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

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.

 

Re the last point - what if 1872 want to do a project that isn't in conjunction with the club?

 

The prerequisite is benefiting The Rangers Community

Link to post
Share on other sites
Re the last point - what if 1872 want to do a project that isn't in conjunction with the club?

 

The prerequisite is benefiting The Rangers Community

 

Then we retain the asset on the balance sheet. Full value of that project would be owned by the "Project CIC"

For example! If the project was a fanzone not on land owned by RIFC Plc. That would comply, in my opinion.

 

We are "Benifitting the community" as in those associated with the FC. Not the Plc, which is not within that guidance provision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Re the last point - what if 1872 want to do a project that isn't in conjunction with the club?

 

The prerequisite is benefiting The Rangers Community

 

Whereas, if the project was renovating Ibrox, there is no way of retaining the value of transfer, unless the Plc offer some sort of financial recompense with similar value.

"Benefitting the community" is not applicable in this scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then we retain the asset on the balance sheet. Full value of that project would be owned by the "Project CIC"

For example! If the project was a fanzone not on land owned by RIFC Plc. That would comply, in my opinion.

 

We are "Benifitting the community" as in those associated with the FC. Not the Plc, which is not within that guidance provision.

 

What if its not an asset - not all CIC projects result in assests being created, they could be activities funded by 1872 to benefit the community?

 

My point is that there is flexibility in the CIC rules and 1872 need to discuss with members what they want to do with the projects - to narrow it down to "All projects must be in return for shares" is not a decision that has been made by members yet and would narrow the scope of what projects could be performed - if that is the choice of the members then fine but that hasn't been the case yet

Edited by WATP_Greg
Link to post
Share on other sites
What if its not an asset - not all CIC projects result in assests being created, they could be activities funded by 1872 to benefit the community?

 

My point is that there is flexibility in the CIC rules and 1872 need to discuss with members what they want to do with the projects - to narrow it down to "All projects must be in return for shares" is not a decision that has been made by members yet and would narrow the scope of what projects could be performed - if that is the choice of the members then fine but that hasn't been the case yet

 

Which I've alluded to!

No projects can "Benefit the community" on areas owned within the Plc portfolio.

Those projects would require a return on the balance sheet.

That's not up for discussion in this instance, Greg. It's within the guidance.

 

You could handover over money to the Plc and right it off as expenditure.

Although, the regulator would never allow it in those circumstances nor would members, I presume.

 

The question should always be how we benefit Club1872 and the "Community" ...The "FC" will always benefit if we stick to that principal.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
Which I've alluded to!

No projects can "Benefit the community" on areas owned within the Plc portfolio.

Those projects would require a return on the balance sheet.

That's not up for discussion in this instance, Greg. It's within the guidance.

 

You could handover over money to the Plc and right it off as expenditure.

Although, the regulator would never allow it in those circumstances nor would members, I presume.

 

The question should always be how we benefit Club1872 and the "Community" ...The "FC" will always benefit if we stick to that principal.

J

 

Thats not the point I'm discussing - Interest free loans were mooted in early RF meetings to account for that though shares would obviously satisfy that too.

 

But there are activities that would come under the 'project' cic that would have no direct bearing on the value of any outside company and my point is that if you only choose to have projects for shares you may be limiting the capabilities of the projects - but if thats what members want then I'm fine with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not the point I'm discussing - Interest free loans were mooted in early RF meetings to account for that though shares would obviously satisfy that too.

 

But there are activities that would come under the 'project' cic that would have no direct bearing on the value of any outside company and my point is that if you only choose to have projects for shares you may be limiting the capabilities of the projects - but if thats what members want then I'm fine with it.

 

Personally! I wouldn't limit it to shares. More so, because I'm mindful that would require the removal of Preemption rights.

But, of course the members will ultimately decide.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not the point I'm discussing - Interest free loans were mooted in early RF meetings to account for that though shares would obviously satisfy that too.

 

But there are activities that would come under the 'project' cic that would have no direct bearing on the value of any outside company and my point is that if you only choose to have projects for shares you may be limiting the capabilities of the projects - but if thats what members want then I'm fine with it.

 

...Can I also add! Requiring shares in return, or anything for that matter, Will be solely dependant on the project and whom it's associated with...And whom it benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

All share trades across all markets are effectively matched bargains. I have no problem with Club 1872 picking up shares from anywhere after all the more shares in friendly hands the better.

