a huge profit. It does not include all furniture and fit-out items. The amenities alone could be $70,000 to $80,000.
The outbuildings, stables, and sheds are a different kettle of fish. Some of those stables look ready to fall down.
In terms of time, I would like to say less, but realistically it could be twelve months to get the building works done from start to finish, depending on volunteers and approvals. If approvals and heritage issues drag out, it could be longer. I would need trained and experienced volunteers; having lots of people onsite who do not know what they are doing is not necessarily helpful.
The heritage facade is at state level, not national level as far as I know. If we are doing like-for-like work and putting applications in early, that helps. It becomes harder when you start altering things.
11. Purchase status and sale process
Billie / Bridget:
We have to be careful talking about price. The building is in a receivership-managed sale process, with an appointed administrator. There are also court matters, so we want to be delicate.
The receivership-related commercial detail discussed in the meeting — specifics of earlier offers, characterisation of administrator communications, and the way the title has been configured for sale — has been removed from this transcript. What is publicly safe to say is that the configuration of the title (commercial building plus surrounding residential land) is something the project would need to understand before any future offer, and that pricing is uncertain. Members may request additional context via the working group.
This is not easy and it will not happen quickly. Whoever takes over the pub has to do it well. The question is whether we want to do it, whether we believe in it, and whether we want to keep it out of the hands of purely external investors.
One figure often discussed in cooperative contexts is that money spent in a cooperative structure tends to remain in the local community at a much higher rate than money spent through an external ownership model. A speaker cited a comparison of around 81 cents in the dollar staying locally in a cooperative model versus a much smaller amount under external ownership.
Speakers discussed possible funding pathways for a co-operative purchase, drawing on the Castlemaine Community Investment Co-operative Ltd as one Australian example. Specific amounts and instruments would be a Stage 2/3 design question requiring feasibility analysis, legal advice, and any necessary registered disclosure document. No financial instrument, member-contribution amount, or grant pathway has been designed or approved for the Bottom Pub.
It would be bloody fantastic to see it happen.
12. Financial return, emotional return, and member benefits
Community member:
Have you considered investors receiving some capital growth if the property increases in value?
Billie / Molly:
That is a valid question. The kind of co-op being discussed sounds more like a non-distributing co-op. In that model, the goal is to keep the asset in community ownership. Members do not get a chunk of capital growth if they leave. The benefits are access, participation, and community value, not speculative return.
This is not a regular investment. It is more of an emotional and civic investment. The return may be the community space, the pub, member pricing, room access, and other benefits rather than financial gain.
Examples might include member pricing, discounted meals, complimentary room nights, or access to rooms in the evenings. One early model discussed a member discount, perhaps around ten percent. The exact benefits would need to be designed.
There has also been discussion with people who have run similar businesses. One operator spoke about a membership-style model and estimated profitability based on comparable operations, but all figures would need proper business planning.
The aim is not to compete destructively with other local venues. The Top Pub and Bottom Pub have historically coexisted. The goal is to work collaboratively with the broader town.
The model would be adapted to Cygnet, not copied directly from Castlemaine. Castlemaine is 45 minutes from Melbourne and has different real estate and business conditions. Cygnet has its own reasons for a pub and its own vision for what returns should go back to the community.
13. Worst-case scenario and risk discussion
Community member:
What is the worst-case scenario? How does the risk flow back to lenders or members?
Billie:
Imagine we raise around $2 million, and it is not enough but we go ahead. The renovations blow out. We open six months late. Our revenue in the second year is forty percent below forecast. Costs go through the roof for multiple reasons, and we lose $150,000 in the first year.
The board tries to cut costs and adapt, but it does not work. Then we go into administration. We still have an asset that has been improved. The main lenders are paid first. Staff and suppliers are owed. Community debenture holders may not receive everything back. Members lose their membership contribution.
So yes, there is risk. With a cooperative structure, ordinary members do not have their personal assets at risk because the business fails. But the business itself can fail, and lenders and contributors can lose money.
Speakers discussed scenarios for what would happen if the project did not proceed. Any specific arrangements for member contributions, including conditions for returning funds, would be determined by the legal structure later chosen, the terms of any future formal offering, and applicable regulatory requirements. No such arrangement has been designed, modelled, or approved.
