rea
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by rea
-
i would think most of the discussion would be about raising the money not spending it
-
I believe you have signed the "pledge" If during the one year term a directors business becomes a customer of the Club should they immediately stand down as a director of RF?
-
The Rangers Independent Fans Consortium Ltd (another group?)
rea replied to buster.'s topic in Rangers Chat
Spot on summary -
Far be it for me to agree with you...but in regards to SD you are entirely correct
-
Round and round the garden: Supporters representation games continue...
rea replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
Conflicts of Interest are a legal issue and are dealt with by the sitting board concerned, normally by declaration of any conflict relating to the agenda to be discussed at that board meeting. For whatever reason the phrase "you've got a conflict of interest" appears to be being used as an equivalent to "you cannot and should not stand for election to RF" This is simply wrong, and in some cases seems to be being used by some candidates to malign others...i suspect this strategy is proving to be entirely transparent, now, to those with votes and could well now be on the way to spectacularly backfire There are well established recusal processes for a board member to remove themselves from any discussion for which a conflict occurs. the reality is that in most well functioning boards even though a member may declare an interest to a discussion the rest of the board is normally still confident in the character of the individual concerned to work in an unbiased way. -
The Rangers Independent Fans Consortium Ltd (another group?)
rea replied to buster.'s topic in Rangers Chat
I am happy to vouch for Greg being committed to a member driver RF and that he is not involved in any other project that would take away from this commitment. -
No problem we will just have to agree to disagree, as i do not feel the vision of RF is vague. Enjoy
-
It is of course up to you to do as you wish, it is just great that you are doing something. However both organisations would require to ask their members about taking a majority stake. RF because it has said it will consult its members. BR because that is the rules of most Community share issue that when you get to the point of potentially taking control you have to ask all the members if they would rather withdraw their share capital. I expect the wording for this will be in the scheme rules somewhere. So for any indeed either scheme to actually take on the liability of 51% or indeed as the ownership is via a PLC over 29.9% (as you then have to offer for the full 100%) you would have to revert the issue and the cost to the membership. hope that makes sense. P.S also worth noting that none of the current parties who "control" the club have a personal or even collective shareholding via proxy of anywhere near 50% + 1
-
Greg is a member and has rightly pointed out that, while he is perhaps (greg you can confirm) not in favour of a greater than 50% ownership (putting aside that the PLC rules make this really difficult anyway) that it will be upto the membership to decide what to do once RF gets past its first target of 5%. The principals that RF stands for have been clearly (i hope) articulated, see the video for a summary of the A.C.T principals All members have committed to be guided by the rule of the majority of the members and fundamentally put Rangers First
-
As i say Rf has been about taking the best from each model but in a way that can be legally applied in UK law. The sort of legal structures used in Germany for all except about 4 team simply do not exist in a similar form in the UK. Though interesting some ammendments to a law going through Edinburgh from the Green Party are (sort of) trying to alter this
-
Indeed, a great deal of research has been done. There is no one size fits all, and the Fan owned history of many of the larger European Clubs has more to do with the model they find themselves using that perhaps how they would chose to be structured should they be presented with the "blank sheet of paper" option, which is where RF started. Choosing the best bits from everything but in the context of what the legal structures available in the UK are and what lessons could also be learned from other UK examples. also important to note that no model is a Panacea....it is not that FO is guaranteed to work or work better but what is guaranteed is the fundamental funders of any Club (the Fans) will have transparency to respond to actual facts in the Clubs running
-
The only stated policy of RF is to initially get to 5% which in a PLC gives you certain rights, then 10 and 25% which give you other rights. Upto the members what to do next depending on the ACT principal. Ending at a minority stake is certainly not the policy
-
In neither a CIC membership scheme or a Community Share issue do you own directly the shares in any Club
-
whatever you do key is to join something rather than nothing and join it at a price you can afford, and always check the small print, remember a Community Share purchase financial product that is exempt from regulation....(for reason i will not bore you with)
-
