Jump to content

 

 

Third Meeting of Rangers Commmunity Interest Company Working Group (RangersFirst)


Recommended Posts

I think this will be a massive problem for this scheme then , I am not looking for a tangible return but say I could afford £50 and do so for 5 years contributing a total of £3000 then surely there must be a case that I keep my voting rights , that figure might be too low or too high but hopefully you get my point .

 

I do, but the answer is still 'not really' - it's a collective, it's dependent on activism and people getting involved. The reward is voting rights, a voice. If you or I drop out it doesn't really make no neverminds how much we've kicked in - that, I suppose, is the incentive to keep contributing. No system is ever going to be perfect, that's for sure.

 

I suppose in the end I'd say if you have any doubts over the model, don't contribute to it, lest you end up feeling ripped off.

 

I wonder if a CIC could be the type of collective vehicle Mr King had in mind when he was urging fans to pool their season ticket monies rather than give them directly to the Club...

 

I assumed so! It would certainly be a figurehead which would guarantee publicity, but I would fear for poor old Hildy's blood pressure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the basic purpose behind this group is to acquire a shareholding substantial enough to gain influence over how the club is run.

 

If you dig that concept, you contribute, and, while you are paying, you get a vote on strategy, office bearers etc.

 

If you drop out, for one of the many and legitimate reasons we all face, the concept remains in place while you lose your voting rights. But what you've paid to see happen rolls on, so you don't lose out on that front. & i f you don't agree with the concept, you're not very likely to contribute in the first place, I'd have thought.

 

Bear in mind I don't speak for the group at all, just personal opinion here. But when your money goes in it goes into a concept, not a thing where you get a tangible return. That's one reason why I doubt if many rich wallahs will go for it - bit too co-operative for capitalists - but so long as its clear up front that this is the deal, it doesn't seem that bad to me.

 

The only thing I would add to that is that precisely because of the above high net worth individuals (HNWI’s) will be able to offer debt to the CIC at a legal maximum interest rate of 8%. The CIC would be able to determine which offers, if any, to accept. Institutional investors could be offered a dividend in return for a proxy on their shares with a pre-emption clause to buy their shares on a predetermined price basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this will be a massive problem for this scheme then , I am not looking for a tangible return but say I could afford £50 and do so for 5 years contributing a total of £3000 then surely there must be a case that I keep my voting rights , that figure might be too low or too high but hopefully you get my point .

 

You make a good point. Someone who donates £20 per month for the same 5 years but keeps going has a vote and you don't. Just does not seem fair to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I would add to that is that precisely because of the above high net worth individuals (HNWI’s) will be able to offer debt to the CIC at a legal maximum interest rate of 8%. The CIC would be able to determine which offers, if any, to accept. Institutional investors could be offered a dividend in return for a proxy on their shares with a pre-emption clause to buy their shares on a predetermined price basis.

 

Sorry for harking on about this but yet again I dont really understand this , so its not a cooperative as parties are being treated differently , why should a hnwi get their money back when someone else who contributes for months /years gets nothing , its a very bizarre system imho

Link to post
Share on other sites

[/b]

 

Sorry for harking on about this but yet again I dont really understand this , so its not a cooperative as parties are being treated differently , why should a hnwi get their money back when someone else who contributes for months /years gets nothing , its a very bizarre system imho

 

No worries, I understand where you are coming from.

 

It is simply a fact of life that if you have £50,000 or £100,000 to invest you are not going to accept the same deal (unless you are extremely altruistic) as someone like you and me with our £18.72 per month.

 

However, us foot soldiers have to be comforted by the fact that our money is in the kitty that was used to purchase the shares with which the group are going to hold the Board to account or buy something tangible for the Club in exchange for transparency and influence as I have explained.

 

In the Portsmouth situation (the exact figures were mentioned on Monday and may be in the notes) my undertsanding is that approx 75% of the club is owned by the the Trust registered as a CBS and 25% by high net worth fan-investors. The Portsmouth Trust put together a strong coalition of high net-worth individuals prepared to dig deep alongside a supporters' trust with the right mix of organisers and thinkers. The great advantage that Portsmouth had was that the Trust was established relatively recently and the leadership that was elected knew the importance of teamwork and seeking good advice (and for the avoidance of doubt I am not saying that RST does not or did not!). However, I don't think that the RST even in their wildest dreams would claim that they could achieve 75% ownership of Rangers through BuyRangers given 0.86% now and a couple of hundred people paying whatever a month.

 

It will take a much wider effort to reach even 5% - 25% which is what those who are involved are trying to achieve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a monthly membership fee. You pay whatever you like above the minimum monthly contribution of £5. Don't pay anything you need back, don't pay anything you can't afford. The "return" you get is helping Rangers fans achieve our primary aims. You can cancel at any time, you can alter your payment at any time - up or down.

 

Give what you feel is right for you. For some, that might be £20, for some that might be £50, for some that might be £5.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a monthly membership fee. You pay whatever you like above the minimum monthly contribution of £5. Don't pay anything you need back, don't pay anything you can't afford. The "return" you get is helping Rangers fans achieve our primary aims. You can cancel at any time, you can alter your payment at any time - up or down.

 

Give what you feel is right for you. For some, that might be £20, for some that might be £50, for some that might be £5.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a monthly membership fee. You pay whatever you like above the minimum monthly contribution of £5. Don't pay anything you need back, don't pay anything you can't afford. The "return" you get is helping Rangers fans achieve our primary aims. You can cancel at any time, you can alter your payment at any time - up or down.

 

Give what you feel is right for you. For some, that might be £20, for some that might be £50, for some that might be £5.

 

I think that there's a major flaw with the concept. People in general want to get something for their payment. At BuyRangers you at least get a share of the vehicle used to buy the shares. Here you are just giving cash away with no way of getting any return other than the fuzzy feeling of helping the club. If you stop paying, you immediately lose any rights.

 

There's also no incentive to pay more than the minimum. You get the same benefits whether you're paying £5 or £50.

 

I know there's mention of HNWIs getting a return but it's not even about that. It's about ownership. Turning round and saying I've got x shares in the CIC that owns the club. If it's just a membership fee that you're paying then there's no commitment and no loyalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there's a major flaw with the concept. People in general want to get something for their payment. At BuyRangers you at least get a share of the vehicle used to buy the shares. Here you are just giving cash away with no way of getting any return other than the fuzzy feeling of helping the club. If you stop paying, you immediately lose any rights.

 

There's also no incentive to pay more than the minimum. You get the same benefits whether you're paying £5 or £50.

 

I know there's mention of HNWIs getting a return but it's not even about that. It's about ownership. Turning round and saying I've got x shares in the CIC that owns the club. If it's just a membership fee that you're paying then there's no commitment and no loyalty.

 

Totally agree Bluedell , a major major flaw and has now pushed me into joining the buyrangers scheme

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • 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.