The bigger risk is running the business after purchase.
Speaker with legal / commercial experience:
Members are more like shareholders in a private company. Members are not personally responsible for the losses of the trading business. The board has governance and management responsibility, but they do not become personally liable for losses unless they sign personal guarantees, which they should not do.
The only circumstance in which personal guarantees might be requested is if the co-op borrowed from a bank and there was not enough security to support the loan. But a bank is unlikely to lend in this situation because there is no current operating business and no clear serviceability.
The way to understand it is that cooperative members would be asked to contribute funds. Those funds would buy the pub, do the works, and fund losses until it becomes profitable. A responsible business plan would need to forecast cash flow from purchase to profitability.
If the plan does not reach profitability, there is a fork in the road. The members can walk away and sell the asset, in which case someone loses money. Members may not get their loans back. Alternatively, the members can decide to put the hat out again and raise more money if they believe more funding will get the business to profitability.
The basic idea is: put in only what you are prepared to lose.
Another community member:
If an individual buys the pub, they are a single resource trying to manage all aspects: human resources, purchasing, legal responsibilities, and the business. Here, if we pool resources, there are many brains and skills in the room. That gives us more capacity to make it work.
14. Land, title, and possible residential development
Community member:
Is the land at the back on a separate title? Could it be sold off without affecting the pub?
Billie / Bridget:
It appears to be residential zoning and was originally going to be sold separately, but we now understand it is being sold as one title. We would need to confirm what is possible.
There have been many great ideas for the land: extending the community garden, affordable housing, and other uses. However, the main focus is restoring the pub and keeping it operational. We should not count chickens before they hatch.
If selling or subdividing the land were necessary to save the whole project, that may need to be considered. It could also make the project more attractive to community lenders if they know there is an asset-backed option.
For us as a community, the pub is the main interest. The surrounding land gives both opportunity and complexity.
15. Communication, expression of interest, and contact channels
Community member:
I only found out about this meeting because someone mentioned it. I am not on Facebook. How do people sign up and stay connected?
Billie:
There is an expression-of-interest form. There are QR codes going around and posters with QR codes. The QR code takes you to a Linktree-style page. It is not a scam; it will not give you a virus.
We are already collecting expressions of interest. Last time I checked, we had around 68 expressions of interest, including around twelve people interested in the steering committee with relevant experience.
The butcher’s paper in front of you is also valuable data. I want to use the collective brains in this room and gather your ideas, concerns, and names.
16. Governance and forming the steering committee
Community member:
How will decisions be made about the structure? How do we decide who is on the committee before there are members to vote on the committee?
Billie:
This is something I have got stuck on too. Initially, we would ask for expressions of interest for a steering committee. The people who express interest would be assessed for experience and expertise. We would get them in a room, figure out who the best possible candidates are, and perhaps form a seven-person steering committee.
That steering committee would help with legal formation and the basic governance structure. Then, when we start the membership drive and people become paying members, we hold the first AGM and vote in the board. The board would then be elected by the members, just like any democratic model.
Community member:
People in the room have goodwill, excitement, and energy, and the organisers have done a huge amount of work. But if people are going to put personal money into this venture, they will need confidence in the structure that will ultimately run it.
Perhaps there can be an initial steering committee of people with goodwill, ideas, enthusiasm, and time, whose job is to start the work on the structure. But the final steering committee or board should be made up of people voted in by members on the basis of the skills needed to run the venture.
The initial group may not necessarily be the best group to continue long term. There needs to be a skills-based committee for longevity.
Another community member:
Keep it simple. People apply to be on the steering committee. That group meets and comes back to the potential members quickly with a proposal: “This is what we have come up with. How does it sound?” Then everyone can say yes, no, or suggest changes. After that, you move toward the final steering committee, elections, and legal structure.
Billie:
Yes, that is a workable model. We need an actual process for how to do it, and we will be transparent about that.
17. Pledge model and community capital resources
Community member:
When the Bendigo Community Bank started, they collected pledges from the community first. It was not a payment, just a commitment. Given the tight timing here, should we start gathering those kinds of pledges pending the structure being put together?
Another community member:
There is a non-profit organisation called the Centre for Community Capital that runs learning sessions and explains different structures and mechanisms for non-profit community capital. There are mechanisms we have not even touched on yet. This has been done before. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.
