Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

How many Directors will there be ?

 

Will their be any money paid to the Directors ?

 

Any discussion about expenses ?

 

The only way I can answer that is by saying that I was asked to review the Co-op model rules on CICCLG's and amongst the comments I made was that:

 

IMHO and experience a possible Board of 15 is far too big and the 3 minimum is too few; I would prefer 5/6 to 12 at the very most.

 

I would want more time to study the Powers to Appoint and Remove Directors and the question of Remuneration which many may not like but will be necessary if it is intended to appoint a solicitor as the first member.

 

I have now been asked to look at another model.

 

I do not know whether or not it is intended to remunerate the solicitor who has been appointed; I was not party to the appointment nor its terms nor have they been stated.

 

RA has consistently stated that in his opinion the directors should not be paid.

 

Again there has been no discussion in any of the open meetings about expenses; other than some throw away comments about those who might go forth to spread the word, would be doing so at their own expense; but these were not formal decisions. However, in my personal opinion directors should have the ability to recover legitimate expenses as is the case at SD (where there are clear rules as to what is and what is not recoverable). Whether directors then submit claims is another matter, some may well be in a better position than others in that respect and people should not be deterred from becoming a director because they cannot afford to be out of pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am astonished at the following words which were posted earlier in the thread:

 

"In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good."

 

Here it is for all to see; a less than diplomatic approach, an implication that the one true faith has been discovered, and a casual dismissal of the alternative.

 

Unity? This is unity on Rangersfirst terms. Let's work together, they say, but what respectable organisation would work with a so-called partner grouping that is at ease displaying what some might perceive to be a rather high and mighty attitude?

 

The illuminating words above have let the cat out the bag. They have given credence to Rangersfirst doubters and ammunition to Rangersfirst enemies.

 

It's there in black and white - BuyRangers will have to consider whether to transfer its holding to this new group - for the greater good.

 

Let me respond.

 

It'll be a cold, cold day in hell before my share in BuyRangers comes within a million miles of Rangersfirst's clutching mittens.

 

You've made posts on Gersnet recently I've fully agreed with, they were insightful, honest and progressive in my opinion. But the line I've highlighted above saddens me. It's that kind of hyperbolic, emotive, angry posting that puts so many of us off getting involved with groups like the RST. Why would you think posting something like that on a public forum was a good idea?

If any form of fan power is going to work it can't be personal, it can't and won't work if angry promises are uttered publicly the first time someone hears something they disagree with.

 

Had you typed 'I'm unhappy with that implication BH, could you check that or indeed reconsider it?' you'd have achieved so much more at no cost to yourself.

 

I'm still undecided about Rangers First, I like the concept, the timing is good and I'm in favour of their aims, I'm watching with interest. But if joining means I'll become embroiled in a public turf war where fellow Rangers supporters will be more obstructive than fans of other clubs then I'll think twice about it. It's what had kept me away from the RST and from Buy Rangers in the past and keeps me away today.

 

You are clearly thoughtful where our club is concerned, so consider the power your words carry when posted publicly. Those ones did you a great disservice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said AMMS.

 

I don't doubt the desire and commitment of either of the ownership schemes trustees (for want of a better term) but if you want mass participation in them (including HNW individuals) then some of the emotion and unprofessionalism really has to be put aside. The constant dancing round handbags (primarily on FF it has to be said) just makes valuable schemes look a waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the back of my mind I have the worry [with both schemes]. Whatever money I put to buying shares at the moment will lose their value, as there will be a new share issue in the [near] future. Would it not make more sense to wait.

 

Any comments ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

It;'s a fair point but a risk that some will decide is worth taking, some will decide not.

 

There is a real risk of losing your investment, so ffs don't go into it thinking you will come out the other side richer! This is not any sort of money making scheme but an attempt to use fan power to twist the arm of our current operators - we saw how effective that could be with the publicity over the loan which was KB'd.

 

You can decide to either gamble a bit with whatever you can afford, or choose to hold back - and while I have massive reservations about fan ownership the alternative, leaving our present charmless lot to oversee things, is terrifying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see all of that mate, I'm just perplexed why someone would want to see their money devalued, when it is odds-on there will be a new share issue.

 

There is also a niggle to me if I popped my cork, what would happen to my investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see all of that mate, I'm just perplexed why someone would want to see their money devalued, when it is odds-on there will be a new share issue.

 

There is also a niggle to me if I popped my cork, what would happen to my investment.

It isnt an investment , if thats what your looking for then either buy shares direct , join buyrangers , this is a donation to a scheme that will hopefully ringfence Rangers assets , get control of the club and if it works produce financial investment for years to come , its basically a membership scheme where you donate what you can , like you I was skeptical , but once you get your head around it , its pretty straight forward

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to be honest (well I am always honest) and say that that was not the comment to which I was refering and for the avoidance of doubt I am not saying it was not said. But the comment I heard came during a discussion in the second half of the meeting when there was a reference to shares being transferred into the CIC in lieu of the £500 Life Membership. At the time I took it as aserious suggestion but it may well have been a flippant or sarcastic comment and I repeat it was not discussed.

 

The conversation you refer to was Shares in Rangers FC (bought at the IPO, or through brokers) being used to offset the lifetime membership fee. Personally I thought this was a brilliant idea. We have committed to donating all but two of our £1000 worth of IPO shares to Rangers First and will also be paying the full life membership fee.

 

BuyRangers wasn't mentioned at all to my recollection at this point, and I don't that is possible even if any BuyRangers member wanted to do. For the avoidance of doubt this idea was not brought up. So can we just leave it there - there is no point in antagonising other Rangers Fans

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many Directors will there be ?

 

Will their be any money paid to the Directors ?

 

Any discussion about expenses ?

 

 

There has been the suggestion put forward at the meeting that no directors should be paid. I am of agreement with that as were the majority of nodding heads within the room.

 

Everyone that has carried out work so far has done so on a volunteer basis and any financial losses have come out of their own pocket. I for one hope that this continues. I think it is important in establishing trust with the wider Rangers Support that no one fan is making money from Rangers First.

 

We are all in it together for the betterment of Rangers Football Club.

 

The number of directors will be decided in due course.

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.