Jump to content

 

 

WATP_Greg

Members
  • Posts

    355
  • Joined

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Will need to post a poll to sort out how the gersnet life membership will vote on the AGM resolutions
  2. Would everyone be happy if the above selection was the 1872 board?
  3. Happy getting the 3 we proposed in - will be interesting to see how this correlates with the actual vote
  4. Thats not the point I'm discussing - Interest free loans were mooted in early RF meetings to account for that though shares would obviously satisfy that too. But there are activities that would come under the 'project' cic that would have no direct bearing on the value of any outside company and my point is that if you only choose to have projects for shares you may be limiting the capabilities of the projects - but if thats what members want then I'm fine with it.
  5. What if its not an asset - not all CIC projects result in assests being created, they could be activities funded by 1872 to benefit the community? My point is that there is flexibility in the CIC rules and 1872 need to discuss with members what they want to do with the projects - to narrow it down to "All projects must be in return for shares" is not a decision that has been made by members yet and would narrow the scope of what projects could be performed - if that is the choice of the members then fine but that hasn't been the case yet
  6. Re the last point - what if 1872 want to do a project that isn't in conjunction with the club? The prerequisite is benefiting The Rangers Community
  7. I vehemently disagree with your take on JB snags - James didn't say that there is no indication that 1872 wouldn't own a project - he was responding to someone asking if 1872 must retain the asset value of a project. Projects aren't completely defined within 1872 and it will be up to the new board to liaise with members and then vote on the exact procedure and capabilities If you look Asset Lock guidance it clarifies it a bit: 6.1.1. A transfer of assets must satisfy certain requirements This means that, subject to the CIC meeting its obligations, its assets must either be retained within the CIC to be used for the community purposes for which it was formed, or, if they are transferred out of the CIC, the transfer must satisfy one of the following requirements:  It is made for full market value so that the CIC retains the value of the assets transferred;  It is made to another asset-locked body (a CIC or charity, a registered society or non-UK based equivalent) which is specified in the CIC’s Articles of Association;  It is made to another asset locked body with the consent of the Regulator; or  It is made for the benefit of the community. Provision to this effect must be included in a CIC’s Articles. CICs are also able to adopt asset lock rules that impose more stringent requirements, provided they also include these basic provisions. I will be voting for James really hope he gets on and believe that it will benefit 1872.
  8. There was a complaints procedure bud - a member of this forum in fact claimed that I had no right to stand for the board and put a complaint in! The petition was designed to stop/delay the vote on whether to proceed with the club 1872 proposal - whether you agree with JMcG's reasoning or not I think thats a fair assessmen. Personally I found it rather frustrating at the time as there was (and still is) a large amount of misinformation regarding the proposal. I really don't know who will get on the board - There has been a lot of noise around various candidates and it'll be interesting to see the rest of the hustings.
  9. Starters: Foderingham Tavernier Wallace Barton Kranjcar McKay Waghorn. For me the other positions are all up for grabs but the above will play in the major games.
  10. How does it work? I think 1872 have a forwarded version of the email would that suffice?
  11. Sounds like a way to sort this mate. Either way it's better to have this resolved
  12. Well produce the email that says she knows who it is and is covering it up as that has become a generally accepted part of your narrative on RM - which I think is grossly misrepresenting someone who is trying to help.
  13. I spoke to BP and have no reason to question his integrity - he doesn't think that the emails are faked as they look legitimate to him. There are some on RM who are definetly just out to cause trouble but he's not in that category imo
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.