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

[the gunslinger 3,366]

if you call an agm the board will set toxic jack on you and nothing will change.

[TheTinMan99 0]

Any money that fans pour into this can be quite safely written off as never to be seen again. That doesn't alter the fact that their cash has still been used to purchase shares, and that the shares will still exist. Someone will own the shares. I'm sure they won't be used for any individuals financial gain, but denying any contributor any future voting rights just seems wrong. If you contribute above a certain level, you should have voting rights for as long as the shares in the club exist.

 

I don't think a one man, one vote system is suitable for these type of schemes. Perhaps a tiered level of votes, depending on how much you put in may be more suitable. A fan shouldn't have to go cap in hand if he falls on hard times and can't contribute for a while.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Any money that fans pour into this can be quite safely written off as never to be seen again. That doesn't alter the fact that their cash has still been used to purchase shares, and that the shares will still exist. Someone will own the shares. I'm sure they won't be used for any individuals financial gain, but denying any contributor any future voting rights just seems wrong. If you contribute above a certain level, you should have voting rights for as long as the shares in the club exist.

 

I don't think a one man, one vote system is suitable for these type of schemes. Perhaps a tiered level of votes, depending on how much you put in may be more suitable. A fan shouldn't have to go cap in hand if he falls on hard times and can't contribute for a while.

 

I think these are all useful comments. One of the beauties of the CIC model is that it is flexible: one vote per share/one man one vote or somewhere in between as well as allowing something different for the large lump sums. As I said none of this has been decided yet.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The Notes/Minutes of the 2nd Meeting on the 18th (the first meeting of the Working Group) have now been posted on a DOWNLOAD button on the web site. Essentially these are an expanded version, more or less a verbatim record of what was said in the first part of the meeting and details of the working parties that I set out in my report. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?61883-Report-of-first-meeting-of-Rangers-CIC-Working-Group.

[chilledbear 16]

Any money that fans pour into this can be quite safely written off as never to be seen again. That doesn't alter the fact that their cash has still been used to purchase shares, and that the shares will still exist. Someone will own the shares. I'm sure they won't be used for any individuals financial gain, but denying any contributor any future voting rights just seems wrong. If you contribute above a certain level, you should have voting rights for as long as the shares in the club exist.

 

I don't think a one man, one vote system is suitable for these type of schemes. Perhaps a tiered level of votes, depending on how much you put in may be more suitable. A fan shouldn't have to go cap in hand if he falls on hard times and can't contribute for a while.

 

Contributing above a certain level means nothing to someone with not a lot to contribute.

[andy steel 0]

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.

[rbr 1,247]

Brahim , can you confirm if the notes from the 3rd meeting will clarify the points we were discussing earlier, or if they are still to be discussed at a later meeting. As long as this gets cleared up one way or another ,I am more than happy to wait

[rbr 1,247]

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.

 

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 .

[Mountain Bear 0]

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...

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Brahim , can you confirm if the notes from the 3rd meeting will clarify the points we were discussing earlier, or if they are still to be discussed at a later meeting. As long as this gets cleared up one way or another ,I am more than happy to wait

 

I can confirm a few things.

 

At this point in time there are no office bearers, so nothing I say or write is official until you see it on the web site. It is simply the case that because I published reports on here I was asked to write notes of the 3rd meeting as well but not to publish them on here first.

 

It is my understanding that my notes are being combined with notes taken in more verbatim format by another party and combined with post-meeting notes by RA will be published on the web site as with the first two.

 

Lastly I can confirm that MY notes do not make reference to the point you raised earlier because IMHO the answer is inherent in the word "donation" or "membership fee" which question was asked and answered at the first meeting. However I have little doubt that the Q&A correctly stated by plgsarmy and confirmed in my subsequent posts and the post by Andy Steel above, will be in the fuller version that is published.

 

I am not trying to dodge the issue but I don't really think there is anything to add to what has already been said.