Jump to content

 

 

Club 1872 Elections - Gersnet Vote


Please select up to seven candidates ONLY  

204 members have voted

  1. 1. Please select up to seven candidates ONLY

    • Shane Nicholson
      8
    • William Cowie
      21
    • Alex Wilson
      16
    • Joanne Percival
      23
    • Laura Fawkes
      21
    • Iain Leiper
      24
    • Stevie Sinclair
      10
    • Craig Houston
      21
    • James Blair
      20
    • Johnathan McGookin
      6
    • Scott McCulloch
      4
    • James Durrant
      1
    • Kelly Johnstone
      7
    • Brian Donohoe
      4
    • Iain Martin
      18


Recommended Posts

Haha , if the 7 that are leading on here get elected I would be more than happy , however I'm just wanting Iain Leiper and Ian Martin especially to get on the board ., Craig given decent support and guidance will be a good asset as will William Cowie , James Blair was always a shoe in and the good ladies have great experience in different areas , good cross section

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was William Cowie not the guy in the second hustings that wanted EVERY decision/statement the board had to make given out to a vote amongst the whole membership? We dont need a board if that was the case! Not exactly the leadership I would hope for, he doesnt get my vote with nonsense like that.

 

I give the guys & girls standing a great deal of credit as I know first-hand what a lot of work will be involved and the pressure from fans wanting you to go in 20 different directions all at one time. I am not sure a lot of them know what they are signing up for, and I am quite sure some are merely blazer-chasing. Some are fairly well qualified, some dont inspire me at all.

 

The whole process however, from the rushed inception, hoovering up of RST/RF, numbers of board members, huge influence from the club, dirty politics behind it all, leaves me very cold indeed. As someone who has been wholly supportive of fans groups for as long as I can remember, an original member of the RST, paid up member of Rangers First, member of two RSC's including serving as secretary for 20 years, been to meetings of them all and the Association as well, this is the least positive I have been about things from a fan's perspective I think I have ever been.

 

Club1872 has a lot to do if it is struggling to win over someone like me who has always been positive about fan groups involvement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The disapplication of pre-emption is an extremely common occurrence in companies and given the amount of capital we need to raise over the next few years it is a necessity. There's only so much you can draw from the same well before it eventually gets emptied.

 

Whilst in the short term it undoubtedly will necessitate a dilution of the Club 1872 holding (a point that I don't think any of the candidates have adequately expanded upon or explained given the amount of loans we are carrying which in all probability will be converted into equity). However in the long run the disapplication could actually favour Club 1872 as it allows the company to release shares to Club 1872 whenever it suits even monthly.

 

One point that does concern me is in regards to the "projects", I see no reason at all why if Club 1872 pays for any "project" that RIFC cannot issue shares in exchange.

 

Just in response to your opinion on distributing shares on a non-preemptive basis.

Considering the current platform is a "matched bargain" system, with no "fair value" understanding...It's a buyers market.

I see no reason why club1872 can't continue to look to the secondary market, as evidenced recently with the purchase of circa 1m shares at 0.27p from an unknown buyer.

 

In regards to the "well runs dry" metaphor!

There are others means of settling credit on a non-preemptive basis...for example. Non-cash consideration voting rights.

Standard Security/with no accrued interest, To name a couple.

 

Club1872's interests aren't for that of investors. That's not the case with the Plc. We must protect the small-shareholders whom we might need in the near future.

 

In terms of explaining "dilution..." I alluded to this in my Hustings presentation. If club1872 own 6% of RIFC Plc, and the Plc place 1m shares to New Oasis Asset Ltd. The share capital of the Plc has increased, ergo club1872 would now own circa 5% of a company which has 84m issued shares, where it was previously had 83m/6% .

 

"Clawback" may be applicable and offer certain protection to other shareholders from dilution..."medium term." But that requires a Share Issue, which maybe years away.

 

We also need a negotiating tool! We can't simply support a Plc with votes that can hinder our aims and objectives. It must be a bilateral arrangement. To this date, that hasn't been the case.

 

100% agree with your last point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The election process has been interesting to say the least.

 

SDS have been blamed with "not vetting" applications which is not accurate at all. I approached SDS for comment and was told that they were there as a third party to ensure that applications met the criteria set out on the club 1872 website, which the majority did. They actually rejected 2 that didn't...

