Leaderboard

Angelos Postecoglou,…bit of a mouthful, so in keeping with his Greek origin ,he’s now to be affectionately known by the celtic support as simply, ‘Costas’,..or to give him his full title , ..'Costas the league’.

The Red Honda Ulster... ?

Like many other fans, I have shares. These shares give me a vote in proportion to the size of my shareholding - a "say" in the running of the club. I am happy to grant my voting rights to someone else if I agree with their intentions. That someone else could easily be Club1872 if I agreed with specific proposals they were putting forward, although given the state of them, I think that's fairly unlikely. I have in the past given my voting rights to Vanguardbears, who I trust far more to act in a sensible and unselfish manner. There is absolutely no need for Club1872 to own your shares. In fact it's little more than a laughable scam. Club1872 should be acting on your behalf, not hoovering up your shares, paid for with your money. Perhaps if that was the case they would act in an altogether more mature and respectful manner.

That's interesting. I'm only thinking about it from the perspective of an individual though. If I donate to Club 1872 and stop donating then, in future, someone else will control the shareholding that I paid for. That is to say that it will be controlled by whoever controls Club 1872. A combination of the membership and the board. I would lose control because I had not remained an active participant.

Actually RS its a bit more complex than that with C1872 being set up as CLC - they have to demonstrate member involvement in the ongoing running of the company. When I did the Annual Report for the CLC Regulator in the 1st year of its inception we had to demonstrate & present 4 examples of member participation in the decions made and such decions being carried through to fruition and inception.

Why do we "need" this at all? I'm a Rangers fan. I own shares in Rangers. I'm perfectly able to express my opinion as a shareholder without having my hand held by what I regard as some quite dark and dubious people.

It's a well worn topic but I might as well throw in my 2 pence worth again. Club 1872 is undeniably better than zero fan ownership. It is better for Club 1872 to buy Dave King's shares rather than risk the wrong people getting hold of them. The problem is that if you donate to Club 1872 you need to take an ongoing responsibility for it. You never own the shareholding but someone does. That is to say you really need to remain a member and be active. If you don't then who knows who will end up controlling Club 1872. Actual fan ownership of shares is undeniably better than donating to Club 1872. When you own shares you don't need to give any thought to any of the bickering that surrounds the Club 1872 board. You'll never need to worry about who might one day control the share holding that you paid for. If you do this then you end up with a different problem. You'll be faced with dilution of your holding one day. That's an easier problem to deal with.

The utter hypocrisy that the Scottish Nazi Party show again and again and again, but still their vote share remains massive. I really don’t understand it at all. There is absolutely no way a fanzone should be allowed in Glasgow at this time if we are to go on the numbers alone. But if the chances of spread are so low that this is a safe event, then why is anything outdoors under any kind of restrictions whatsoever?

Thanks very much indeed good sir, long time no 'see'. Hope you are keeping well in these strange but glorious times of ours!

That's a definite weakness of the C1872 model.

Welcome back stranger!

Alternatively Follow Rangers allows the member to transfer all the shares they have bought whilst part of their collective into their own name at any time. I'm not a member of either group nevertheless comparing the 2 collective models, if I should in the future decide that a supporters collective would be a benefit to Rangers, I would find FR a much more attractive proposition. If the group no longer appeals for whatever reason then you have the option to bail out with your investment. 1872 of course do not offer that option, hence the predicament some members must be faced with just now, I know guys who just want to terminate their involvement but feel compelled to remain given their financial contributions to date. The reality is that every member will have to abandon their investment at some point. Mortality is unavoidable. Which makes a bit of a mockery of the 1872 legacy membership, a legacy for who? Dave Kings kids by the looks of things.

That's the deal. The role of Club1872 members is simply to hand over money when asked, on the pretext they're playing a part in securing fan ownership. The reality, as you've just made clear, is very different.

Is he actually an Athenian b...ard? Sorry.

Personally, I never trusted the underlying assumption that you could deliver security by Club1872 owning shares but, that aside, the evangelical support for Club1872 has always worried me. The belief that any laudable objective could be achieved by an organisation that from the outset was so clearly displaying the same profound flaws as its predecessors was very dubious. Despite all the money donated by fans of goodwill, it seems to me nothing has really changed. Rangers is no more or less secure for all the shares bought and Club1872 is essentially just the latest platform for supporter politics and personal ambitions. Still, at least we all know how it plays out from here.

In reality you deserve what you get. Particularly so in this case.

I fully support Robert Marshals latest efforts , however given his part in the Rf debacle which allowed club1872 to start its quite ironic how this has turned out. Ive passed my details onto him so hopefully he gets enough support . I have absolutely no faith in this current board , the whole debacle around the Craig Houston affair ended it for me , since then there has been no meetings , virtually no correspondence and no elections , or at least that I am aware off.