Soulsonic5791

Just now, aweebluesoandso said:

I don't think that idea was ever really meant to be a goer, more a ruse to scare the asset stripers Green /Ashley co.

5 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

I know. Why don't we create a season ticket monies escrow account? Now where have I heard that idea before...

Unfortunately, there's no sarcasm emoticon mate or I'd have used that instead.

I wasn't being serious.

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

I'd agree with your first point.

 

The club has used some of its assets as security to obtain funding from Close Brothers. The club are unlikely to be willing to give away security to the support when they may need it to keep existing funding and obtain additional funding over the next few years.

I know. Why don't we create a season ticket monies escrow account? Now where have I heard that idea before...

1 minute ago, aweebluesoandso said:

So size does matter lol

Aye, with conditions attached!

2 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said:

What makes the guys (Bears), who gave the soft loans to the club, any different from the Bears as members of C1872?

The simple answer, on the surface, is 'none'. But we all know that assertion doesn't hold any water don't we.

7 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said:

I thought buying half of the Ashley share block was a good thing at the time, but looking back with hindsight, now with the share dilution coming up, i'm not to sure now. Better the members money was given as soft loans like others did, C1872 would now have £1mil converted to shares undiluted. But i don't think the fans money was ever wanted for soft loans, wonder why that is?

A very good question. I've got a rough idea as to the answer as I'm sure loads of other people do too.

Does anyone think that Chris Graham's Twitter feed wasn't checked before his invite was sent out?

Is this 'strategy' of 'giving' cash a sensible one? Doesn't seem so to me. The stand at Auchenhowie would surely have been a sensible starting point for taking the temperature of whether the board's bluster actually had any basis in fact and potentially translate to actually owning or having a security on a fixed asset. 

When I read that cash had been handed over to the 'good cause' of a 'stand to watch the boys', I shook my head in disbelief.

Just now, Bluedell said:

The RFFF cash has been used to build seating and changing rooms beside one of the pitches at Auchenhowie.

I know what it is being used for. I was meaning the ins and outs of the cash disposal.

5 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I'd agree with your first point.

 

The club has used some of its assets as security to obtain funding from Close Brothers. The club are unlikely to be willing to give away security to the support when they may need it to keep existing funding and obtain additional funding over the next few years.

Therein lies the crux of the problem in my eyes....transparency. Let's talk to a merchant banker for a tap but a fans vehicle which is answerable to the rank and file paying punter? Draw your own conclusions on that one.

Can anyone enlighten me with regard to the RFFF money to be used at Auchenhowie, who controlled the handing over of that cash? Couldn't that have been used to 'acquire an asset'?

Bluedell? Any thoughts?

18 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

It's a fair point. It would be easy enough in theory for RIFC to sell the shares in TRFC to another company. I'm sure it was something that I raised when Green first floated the shares. We own shares in a holding company and not the club itself.

 

It would also be easy to do a rights issue and really dilute C1872's shares.

 

RF was set up with a view to owning some of the club's assets under a CIC. RST had one too. I believe both companies are still in place so the vehicles are still there to do that.

 

The problem is that we've seen that these organisations can be hijacked quite easily. We had the situation that one person controlled all of C1872's cash (and may still do). Would we want such a situation to emerge? The nature of a CIC should prevent abuse, but I think further investigation would be required.

 

Having the fans as secured creditors may not work as the security is needed elsewhere.

Using a CIC to acquire club assets is highly ambitious and I'd need to be convinced of how realistic a goal that is.

When you say '....as the security is needed elsewhere.' Bluedell, can you elaborate please. What exactly do you mean?

Having read Gaffer's recent comments, I would imagine that his feelings would be reflected amongst a multitude of fans who would like to contribute in some form but are unsure what it is that they would be backing. When Rangers First was established I seriously contemplated making a contribution but never went through with it. Why? The underlying objectives were unclear other than acquiring a shareholding. I must admit that as a lapsed member of the RST, I was skeptical of this organisation especially in light of the trust's 'Student Loans' fallout. What made me doubly skeptical of it was, as soon as the board assumed power, moves were put in place to amalgamate the various fan's bodies who had a shareholding. Why was this? What purpose did it truly serve? Then the new fan body proposals were sent out to season ticket holders (as if they were stakeholders) to vote on. When Alex Macdonald and Willie Henderson were wheeled out at Ibrox to promote it I was completely turned off. Then there was the board members resignations and the Craig Houston stuff which didn't exactly help the image.