A team of people could work through the learning materials, understand the options, and bring that back to the community.
Another community member:
Could everyone write down, even anonymously or with initials, the amount of money they might be willing to loan? Not as a commitment, but as a snapshot of what might be in the room.
Organisers:
There have already been people privately messaging to say they may be willing to be significant contributors. But we are not quite at that stage yet. For now, we want to gather ideas and concerns on paper.
18. Member numbers, voting power, and democracy
Community member:
Is there a cap on how many members there can be? Does the amount of money someone puts in affect the weight of their voice?
Billie / Molly:
No: if you put in $10,000 and someone else puts in $200, you each get one vote. Money should not mean more say. That is part of what we like about the Castlemaine model and cooperative democracy.
Membership would likely be unlimited, or at least broadly open, but the formal limits would need to be checked when designing the rules.
19. Comparable co-ops and community-owned pubs
Community member:
Are there successful examples of community-owned pubs or long-running co-ops in small towns?
Molly:
There are examples in Western Australia, though I do not know all their timeframes off the top of my head. There are also older, long-established co-ops across Australia.
One example is a co-op that began around a hundred years ago as a butter factory. As community needs changed, it took over different services. When the fuel station was not profitable enough and might have closed, the co-op bought it. When the post office was under threat, the co-op bought that. So the town retained essential services.
Castlemaine began with a similar “what do we want to keep in community hands?” impulse. In Castlemaine, high real estate prices meant locals could not afford to own much in town. Community ownership protected space for social enterprises.
Other examples mentioned in the room included Pleasant Hills in New South Wales, described by a community member as an early community hotel; Hopsters Brewery; and the Royal Hotel in Sea Lake, Victoria, which includes pub and accommodation operations.
Billie:
We have a list of different co-op structures and examples, and we can share that again once we have everyone’s email.
If the Bottom Pub turns out not to be feasible as a business, we have still met, learned about cooperative structure, and could still form a co-op to prepare for other community assets that may come up in Cygnet. If the pub is too expensive or too hard, it may still be valuable to organise around cooperative purchasing for the town’s benefit.
20. Current sale timing and need for parallel workstreams
Community member:
Where is the pub at the moment? Is it actually for sale? What is the timeline?
Bridget / Billie:
Specific dates and characterisations of communications with the appointed administrator and their agents have been removed from this transcript. What can be said publicly is that the project expects to be contacted when the property goes to market, and that the timeline is uncertain.
Court matters and other processes affect the timeline. The longer the process takes, the more time we may have to prepare. Some potential buyers have pulled out, particularly because of the change to selling the pub and land together.
There is concern about large corporate owners or hotel groups coming in. Some hotel groups own hundreds of pubs in Australia and have lowered their population thresholds for acquisition targets. That is one of the risks people are worried about.
Speaker with legal / commercial experience:
We should not think of this as a sequential process. Things need to happen in parallel.
There are at least four streams:
- engage with the receivers, administrators, or whoever controls the company that owns the pub, and make sure they know there is community interest;
- develop the legal and cooperative structure;
- develop the funding model and member/debenture approach;
- assess the building and produce a business plan that can take the project toward profitability.
The offer, if made, could be subject to finance. “Finance” in this case might mean incorporation of the co-op and raising sufficient member funds, rather than a bank loan.
21. Bank lending and serviceability
Community member:
If we somehow raise the funds to buy the property, can a commercial lender then see it as an asset and lend against it for renovation costs?
Speaker with legal / finance experience:
Banks want two things: security and serviceability. If the co-op owned the pub, it would have security. But it would not have serviceability unless there was a running business or guaranteed income to repay the loan.
In the absence of a running business, a commercial lender is unlikely to be interested. At this stage, the project may need to rely on members to fund everything: purchase, works, and early operating losses. Once the business reaches profitability, refinancing or commercial lending becomes a different conversation.
22. Distributing versus non-distributing co-op
Community member:
Can you explain why we would choose a non-distributing co-op rather than a distributing co-op?
Molly:
It depends on what the co-op is trying to achieve.
A distributing co-op can work well where the purpose is to earn money together. For example, several grain-farming businesses might pool resources and share profits according to what they put into the co-op. They are coming together to make money.