 

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.

 

There are indeed a multitude of ways of raising money but in our case it's basically limited to the fanbase (as it stands we are purely an emotional investment) and given the debt we are carrying will need to be either paid back or converted the well will run dry very quickly without substantial input from high net worth fans (which is basically the current position as it stands).

 

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.

 

Club 1872 are investors in the PLC and absolutely they have the interests of investors any board of Club 1872 must recognise and acknowledge that. Undoubtedly we need small shareholders, we need them to become bigger shareholders.

 

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% .

 

This is where reality kicks in and the reality is that in the short term it will be necessary for Club 1872's shareholding to be diluted (barring a massive upsurge in both membership and subscription revenue) to state otherwise is both disingenuous and misleading.

 

"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.

 

Then it again it may be just months 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.

 

You already have the negotiating tool but it wouldn't be the wisest course of action to overplay your hand.

 

Not supporting dis-application of pre-emption rights would be a massive own goal that would harm both Club 1872 and the PLC in the long term.We are where we are because previous regimes have always run the club from a short term viewpoint and neglected the long term, we need to rid ourselves of short-termism and that applies to both Club 1872 and the PLC equally. That may necessitate decisions which some may find unpalatable but nevertheless need to be taken, Club 1872 members need to be told there will be a dilution of their holding in the short term in the interests of the longer term.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
All share trades across all markets are effectively matched bargains. I have no problem with Club 1872 picking up shares from anywhere after all the more shares in friendly hands the better.

 

Of course!

The JP Jenkins setup which is primarily an illiquid market, and as "Matched Bargain" cannot guarantee liquidity, as that of let's say a "Market maker system,"

it is a buyers market. Which should provide varied opportunities to trade for Club1872.

 

 

There are indeed a multitude of ways of raising money but in our case it's basically limited to the fanbase (as it stands we are purely an emotional investment) and given the debt we are carrying will need to be either paid back or converted the well will run dry very quickly without substantial input from high net worth fans (which is basically the current position as it stands).

 

Maybe best to re-visit this issue of financing, once pending litigation cases have been resolved.

Significant funds a miss, through onerous contracts and lack of any banking facility...Then there's a gradual return to European football.

If indeed the kinship is long term, I see no great rush to the remove the rights,

Unless a deal can be struck.

 

 

Club 1872 are investors in the PLC and absolutely they have the interests of investors any board of Club 1872 must recognise and acknowledge that. Undoubtedly we need small shareholders, we need them to become bigger shareholders.

 

They are! Generally speaking that is.

Not with aim of allocating capital, with the expectation of future financial return.

I, as a Member and as a Candidate have no aspiration whatsoever to sell our shares, ever!

Hence I want to further strengthen the asset lock.

Small shareholders cannot increase their proxy if that proxy is regularly diluted. That's where the strength of Club1872,s stock is vital.

 

 

 

 

 

This is where reality kicks in and the reality is that in the short term it will be necessary for Club 1872's shareholding to be diluted (barring a massive upsurge in both membership and subscription revenue) to state otherwise is both disingenuous and misleading.

 

How?

Preemption rights continue, and club1872 procure the secondary market.

Remove the rights and insure Club1872 are included in all such dealings. Win/Win

 

 

Then it again it may be just months away.

 

 

 

You already have the negotiating tool but it wouldn't be the wisest course of action to overplay your hand.

 

If it's in situ, I'm not seeing the benefit.

Hence members want tangibility.

 

Not supporting dis-application of pre-emption rights would be a massive own goal that would harm both Club 1872 and the PLC in the long term.We are where we are because previous regimes have always run the club from a short term viewpoint and neglected the long term, we need to rid ourselves of short-termism and that applies to both Club 1872 and the PLC equally. That may necessitate decisions which some may find unpalatable but nevertheless need to be taken, Club 1872 members need to be told there will be a dilution of their holding in the short term in the interests of the longer term.

 

Subordinated loans sit at £9m.

At 0.30p a share that's

Circa 30m shares, which is close to a 40% dilution. Thats also close to limit we can issue this financial year.

 

Alternatively, they could include Club1872, and create a system that's beneficial to both.

At that stage I would support the removal.

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.