Jings - Leggoland

[forlanssister 3,060]

It's ironic that had GerSave functioned the way it was intended then there would have been nothing to return to members.

[3909 04 0]

It's ironic that had GerSave functioned the way it was intended then there would have been nothing to return to members.

 

That thought had occurrred to me also! If the money had been invested in Rangers, it would have been flushed down the crapper.

 

The RST's failure to do anything material with the funds actually saved investors' money.

 

Go figure, as they say.

[Bluedell 5,356]

Stirring stuff. Does it ever occur to you that the RST is seen as a good idea which has thus far failed comprehensively in its aims, chiefly because of the singular lack of trust on the part of most of the support in the Trust's long-standing key figures?

 

I've no doubt Bluedell will rush on to refute my contention but his denial makes the facts no less true.

 

Jumping to conclusions I've been critical of the RST in many posts.

 

I actually believe that the RST has not been as successful as it would like due more to fan apathy rather than the trust issue, particularly in respect of the off-line community but wouldn't disagree that trust is still a major issue, and it may be a major factor in respect of the buyrangers.org campaign that the RST are trying to promote.

[plgsarmy 111]

Stirring stuff. Does it ever occur to you that the RST is seen as a good idea which has thus far failed comprehensively in its aims, chiefly because of the singular lack of trust on the part of most of the support in the Trust's long-standing key figures?

 

I've no doubt Bluedell will rush on to refute my contention but his denial makes the facts no less true.

 

So, you know that 'most of the support' feels like this do you? What utter nonsense, perhaps you should broaden your outlook beyond a couple of websites. The main reason that we were unable to take forward fan ownership was due to one person owning 90%+ of shares.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

oh bluedell doesn't always support the rst but he does know what he's talking about and doesn't work to an agenda.

[3909 04 0]

So, you know that 'most of the support' feels like this do you? What utter nonsense, perhaps you should broaden your outlook beyond a couple of websites. The main reason that we were unable to take forward fan ownership was due to one person owning 90%+ of shares.

 

I'd say the fact that the RST membership, of which I was proudly one, never rose above 1,600 kind of proves the point. Unless you consider that 1,600 members can realistically constitute a majority of the Rangers support?

 

Yes, 90%+ of the share ownership was in one man's hands. We all see the folly of one man owning such a giant chunk of the club. So why is the RST membership still showing no sign of growing?

 

Whatever the reason for Bears' refusal to enlist, it's not because of words I post on here. Somthing/someone is discouraging Rangers fans from joining a body designed to increase fan ownership.

 

What do you think it might be?

[plgsarmy 111]

I'd say the fact that the RST membership, of which I was proudly one, never rose above 1,600 kind of proves the point. Unless you consider that 1,600 members can realistically constitute a majority of the Rangers support?

 

Yes, 90%+ of the share ownership was in one man's hands. We all see the folly of one man owning such a giant chunk of the club. So why is the RST membership still showing no sign of growing?

 

Whatever the reason for Bears' refusal to enlist, it's not because of words I post on here. Somthing/someone is discouraging Rangers fans from joining a body designed to increase fan ownership.

 

What do you think it might be?

 

We're sitting at more than 1600 now. I think that the £10 membership is a factor but, more importantly, the vast majority of fans are mostly interested in what is happening on the pitch. However we have 22K following us on Twitter and over £16K likes on Facebook which I believe is more than any other fans groups or websites.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

most rangers fans are not masons but to equate that to a dislike or misstrust of masonry would be incorrect.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Point me to the rule that stated refunds of contributions were not allowed other than on death.

 

Rule 14.1 states when contributions MUST be made but they are not precluded from being made at other times anywhere in the rules.

 

I beg to disagree with this interpretation. Prior to the changes that were agreed in October 2009, the rules stated:

 

RULE: 14 REPAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS

 

14.1

 

In the event that a member:

 

(i) dies

(ii) resigns his membership of the Society, or

(iii) is removed from Membership.........

 

14.2 .... the Administratoors shall decide, in their sole discretion whether to (i) transfer to that member.......(ii) sell....and return the cash to the member (iii) retain the shares....and return the cash equivalent.

 

I am indebted to plg for reminding me that one of the issuses was that otherwise than dieing a member had to resign or be removed (expelled) in order for the administrators to exercise their discretion. So what I should have made clear is that a MEMBER (of RST) could only get a refund on death (or as plg correctly states, his estate). This did not happen, refunds were routinely made to members on request.

 

In my opinion it is clear from the fact that there was such a section in the rules, does mean that these were the only circumstances in which refunds could be made. The rule didn't say "or any other circumstances that the administrators/ board shall decide".

 

The board clearly agreed with this interpretation and de facto accepted that the rules had been broken because they agreed to the new paragraphs that I proposed:

 

3. Insert a new paragraph 5.5:

 

i. In the event that a Member stops making contributions to the Scheme he may request that the Administrators transfer to that Member all the shares representing that Member’s Share Entitlement.

 

ii. In which case the Administrators will instruct the Secretary of the Society to arrange for the execution of an instrument of transfer by the Broker within 21 days of receipt of the notification.

 

4. Insert a new paragraph 14.5:

 

i. In the event that a Member has made payments to the Scheme Bank Account that have not been used for the purchase of shares in accordance with the Scheme, the Member, former Member or his personal representative may request that the Administrators refund any such Contributions.

 

ii. Upon receipt of any such valid request the Administrators will arrange to pay the refund to the Member, former Member or his personal representative within 21 days.

 

iii. Interest will be paid on any such refund subject to a minimum amount of £100 (reference being a high interest account determined by the Administrators).

 

 

The following amended wording was ratified in February 2010:

 

4. Insert a new paragraph 5.5:

 

i. In the event that a Member stops making contributions to the Scheme he may request that the Administrators transfer to that Member all the shares representing that Member’s Share Entitlement or sell said shares at his cost.

 

ii. In which case the Administrators in their sole discretion will instruct the Secretary of the Society to arrange for the execution of an instrument of transfer by the Broker within 21 days of receipt of the request or sell within 21 days of receipt of the request all of the shares constituting that Member’s Scheme entitlement and return the cash to the member.

 

5. Insert a new paragraph 14.5:

 

i. In the event that a Member has made payments to the Scheme Bank Account that have not been used for the purchase of shares in accordance with the Scheme, the Member, former Member or his personal representative may request that the Administrators refund any such Contributions.

 

ii. Upon receipt of any such valid request the Administrators will arrange to pay the refund to the Member, former Member or his personal representative within 21 days.

 

iii. Any interest earned on said contributions will be retained within the Scheme in the first instance to defray the administrative expenses of the Scheme and to the extent that said expenses have been met in full, transferred to the general bank account of the Society as a general asset of the Society.

 

I hope this further clarification is helpful. I am sorry that I don't have time to go into any more detail on this aspect of the scheme or any of the other issues that arose; but I will try to make time to write something more comprehensive next month.

Edited November 29, 2012 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

some people threatened to involve the fsa if they didnt get a refund.

 

This was a bit of a grey area, because the FSA authorised the Trust but they did not regulate it, as it didn't give investment advice. The stockbrokers were responsible to the FSA for what is termed a "financial promotion" (an advertisement for the scheme)

 

The FSA's role was to ensure that the Trust was entitled under its (approved) rules to operate such a scheme but they made it clear to me that the rules of the scheme were a matter for the Trust's board/members to determine.

 

Therefore I very much doubt if the FSA or the Financial Services Ombudsman would have considered such an issue to be within their jurisdiction to determine.