Club1872 proposal (i.e. fan group amalgamation) now published

[Frankie 8,114]

Well yes I think it does, because you've paid 5 x as much, unless RF can show exactly the breakdown of what went to shares then I can see why people would be upset.

Point 2 is not enough, the group should make provision, not opportunity. Able-bodied fans have plenty of voice/representation and without provision disabled fans may well be drowned out.

I've no problem with a reserve for projects but there is no way it should be the same split.

 

 

 

I kind of resent that Frankie. I've always been supportive of this board. I'm a member of Rangers First but this is not a dictatorship (hence we all get a vote) and fans/members are allowed to feel that the proposals are not right, or do not go far enough. Aren't we all of the opinion 'never again' and so shouldn't we all question these things rather than blindly follow the lead of a chosen few?

 

1. Again, the 5x figure is frustrating but I don't think I can see a way around it. Definitely worth discussing though.

 

2. As I said, I think there should be a disabled board rep but I'd be interested to think if FS and other such fans thought it was worthwhile. As long as specific issues are raised at each meeting then it might not be necessary but it's certainly something I'd back.

 

3. Again, it's up to each member how their donation is split so I think it's a good option to have and will help the support appreciate what's required to take part in and complete certain projects. The equal split is just a recommendation and the members will ultimately decide what that split actually is.

 

4. I apologise if my comment seem rather curt but fans either want to be responsible for running/funding the club or not. If we do then it means we'll have to fund not just the daily activities but the extra projects that will inevitably arise. This is where having kitties ringfenced for such sounds like a good idea to me. It works reasonably well for RYD so as much as every shareholder should be responsible for raising funds and external investment sourced, the responsibility may be ours alone some day. It's important we appreciate that.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Frankie

[BlueMazza 0]

So what is the solution?

 

I don't think there's a perfect answer but what they have proposed seems like the best compromise available.

 

I don't know exactly the solution. My op said I can understand why people are pissed off.

[Rousseau 9,291]

I believe the board would propose a project, then the members will vote on it. It's a decent idea, but like many, I think the shareholding should be the priority just now. To be fair, they have said that the "project'' fund could be directed towards shareholding if the members desire it so.

 

It's not perfect, but that's why we are debating it; it's up to us to identify any changes needed/desired. It's a decent proposal IMO.

[BlueMazza 0]

1. Again, the 5x figure is frustrating but I don't think I can see a way around it. Definitely worth discussing though.

 

2. As I said, I think there should be a disabled board rep but I'd be interested to think if FS and other such fans thought it was worthwhile. As long as specific issues are raised at each meeting then it might not be necessary but it's certainly something I'd back.

 

3. Again, it's up to each member how their donation is split so I think it's a good option to have and will help the support appreciate what's required to take part in and complete certain projects. The equal split is just a recommendation and the members will ultimately decide what that split actually is.

 

4. I apologise if my comment seem rather curt but fans either want to be responsible for running/funding the club or not. If we do then it means we'll have to fund not just the daily activities but the extra projects that will inevitably arise. This is where having kitties ringfenced for such sounds like a good idea to me. It works reasonably well for RYD so as much as every shareholder should be responsible for raising funds and external investment sourced, the responsibility may be ours alone some day. It's important we appreciate that.

 

A representative for disabled fans would be better (in my opinion) than someone doing the talking for them.

 

Again, I didn't say I didn't agree with the shares/project split in theory, but I do disagree with it being 47.5% each. It should be more like 70/30 at this time until we get to the goal.

 

I do want fan ownership, but if these issues cannot be discussed reasonably at this stage then we've got a longer way to go than we thought. Fan ownership will be a disaster if people cannot take personal issues out. I don't vote based on who I want a pint with, I vote based on those I think will do right for the club and I don't vote for things until I know all the questions have been answered. That's not unreasonable.

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

This "projects" thing interests me. In a properly run club, I am at a loss at to what a "project" could possibly be that the club itself would not want to pay for, if it was receiving investment from Club 1872 for new shares released to it from the Club 1872 contributions?

 

Things mentioned like a museum, fanzone, etc should all be paid for and run by the club, if the club has any interest in giving supporters a greater experience both on match-days and non-match-days.

 

It seems to me like something hinted at by the club to get something for nothing from the fans. With the greatest respect, King etc are all getting full shareholding ratios for their investment, but this is saying the fans can just pay for things themselves and get a couple of match tickets for it? This part of it has not been thought through properly.

 

The right thing for this Club 1872 to do is to buy shares and buy shares and buy shares. Making more shares available each year as their member contributions come in. Diluting the shareholding percentages of those existing shareholders like King and T3B, and increasing the fans percentage. Of course King can always pop some more in to keep his percentage up if he so desires.

 

This way the fans put the money directly into the club and get something back for it, in our desire to be self-sufficient and self-owning. Now that would be something.

[Frankie 8,114]

I think RYD is the best example of a stand-alone, self-financing 'project' that is of benefit to the club.

 

Rangers Retail is another but clearly that's not working well at the moment.

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

RYD was only set up because the bank froze our spending once the economic crash sent Murray's property empire into a tailspin and this was the only way to get investment into the youth side of the club as the bank budget wouldnt allow it.

 

In a properly funded, properly run club, we dont need a RYD. A club this size should be entirely self-sufficient, especially if it has a seven figure sum annually coming in from Club 1872 members in return for issuing new shares.

[Frankie 8,114]

RYD was only set up because the bank froze our spending once the economic crash sent Murray's property empire into a tailspin and this was the only way to get investment into the youth side of the club as the bank budget wouldnt allow it.

 

In a properly funded, properly run club, we dont need a RYD. A club this size should be entirely self-sufficient, especially if it has a seven figure sum annually coming in from Club 1872 members in return for issuing new shares.

 

Sure but in retrospect it has worked quite well.

 

With that in mind, I don't mind the fans ringfencing cash for certain projects. In an ideal world, the club should be financing things like a museum but if it's not considered a priority why shouldn't it be something we look to achieve ourselves.

 

In any case, it's up to the membership as it should be.

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

I agree that this has worked out well for us, but by default rather than design. Surely our football club should be financing our future through youth development?

 

As a significant shareholder, (looking ahead) Club 1872 would be party to board meetings (or access to Directors at least) and therefore things like a museum become worthy of investment if the fans annual investment and membership voting decrees it so. I maintain it should still be up to the club to take our fans money through club 1872 in return for a shareholding, and then spend it wisely on agreed areas.

[Frankie 8,114]

That's a fair argument and it's certainly worthy of a proper response from those running the scheme.