Jump to content

 

 

WATP_Greg

Members
  • Posts

    355
  • Joined

Posts posted by WATP_Greg

  1. Which I've alluded to!

    No projects can "Benefit the community" on areas owned within the Plc portfolio.

    Those projects would require a return on the balance sheet.

    That's not up for discussion in this instance, Greg. It's within the guidance.

     

    You could handover over money to the Plc and right it off as expenditure.

    Although, the regulator would never allow it in those circumstances nor would members, I presume.

     

    The question should always be how we benefit Club1872 and the "Community" ...The "FC" will always benefit if we stick to that principal.

    J

     

    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.

  2. Then we retain the asset on the balance sheet. Full value of that project would be owned by the "Project CIC"

    For example! If the project was a fanzone not on land owned by RIFC Plc. That would comply, in my opinion.

     

    We are "Benifitting the community" as in those associated with the FC. Not the Plc, which is not within that guidance provision.

     

    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

  3. Just in response to your opinion on distributing shares on a non-preemptive basis.

    Considering the current platform is a "matched bargain" system, with no "fair value" understanding...It's a buyers market.

    I see no reason why club1872 can't continue to look to the secondary market, as evidenced recently with the purchase of circa 1m shares at 0.27p from an unknown buyer.

     

    In regards to the "well runs dry" metaphor!

    There are others means of settling credit on a non-preemptive basis...for example. Non-cash consideration voting rights.

    Standard Security/with no accrued interest, To name a couple.

     

    Club1872's interests aren't for that of investors. That's not the case with the Plc. We must protect the small-shareholders whom we might need in the near future.

     

    In terms of explaining "dilution..." I alluded to this in my Hustings presentation. If club1872 own 6% of RIFC Plc, and the Plc place 1m shares to New Oasis Asset Ltd. The share capital of the Plc has increased, ergo club1872 would now own circa 5% of a company which has 84m issued shares, where it was previously had 83m/6% .

     

    "Clawback" may be applicable and offer certain protection to other shareholders from dilution..."medium term." But that requires a Share Issue, which maybe years away.

     

    We also need a negotiating tool! We can't simply support a Plc with votes that can hinder our aims and objectives. It must be a bilateral arrangement. To this date, that hasn't been the case.

     

    100% agree with your last point.

     

    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

  4. The election process has been interesting to say the least.

     

    SDS have been blamed with "not vetting" applications which is not accurate at all. I approached SDS for comment and was told that they were there as a third party to ensure that applications met the criteria set out on the club 1872 website, which the majority did. They actually rejected 2 that didn't...

     

    At this point the Club1872 working party have a duty to protect it's members and if indeed donohoes statement is untrue, they reject it... as in any normal application process, if it does not meet criteria or is misleading you reject it, simple as that. you don't even need a statement....What happens next is a leading statement and a barrage of email reminders to advise you pretty much to not to vote for him...very unprofessional. to be clear i'm not defending donohoe however i feel he could have been handled in a more professional manner, it looks like a PR stunt.

     

    the points bearger kindly highlighted above are very interesting, in that James blair has been asked if club1872 would own any assets and he doesn't believe they would under the projects CIC which begs the question, what is it actually for? is it community benefiting or is it plc benefitting....time will tell. The removal of pre-emption rights could kill the FO dream forever, you could suggest that the PLC want to protect their investment and shareholding , the removal of those rights means they can go to any party and offer them shares without having to offer them to other shareholders instantly diluting the other shareholders shares. For a better explanation watch the final hustings video, Mr Mcgookin articulates it very well. The board may be Rangers fans but i'm sure they would also like a return on their investment, which makes them very different to you or me IMO. 2012 has taught me you cannot trust everyone, just because they own and run RFC.

     

    Which leads me on to my next point, COI, I've heard varying statements on this "he could walk out the room", "we all have a COI because we are rangers fans". The fact of the matter is if JB has to make a call which would not directly benefit the PLC or damage it's market rep in some way then he's going to choose the PLC every time, You cannot state that this will never happen and it HAS to be considered, The PLC pay his law firm for his legal services and there is a chance he will have a competition clause in his contract which will protect the PLC. It's no surprise he's offering another year to finish the work he started...i'm sure he has worked tirelessly but ii don't believe he should be standing.

     

    I find it odd that some candidates have been picked over others or "invited" to appear in the newspapers, I don't think it's a coincidence that they are RST-backed members either, each person has their own unique story to tell and it should be a catch -all process so everyone has a fair chance. Alex Wilson appearing is not a surprise, he's Paul Murrays friend and was one of the blue knights, so folk would be naturally interested in his involvement .