In a community share issue you do indeed get a Community share that is (sort of) in the Trust that issues it. This share is technically transferable and can be withdrawn and issue a dividend to the owner of the share, although it is only at the approval of the board of the trust who run the scheme and while you need to be a member of the issuing supporters trust to buy Community Shares you do not need to be a Community Share owner to be a member of the trust. So the decisions to pay back a Community Share can be made or influenced by those that are not actually contributing to the scheme. Also there can be issues in Community Shares schemes that are invested at a fixed price (e.g the price you pay for the Comm Share) but that are used to buy something with a variable price e.g a PLC or quoted product, as you can end up chasing cash, especially is share have to be cashed in upon the death of the shareholder. But as you say you do get to say that you actually own something, a Community Share in a Supporter Trust A pure membership scheme also has pros and cons, but specifically the CIC model mitigates a number of these. A low price entry point that is not fixed, like a Community Share price must be, mean the membership can adjust the price point as circumstances change or aims and objectives are met. For example a CIC could reduce the membership fee to a £1 per annum once it had achieved its purchase of the shares in any club....it could even make membership free......key is it would be upto the members to decide. While in a CIC that starts as a membership scheme you are indeed not buying a "share" just a membership, once a membership has been established this can in fact if the members want to be changed and the CIC can in fact issue shares to those that have been members, via a few routes. If you do chose to contribute the generous sum of say £50 per month their is nothing to stop you reducing this to the minimum at any point, the CIC however can recognise you larger capital contribution at a later stage if the members want to. In either even no matter how much you put in as either community shares or CIC membership you only get one vote The Key to a CIC CLBG initial membership scheme is its flexibilty, it can respond to the wishes of its members with its members money, that is why i like them.
-
Yes it is that simple. Pay what you can afford, if what you can afford changes over time you can pay less to a minimum of £5. Should the scheme eventually achieve its aims then the members will be able to decide what happens to the fee, and could remove it altogether or make it minimal. A CIC is a flexible, member controlled organisation, its members will decide.
-
Hope to get the notes from the last two meeting up tomorrow. Changes being made to website to allow it. First notes were sent out when you registered.
-
A maximum of 1% will be drawn from monthly DD to cover the costs of collection. Other expenses to be funded from commercial activity. There will be no separate membership fee, and no separate cost cover fee. The minimum monthly donation that will enable you to be a voting member of the CIC will be £5 per month, though it will be possible to give more and U16 will be free. You can contribute from anywhere in the world on the same basis. The members will be in control and will have full transparency of the spending of #RangersFirst
-
The adaption is that you treat HNWI individuals as investors that get a return. rather than investors getting a bigger say. of course many different models can work, this is just what i proposed that you can donate per month as much as you like for OMOV or you can put more money in (if you can self certify) but get a return. Part of the Portsmouth Model works on this basis.
-
Thanks for this a few corrections but nothing major. Main ones a CIC can be established with Coop Articles which is what i refered to, thus ensuring OMOV You are correct that SDS is a committee of SD rather than company in its own right, and it may or may not be able to be legally or from a policy point of view be a Corp Director of a CIC, the relevant point is its facilitation of the working group as that is what SDS is about, increasing the capacity of Fans to engage with community ownership, not if someone is a trustee or not
-
Lol...i put a lot of thought into that waist coat! As I said at the meeting one of the biggest issues with someone coming in from the outside is always the "what is in it for you" question.....and how you actually go about showing there is no hidden agenda. so happy to make the same pledge as at the meeting that if someone has any reasonable and specific issue thought or concern about any perceived hidden agenda I am happy to contract, sign or pledge publicly with regard to that issue so that it is completely and irrevocably ruled out. Hopefully I cannot say fairer than that. though anything to do with waistcoat wearing is OTT!
-
You mean 4 shares a month? It is a community share issue so diff from an foh style donation to a CLBG
-
Supporters Trust is an IPS I believe so CBS model.
-
that is not my experience of how it works. Some companies do run with unissued share capital most do not in my experience. From a PLC point of view it is all to do with dilution differences between the selling of new shares v the public issue of pre existing ones
-
Great Stuff.