 

At this point the Club1872 working party have a duty to protect it's members and if indeed donohoes statement is untrue, they reject it... as in any normal application process, if it does not meet criteria or is misleading you reject it, simple as that. you don't even need a statement....What happens next is a leading statement and a barrage of email reminders to advise you pretty much to not to vote for him...very unprofessional. to be clear i'm not defending donohoe however i feel he could have been handled in a more professional manner, it looks like a PR stunt.

 

the points bearger kindly highlighted above are very interesting, in that James blair has been asked if club1872 would own any assets and he doesn't believe they would under the projects CIC which begs the question, what is it actually for? is it community benefiting or is it plc benefitting....time will tell. The removal of pre-emption rights could kill the FO dream forever, you could suggest that the PLC want to protect their investment and shareholding , the removal of those rights means they can go to any party and offer them shares without having to offer them to other shareholders instantly diluting the other shareholders shares. For a better explanation watch the final hustings video, Mr Mcgookin articulates it very well. The board may be Rangers fans but i'm sure they would also like a return on their investment, which makes them very different to you or me IMO. 2012 has taught me you cannot trust everyone, just because they own and run RFC.

 

Which leads me on to my next point, COI, I've heard varying statements on this "he could walk out the room", "we all have a COI because we are rangers fans". The fact of the matter is if JB has to make a call which would not directly benefit the PLC or damage it's market rep in some way then he's going to choose the PLC every time, You cannot state that this will never happen and it HAS to be considered, The PLC pay his law firm for his legal services and there is a chance he will have a competition clause in his contract which will protect the PLC. It's no surprise he's offering another year to finish the work he started...i'm sure he has worked tirelessly but ii don't believe he should be standing.

 

I find it odd that some candidates have been picked over others or "invited" to appear in the newspapers, I don't think it's a coincidence that they are RST-backed members either, each person has their own unique story to tell and it should be a catch -all process so everyone has a fair chance. Alex Wilson appearing is not a surprise, he's Paul Murrays friend and was one of the blue knights, so folk would be naturally interested in his involvement .

 

OMOV -it's important to remember that the club1872 board have an influence over it's members, "do you wish to unite the fans groups?", This is a Leading statement i.e Prompting desired answer, so in this case it leads you into voting yes because if you vote no you don't wish to unite fans groups... are we really surprised it was an "overwhelming majority"? of which less than 3k voted...if we can afford to pay for 50k leaflets to put around the stadium, advertising space (all non-member approved purchases) in the stadia and press room we can surely afford to reach out to the offline member base and encourage them to vote via another medium... text, telephone, postal, paper... etc.? I can see why tannochside bear thinks this is a heavily slanted process, from the outside looking in, it certainly appears that way.

 

This board will have a collective responsibility of over £1m in fans cash, each and every one of you should be able to trace your donation from start to finish, without question. Absolute transparency.

 

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish good luck to all candidates and i hope you hear and share some of the concerns raised in this thread, all very pertinent and concerning.

 

I vehemently disagree with your take on JB snags - James didn't say that there is no indication that 1872 wouldn't own a project - he was responding to someone asking if 1872 must retain the asset value of a project.

 

Projects aren't completely defined within 1872 and it will be up to the new board to liaise with members and then vote on the exact procedure and capabilities

 

If you look Asset Lock guidance it clarifies it a bit:

 

6.1.1. A transfer of assets must satisfy certain requirements

This means that, subject to the CIC meeting its obligations, its assets must either be retained within the CIC to be used for the community purposes for which it was formed, or, if they are transferred out of the CIC, the transfer must satisfy one of the following requirements:

 It is made for full market value so that the CIC retains the value of the assets transferred;

 It is made to another asset-locked body (a CIC or charity, a registered society or non-UK based equivalent) which is specified in the CIC’s Articles of Association;

 It is made to another asset locked body with the consent of the Regulator; or

 It is made for the benefit of the community.

Provision to this effect must be included in a CIC’s Articles. CICs are also able to adopt asset lock rules that impose more stringent requirements, provided they also include these basic provisions.

 

I will be voting for James really hope he gets on and believe that it will benefit 1872.

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.