Rangers first meeting 14/04

[forlanssister 3,050]

I have asked just about all those points and was told it doesn't fit with the supporters direct model ,I don't really agree with this scheme 100% , but I decided to join the club1872 as a life member and donate ( because that is what it is ) a £5 per month , no scheme is going to fit all but I just feel we need to come behind something . I also joined the buyrangers as well .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As laudable as it and its' aims are it will require major investment from HNWI and they simply won't countenance OMOV in enough numbers.

 

There are parts of both BR and RF that I agree with but at present neither quite contain enough ticks in the positives column, though I may well alter that viewpoint in the coming months depending on how things play out.

[rbr 1,247]

There should be an announcement soon about HNWI involvement , there are people working on this as we speak , I will feed back any news tomorrow night

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rbr 1,247]

I am a member and have volunteered to assist in any way I can; but this offer has not been taken up.

 

Are you going tomorrow

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BrahimHemdani 1]

1. Yes, I'd be more interested if there was a suitable vehicle for purchasing shares to be held in my own name with a proxy given over the shareholding (bar 1 single share) though votes within the vehicle should be commensurate with the holding held with the representatives voting as the majority dictate.
   
2. 
   
3. Note convinced of the OMOV as it is more likely to deter investment than anything else also the fact that no matter how much you put in you cannot leave anything to your heirs.
   
4. 
   
5. If you could ask whether they have considered or would consider such a scheme I'd appreciate it.
   
6. 
   
7. I concede that perhaps I may perhaps have concluded on the basis of incomplete information
   

 

1. You can do this and if the shares given over are valued at least £500 you will be given Life Membership (Club 1872) but it is OMOV.
   
2. If you are a HNWI you can get in on different terms but otherwise it is OMOV.
   
3. As rbr says, they won't consider that now, given that 1,000 or more have joined on that basis. The ethos is that a person who can afford a large contribution shouldn't have more influence than a person who can only afford £5 per month. RA and SDS were very much wedded to this CIC/CLG model from the outset and wouldn't consider anything else. I was the only person at the initial meetings with the knowledge to challenge that but my comments were brushed aside.
   
4. I was advised by two of my former colleagues in SDUK who I consider to be the leading UK experts in this field that this wouldn't work or at least not work as well as other models. The upside of a CIC is that you get the asset lock and the ability to appeal for intervention from the CIC regulator if you suspect any funny business. Much of what happens in clubs, Mr Whyte notwithstanding, is legal, but morally dubious. A CIC, by having community objects over and above any requirements as a company, is therefore imbued with a greater moral purpose which means sharp practice might be better challenged. The big downside of a CIC vis a vis a Community Benefit Society (both of course are OMOV) is that the CBS can raise capital much, much more cheaply, as it doesn't need to seek FCA approval to any capital raising exercise; a CIC looking to raise big money would have to be a CIC plc, and there's not actually been one of those so on top of the costs of getting FCA approval and capitalising the business initially, you've got to pay for drafting a set of articles and getting them cleared with the regulator. They are using model rules to overcome that I understand. The way it had been done before (e.g. Portsmouth) was to have a CBS raising the capital from fans/the public, being co-owner of the club ownership vehicle with HNWIs, with two classes of share, with voting shares held by the CBS and preference shares held by the HNWIs. That way, the HNWIs get a return, the fans get control and everyone is happy and legal.) As I understand it, RangersFirst is combining these aspects; which may be simpler at the outset but more difficult in the long run. However, it is more difficult for a CIC/CLG to raise significant capital and that goes back to your OMOV point.
   

Edited April 13, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

As laudable as it and its' aims are it will require major investment from HNWI and they simply won't countenance OMOV in enough numbers.

 

There are parts of both BR and RF that I agree with but at present neither quite contain enough ticks in the positives column, though I may well alter that viewpoint in the coming months depending on how things play out.

 

It did not necessarily have to follow an SD model, although that was natural given the SD involvement.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that RF has the potential to bring in Rangers fans around the world. Given the 1,000 members in a few weeks it could easily reach 5,000 + say 800 life members and that would be enough to buy 5% of the Club as things stand right now (although they would rightly keep back at least half of any contributions for the rights issue). The issues last weekend were a diversion and it does seem to have lost some of its initial momentum but I am sure that that can be rekindled.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Are you going tomorrow

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No I am not.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I'm sure some hybrid system could be constructed that would address some concerns.

 

Something along the lines of a combined share saving scheme and Rangers First membership, say a hypothetical £25 pm £5 going to Rangers First (to buy shares or whatever) £20 pm going towards shares in the individuals name, that way people are seeing something tangible for their investment and the collective vehicle still moves forward with an ever increasing shareholding.

 

One of my concerns re the RST and Buy Rangers is that it's not actual shares in Rangers that individual members are buying.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

One of my concerns re the RST and Buy Rangers is that it's not actual shares in Rangers that individual members are buying.

 

It's clear from some of the more strident comments on here however, that you are one of the few people who understands that.

[Zappa 0]

One of my concerns re the RST and Buy Rangers is that it's not actual shares in Rangers that individual members are buying.

 

I'm pretty sure yourself, Bluedell and others voiced similar concerns about buying shares in the holding company RIFC plc. Then again, it's the difference between buying directly into the RIFC holding company or buying into a holding company that's buying into the RIFC holding company. Maybe what we need is a vehicle where you can buy into a holding company which buys into another holding company which then buys into the RIFC holding company?

[forlanssister 3,050]

I'm pretty sure yourself, Bluedell and others voiced similar concerns about buying shares in the holding company RIFC plc. Then again, it's the difference between buying directly into the RIFC holding company or buying into a holding company that's buying into the RIFC holding company. Maybe what we need is a vehicle where you can buy into a holding company which buys into another holding company which then buys into the RIFC holding company?

 

It would of course be undoubtedly preferable to buy shares directly in "the Club" but alas it cannot be done at present.