Here's a thought - let's imagine for a second that King, Park and the rest sell up. The new 'owners' decide to return to the Easdale/Ashley model of running the club at a loss but have the usual floating charges on the assets etc etc. What happens to Club 1872's shareholding if they decide to further dilute through the issuing of new equity to themselves (as Dave and Chums are doing currently) or far worse (and God forbid) fold the thing up? The fans would be stiffed again. Under the current ownership model, it would make more sense to me if the fans were secured creditors.

How realistic this is (if indeed it's not already been explored by Club1872 or is the case in some fashion) I'm not too sure.

Was going to cite the 50 plus one rule that Rousseau mentions.

To use a McCoistism, let's be brutally frank here, unless there is a chance to make serious profits on the back of investment no wealthy individual is going to invest in a football club. Wealthy benefactors for the most part are an absolute myth. That applies as much at the bottom as it does at the very top of the game. Do people honestly believe that the likes of Ian Maxwell at Partick Thistle are hanging about because of an everlasting love of the Jags? Even with the paltry gates they get some profit must see its way into the owners pockets, however small.

We need to devise a way of safeguarding the club in perpetuity but allow corporate interests (regardless of club affection) a slice of the action. A symbiosis if you will, but one which is weighted slightly in the 'fans'/club's' favour. Removal of the profit motive is counterproductive but it can be harnessed to tempt people/groups/institutions to invest. Most fans would be happy for any profit to be recycled into the club in some form. Whereas your corporate interest would prefer to take dividends to satisfy the needs of individuals or funds etc.

I don't know enough about the exact ins and outs but from the outside looking in, it would appear to me at least, that any momentum a genuine fan ownership vehicle had during the run up to the recent takeover was effectively halted in its tracks when its usefulness to the current incumbents had been exhausted.

Having read the comments on the thread, I find myself still scratching my head with regard to fan involvement with the management of the club.

Does anyone agree that the shareholder interests among the differing equity blocks in all likelihood vary significantly in nature? 

As such, I'd love to find out what the number one priority of each shareholding is with regard to the reasons for buying shares. Therein lies the potential for a fundamental disconnect between fan investment and other investors. Club wellbeing aside, I struggle to see the current impasse between the varying interests being resolved to the satisfaction of the 'fans' anytime soon.

Would the offer of a secured loan from Club 1872 result in the organisation being viewed differently from the board's perspective?

Would Club 1872 seek to defer any potential future dividend in return for something else?

Did the RFFF money which is being used for the stand etc. at Auchenhowie have any conditions attached?

All investors want some sort of return. The difference is how the return manifests itself.

There's no hysteria on my part on the back of two bad results. I have been watching the management of the club with a keen eye for decades, and D'Artagnan raises some valid points with regard to our chairman. We have been told on several occasions that money has been spent on infrastructure. This may well be the case and visually evident in areas of the club's operations that the average fan has zero access to. Having said that, other than scaffolding being present on the roof of the Govan Stand, some bunting, turnstile faceplates and a change of paint colour in the dressing rooms, I see very little evidence of this supposed sizeable capital expenditure. I'm not being churlish here. The back of the Copland doesn't even get lit up sufficiently on a midweek match night! Please feel free to educate me on this if I'm way wide of the mark. I genuinely want to be informed of outlay demonstrables.

But back to King and Co. The way that they (the board) courted McInnes regardless of lots of us not really fancying him, was an embarrassment. This was on the back of the drawn out farce of recruiting Pedro and all that subsequently ensued during his disastrous tenure. To then compound those errors by giving the job to an u20s coach smacks of either discord at the top or amateur management; at least on the face of it. But we all know that these guys in their other business interests can hardly be classed as amateurs. King is the chairman and by extension the club's figurehead. As such, the support naturally looks to him to provide leadership. Okay, Stewart Robertson makes the odd appearance in delegated matters, but for important issues King takes charge and we hardly look to Douglas Park or his son for leadership do we?

And just for the record for anyone that's interested - I'm no Merlin stooge or acolyte.

2 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

In what manner can we get a good manager,there is no top manager available and any that are considered to be so, may be after being sacked for not getting their team to where directors/fans want them to be.Thus we have the situation of appointing someone who has failed elsewhere or remaining with the status quo as i don't see the sense in going for someone untried at our level.Therefore it might make sense to stick with Murty.