A non-distributing co-op is better if the purpose is different: for example, keeping community assets in community hands, running a community pub, or creating a shared civic asset. The purpose would be defined when forming the co-op.
A major advantage of a non-distributing co-op is eligibility for grants. Non-distributing co-ops can often access the same kinds of grants as not-for-profits.
23. Website and information access
Community member:
Flow of information is very important. Has there been thought about setting up a website quickly so everyone can access links and information equally, rather than relying on Facebook and chat groups?
Billie:
Someone has already done that without us asking. They took the documents and made a website. It is a holding place at the moment, with a few documents and the expression-of-interest form. I have spoken with the person, and they said they can edit it as needed.
The QR code takes people first to the expression-of-interest form because we need contact details and numbers. But yes, we need transparent information channels beyond Facebook.
24. Timing, temporary arrangements, and urgency
Community member:
If it takes six to twelve months to raise the money, but the sale happens before then, will there need to be some kind of temporary arrangement or holding offer with the bank or agent?
Organisers:
Yes, time is of the essence. This meeting is being held early so we can start preparing. We have had contact with banks and council, but this process really starts now with the community in the room.
25. Leaving the co-op or withdrawing
Community member:
If someone is part of it and later needs or wants to leave, what happens? Is there a share? What happens with their contribution?
Billie / Molly:
If it is a non-distributing co-op and someone simply buys a membership, that membership may be a one-off contribution. It may not be something they get back. It is more like a civic contribution or gift in exchange for membership.
Community debentures, if ever used, are a separate kind of instrument from membership and are tightly regulated under Australian financial services law. Any such offering would require a registered disclosure document and is not in scope at Stage 1. No debenture, repayment term, or interest rate has been designed, modelled, or approved.
The distinction between “membership” and any future regulated financial instrument would be settled by the legal structure later chosen, not by the discussion in this room.
26. Closing activity: gathering ideas from the room
Billie:
There are going to be many conversations in the room. I want to get these thoughts on paper. I will collect them and turn them into data.
Please write down your thoughts, ideas, concerns, and names if you want to. There are snacks and drinks available. If you need to go, that is fine, but please put something on the paper before you leave if you would like to.
Appendix: Key questions raised
- What exactly is the legal status of the pub and sale process?
- What is the likely purchase price, and how much would be needed for purchase, renovation, fit-out, and early operating losses?
- Can the surrounding residential land be separated, sold, retained, developed, or used for community benefit?
- What is the right legal structure: non-distributing co-op, distributing co-op, company, trust, or hybrid?
- What should membership cost, and what benefits should members receive?
- Should the project use memberships, community debentures, pledges, grants, donations, or all of the above?
- How should the first steering committee be formed before formal members exist?
- How quickly can community interest be converted into credible funding pledges?
- What is the minimum viable building scope needed to reopen safely?
- What are the heritage constraints and approval timelines?
- What is the business model: pub, accommodation, offices, co-working, events, garden, housing, or mixed use?
- How can the project avoid competing destructively with existing local venues?
- What happens if the business fails?
- How can information flow reach people not on Facebook?
Appendix: Key figures mentioned in the meeting
These figures were discussed verbally and should be treated as indicative only until verified.
- Around 68 expressions of interest already received at the time of the meeting.
- Around 12 people had expressed interest in being involved with the steering committee.
- Speakers raised illustrative member-contribution levels in the discussion. No member contribution amount has been designed, modelled, or approved.
- Speakers raised the Castlemaine Community Investment Co-operative as one Australian reference point for community capital. No debenture, repayment term, or interest rate has been designed, modelled, or approved for the Bottom Pub proposal.
- Purchase-price figures discussed in the room were explicitly uncertain and have been removed from this appendix. The property is in a receivership-managed sale process; specifics about offers and timing are not appropriate for public publication.
- Building works discussed in the range of roughly $900,000 to $1.2 million, depending on scope.
- Veranda work alone could exceed $100,000.
- Amenities could cost around $70,000 to $80,000.
- Building works could take around 12 months, potentially longer depending on approvals, volunteers, heritage, and scope.
- One cited cooperative statistic claimed community-owned pubs in the UK have much higher survival rates than traditional ownership models.