Teddybears1981

Again! Benefits to all with 5% or more. Club1872 as a supporters initiative, goes way beyond the realms of a standard shareholder. The majority of the assets in its possession, are primarily to prosper the football club. That puts us in a unique position.

I would define a share investment as a tangible asset.

Theoretically speaking! If I'm elected on the premise of honesty and transparency, ergo, insuring members have the ability to make an informed decision.

...Can I also add! Requiring shares in return, or anything for that matter, Will be solely dependant on the project and whom it's associated with...And whom it benefits.

Personally! I wouldn't limit it to shares. More so, because I'm mindful that would require the removal of Preemption rights. But, of course the members will ultimately decide. J

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

Whereas, if the project was renovating Ibrox, there is no way of retaining the value of transfer, unless the Plc offer some sort of financial recompense with similar value. "Benefitting the community" is not applicable in this scenario.

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.

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.