Frankie 8,136 Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 In relation to that I see there is now an email address for Trust members to ask questions: club1872questions@gmail.com 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I'm sure the reason for that is if you go above 28% company law requires you make an offer for all remaining shares. This means you need to have the money in place to make the said offer. Rule 9 is a red herring. Posted this elsewhere last night: That's simply not the case. Rule 9 waivers are not uncommon, I'd stick my mortgages on a CIC being granted one without any problems whatsoever. Dermot Desmond obtained a Rule 9 waiver when he went over 30% control across the city. http://www.investegate.co.uk/celtic-plc/rns/publication-of-prospectus/200510281729003508T/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 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. But they aren't really proposing anything because until I asked they didn't even realize that there were people with dual membership (life) , what they were proposing is that I lose a vote , that I lose a life membership fee with nothing to show for it , its 2 days in and I still cant get a reply to my question. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 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. A representative for disabled fans would be better (in my opinion) than someone doing the talking for them. Going by my own experiences I feel it's imperative that there is representation on Club 1872 as without the clout of a larger group we really are utterly powerless. I'm not saying any rep must themselves be disabled however they must be fully aware of the issues involved and have first hand experience, be that as a carer, a parent etc. I agree with BlueMazza that it's preferable to present matters directly rather than through a third party. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 But they aren't really proposing anything because until I asked they didn't even realize that there were people with dual membership (life) , what they were proposing is that I lose a vote , that I lose a life membership fee with nothing to show for it , its 2 days in and I still cant get a reply to my question. Their proposal is that those with a life membership in either or both existing organisations retain their life membership in the new body, is it not? It's a one member, one vote situation so it wouldn't be fair for you to have 2 votes. However I can understand your position. Perhaps a fair solution would be for the new body to refund your RST life membership, but I'm suggesting that without any idea of the potential cost. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Going by my own experiences I feel it's imperative that there is representation on Club 1872 as without the clout of a larger group we really are utterly powerless. I'm not saying any rep must themselves be disabled however they must be fully aware of the issues involved and have first hand experience, be that as a carer, a parent etc. I agree with BlueMazza that it's preferable to present matters directly rather than through a third party. It was my understanding that there is already a group representing disabled fans that meet monthly with the Club to discuss all their issues and looking for ways to improve facilities. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Their proposal is that those with a life membership in either or both existing organisations retain their life membership in the new body, is it not? It's a one member, one vote situation so it wouldn't be fair for you to have 2 votes. However I can understand your position. Perhaps a fair solution would be for the new body to refund your RST life membership, but I'm suggesting that without any idea of the potential cost. I'd need to have a look at the list of life members of both organisations and see the number of duplicates before I could assess that. No one has both lists at the moment. However, if a member approached us to request a refund it could be considered but I'd probably deduct £10 membership fee for every year they've been a life member. That could be a solution. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 It was my understanding that there is already a group representing disabled fans that meet monthly with the Club to discuss all their issues and looking for ways to improve facilities. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry. Indeed there is and I sit on it and it's my personal experience on there that leaves me in absolutely no doubt at all that we need representation via a far stronger body than the Disability Matters Group could ever be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) I'd need to have a look at the list of life members of both organisations and see the number of duplicates before I could assess that. No one has both lists at the moment. However, if a member approached us to request a refund it could be considered but I'd probably deduct £10 membership fee for every year they've been a life member. That could be a solution. Sorry but that's not your call Christine , as the two are merging it's not up to the RST to decide how this works , but I do agree the number of dual life members needs addressing and a fair solution found .maybe the meeting on Sunday would be the place , that would give more than enough time for the figure to be found . Also why would you deduct anything , these people are already losing out, and if it came down to a choice I would rather get my £500 RF membership fee back if that's ok Edited March 10, 2016 by rbr 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germinal 27 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 By unifying, Club 1872 will already hold over a 5% shareholding in Rangers. 10% will be possible in a short space of time. Does anyone know what the division is between RF and RST regarding current share holding? I seem to remember reading RF were just about at 5% already but could be completely wrong. As a united group it is easier for Rangers FC to lend practical support to Club 1872 Why? RF seemed to be doing quite nicely heading toward it's goals, this seems like a strange distraction. But it was heavily voted for by the members so there must be some reason for it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.