Cold hard cash might prove to be a useful instrument in attracting and securing a proven manager. Remuneration and a realistic player transfer budget are essential in that respect. The question is 'are the board willing to countenance spending some?'

I suspect I already know the answer to that but I'll open it to the floor...

What chance a good manager? Their appointment track record isn't exactly reassuring.

And for what it's worth, I'm not sure that it is the case anymore that if the playing side is going well, other aspects of how the club is run being marginalised to the same extent that it has in the relatively recent past.

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

That could depend entirely on what happens over the Summer.  

So you are thinking along similar lines to me Gonzo79. The close season will undoubtedly crystallise many fans opinions of this board. The ready made excuse of being hamstrung by not having access to the revenue stream of replica strips and merchandising in general will be nigh on impossible to be cited again by King et al. Are the power-brokers truly serious about halting Celtic's dominance in the short term?

I remain to be convinced.

In my opinion, D'Artagnan makes several valid points re King and the board.

2 hours ago, D'Artagnan said:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

(George Santayana)

 

Allow me to summarise briefly. The Panel of Takeovers and Mergers ruled that the current custodians of our club did not act properly in their acquisition of same, determining they had acted as a concert party and consequently, having control of 30% of the business were thus compelled to make an offer to investors for the remaining shares.

 

This was denied by Dave King who took the decision to the Court of Session where his legal argument was rejected by Lord Bannatyne. The Advocate for the takeover Panel highlighted during the hearing an e-mail from George Letham to Dave King which cautioned King about the consequences of exceeding the 30% benchmark. These warnings clearly went unheeded.

 

Subsequently King was ordered to make an £11 million offer to the Club’s remaining shareholders despite the fact  King’s lawyer argued that his client could not afford to make such an offer.

 

If alarm bells are not sounding amongst our support – they certainly should be.

 

When Laura Fawkes, a Director of Club 1872, challenged Dave King at the 2017 AGM with regard to the recruitment of a replacement manager, the timescales as well as apparent failure to put in place previous assurances given with regard to succession planning, Dave King responded as follows:

 

“As far as the manager, I don’t accept the comment you’ve made. It’s difficult to put a time limit on it. The issue with Pedro was not one of succession planning, there’s maybe a perception that Pedro was doomed to failure. It wasn’t my view, I don’t think it was the board’s view, we continued to back Pedro. Ultimately results speak for themselves and having taken action we were extremely aware that this is going to be a 3 year appointment. We have got to be a careful we don’t let adverse results distract us from the process and I’m personally happy that we have taken the correct amount of time.”

 

After 68 days we had still failed to appoint a new manager and eventually installed the youth coach Graham Murty, as temporary manager. That remains the status quo at the time of writing.

 

Our club is one home defeat away from our worst ever series of home performances on record. In terms of assessment of our club’s progress, rebuilding and vision to reclaim the top spot in domestic football, it serves as more of an indictment than a positive indicator of continuous and steady improvement.

 

I would hope by now the alarm bells are loud enough to suggest a major headache is imminent.

 

Any honeymoon period which the current board deserved is now at an end. It is fine being beholden to them for rescuing us but they need to be judged by the job they are doing now and if that is deemed unsatisfactory or below standard then criticism should be forthcoming.

 

Not silence.

Maybe Laura et al are regretting rushing to move their offices into Ibrox?

King's tone when addressing a representative of a significant shareholder said it all in my opinion.

The goodwill that the board deservedly garnered amongst the support when they relieved Llambias, Leach and the Easdales of the reins of power is on the wane.

How long before it is truly exhausted?

Does anyone feel optimistic about the semi on the back of that performance today? 

Can Murty really be appointed full-time going forward now given that his record at home is worse than Pedro's? Taken together, the worst home record for a century!

Not only that, this was against a team that had played 120 minutes in midweek and yet they looked sharper than us if not for the whole match, certainly for the vast majority of it.

Harsh? Randy 'The Ram' Robinson would've been proud of Jozo's efforts.

Watching it live and in real-time at the game, it looked obvious that Simunovic knew what he was doing with a typical piece of Balkan cynicism and that it wasn't a flailing arm. Whether Morelos made a meal of it or not is a moot point. And for the record, I don't think Alfie did.

Yet another instance of the victim card being played by a guy who threatened to stop the '86 League Cup final by taking his players off the pitch. And all the more hypocritical of him as he was fond of 'leaving one on' his opponents during his playing days.

Reknaw.

Hi All,

Just wanted to say hullo and that I look forward to conversing with everyone!

Cheers.