     

    OMOV -it's important to remember that the club1872 board have an influence over it's members, "do you wish to unite the fans groups?", This is a Leading statement i.e Prompting desired answer, so in this case it leads you into voting yes because if you vote no you don't wish to unite fans groups... are we really surprised it was an "overwhelming majority"? of which less than 3k voted...if we can afford to pay for 50k leaflets to put around the stadium, advertising space (all non-member approved purchases) in the stadia and press room we can surely afford to reach out to the offline member base and encourage them to vote via another medium... text, telephone, postal, paper... etc.? I can see why tannochside bear thinks this is a heavily slanted process, from the outside looking in, it certainly appears that way.

     

    This board will have a collective responsibility of over £1m in fans cash, each and every one of you should be able to trace your donation from start to finish, without question. Absolute transparency.

     

    I'd like to take this opportunity to wish good luck to all candidates and i hope you hear and share some of the concerns raised in this thread, all very pertinent and concerning.

     

    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.

  5. as far as i'm aware the petition was published to highlight that there was no formal complaints procedure for RF and also due to requests falling on deaf ears, Raised by a young man who cared about the organisation he supported and was unwilling to be "pushed" in a direction he didn't want it to go, fair play to him.

     

    I don't believe Club1872 have a formal complaints procedure either and i doubt we'll see the board implement one as a priority,.

     

    It seems the default response is...oh but look you only got 68 signatures... what an absolute shame.

     

    I simply cannot see success under the new board structure which will likely be

     

    Craig Houston

    Steve Sinclair

    D'Art

    James Blair

    Laura Akers

    Joanne Percival

    Alex Wilson

     

    A mix of RST and friends of the board and then D'art who is well respected and i love his written work, i fear he'd be the silent minority.

     

    "It's a democracy, get over it", "one member one vote"

     

    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.

  6. As a technical minded person, I fail to see why this hasn't been easily resolved.

    Firstly, anyone with the correct knowledge could easily prove one way or another who's right or wrong here.

    Not only would the original headers of the email contain information that can be tied in with server logs , mail server logs and or original email headers would prove both ways who's right and who's wrong.

    I would point out screenshots of text means jack, and for what it's worth you can easily spoof an email address without hacking someone's server, however you cannot spoof the correct server IP within the email header.

     

    Simples...

     

    Just wasted about an hour of my life i'll never get back reading this thread, and would have closed it had Frankie not just replied before me.

    So, i'll leave it with the offer of my services to both Mr Gates, and Club 1872 to get in touch if they would like an independent technical person to overview the emails and/or server logs.

     

    Sounds like a way to sort this mate. Either way it's better to have this resolved

  7. I can only go by her email responses to me Greg.

     

    And then her follow up failure to respond to 3 mails and 2 calls to her. But hey, they have further information. I'm sure you'll be able to find what this is and release it.

     

    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.

  8. My initial reaction was that it was disappointing that he had stood and was only able to commit to 3.5 months, thus keeping someone else from taking the place on the board, but these things do happen, and it's probably not an issue given the emergence of the new organisation.

     

    I think I should put in context that it's over the summer (from now on basically) is where I'll experience a severely increased work load and by the time that period is done we are into the first elections for 1872 and I don't intend on standing. Also the fact that as franky says I'm easy to find online I don't want my absence or lack of knowledge due to that absense reflect poorly on the org who I know are doing a tremendous amount of work.

     

    As I have said if anyone needs me I'll do my best and I am fully supportive of the project and genuinely believe it to be something that can be amazing for the support and the club.

  9. It would be great as a first step if fans owned 25% of the club. ..hopefully next one would be to aim for the likes of bundesliege sides like Borussia Dortmund.

    Sugar daddies are getting scarcer and eventually we'll run out of 'Gers supporters who've got serious money

     

    TBH I think 25%+1 share is a good target and above that I think there is an element of diminishing returns - though I'm open to be swayed :)

  10. Sorry I'm not sure what your getting at , Narsa didn't make a mistake they were quite clearly told he was coming at the clubs behest and at their cost , whoever told them that from inside the club obviously got it wrong , this has nothing to do with who was or is going , it's over what we the fans are getting told

     

    I don't think that is clear mate - I looked through NARSA's tweets there and the only thing I have seen is that "guest of the club" comment and unless there was deleted tweets I can't see anything else.

  11. Sorry Greg if you took that as any sort of dig at yourself I apologise for any confusion , I've said many times on here and RM I believe you are one of the guys I fully trust , even though we disagree on the COI point

     

    I didn't think you were having a go at me mate (though It does look like I thought you did reading it back:shock:)

     

    Thanks!

  12. And it was a simple answer , go back and read what they said in their election pitches , if you are happy with what happened against what they said prior to the election then fine , it's no big deal

     

    Fair enough - Thought that was a pointed accusation rather than a general remark.

     

    I personally stood on improved communication - now for all that has went on I feel I have put a good number of hours into that and have stuck as well as I could to that pledge.

×
×
  • 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.