Club 1872 Elections - Gersnet Vote

[Bluedell 5,329]

I wouldn't be respecting my position, and the mandate I've been given, if not providing Members with the necessary guidance and detail, that provides clarity.

Who gave you the mandate?

Edited September 28, 2016 by Bluedell

[Bluedell 5,329]

Club 1872 owns circa 6% of RIFC shares ergo it owns 6% of the tangible assets.

 

Not sure where you're coming from on this but it doesn't own any assets.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Not sure where you're coming from on this but it doesn't own any assets.

 

Not directly no.

[Teddybears1981 0]

Who gave you the mandate?

 

Theoretically speaking!

If I'm elected on the premise of honesty and transparency, ergo, insuring members have the ability to make an informed decision.

[Teddybears1981 0]

Not directly no.

 

I would define a share investment as a tangible asset.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Theoretically speaking!

If I'm elected on the premise of honesty and transparency, ergo, insuring members have the ability to make an informed decision.

 

Not sure what you were meaning then. It's not a mandate that you have been given but a viewpoint that you are standing on?

 

Even if you are elected, it may be that the other board members are against it so it doesn't necessarily mean that it would happen.

 

I would define a share investment as a tangible asset.

 

Eh? Your definition would be wrong.

[Bluedell 5,329]

As for the argument on pre-emption rights, I've generally been against them being waived over the past 25 years.

 

I hate to think what the previous board could have got up to if they had really wanted.

 

There could surely be a mechanism whereby everyone is offered their % but those shares not subscribed for could be offered to other shareholders?

[craig 5,195]

I would define a share investment as a tangible asset.

 

But it isn't under accounting rules. Though I see the thought process.

 

Investments in shares are investments in a company's equity.

[craig 5,195]

As for the argument on pre-emption rights, I've generally been against them being waived over the past 25 years.

 

I hate to think what the previous board could have got up to if they had really wanted.

 

There could surely be a mechanism whereby everyone is offered their % but those shares not subscribed for could be offered to other shareholders?

 

Is the issue around pre-emption not one of preventing Ashley from voting or maintaining his current shareholding ? If that is the case then offering doesn't prevent him from taking up his subscription in his current shareholding, as he would be able to purchase in accordance with his current ownership so as to not dilute his holding.

[Teddybears1981 0]

If you can't split the quotes, then place your replies in the quote box and embolden them that will make it a lot easier for people to follow and disseminate and also for me to reply. Just remember to place 10 characters outside the quote box or it won't upload.

 

 

 

 

I thought the election was about deciding who gets the positions and mandates or have I missed something?

 

Theoretically speaking! Members are voting on certain characteristics that they're expecting will continue, once elected. Honesty and Transparency being, two.

 

 

I think the members will have the wit to see that and arrive at their own conclusions.

 

We shall see!

 

 

I previously stated that in fairness to yourself I did not think any of the candidates explained that short term dilution is a distinct possibility or even probability. I welcome the fact that you have engaged and lament the fact other candidates have not made the same effort.

 

I explained in both my application and Hustings

The consequences of "Dissapplication" and the immediate effect.

 

I see no reason why the Club 1872 should fear the disapplication of pre-emptive rights and no reason why arrangements cannot be made that would allow it to grow its' holding after any dilution. Not sure "clawback" is the term I'd use but we'd arrive at the same place.

 

Maybe once negotiations commence, and after due-diligence...you may well be right.

 

 

 

 

Thing is it's only the percentage of eligible votes cast that apply not the amount issued, no PLC ever gets 100% of possible votes, 69% is run of the mill stuff. Given that Resolution 10 required a 75% vote in favour and got 73.8% with in my opinion a surprisingly weak push by the Board I believe shows there's a will for it and should be obtainable.

 

A year's along time in business. Time will tell.

 

 

 

 

I think the projects will be a contentious subject but I suppose it'll come down to what's actually proposed.

 

...Or wheather what's proposed, complies with the asset lock rules.

 

 

 

I think such a scenario is a very real possibility depending on various factors such as size and timing of any issue/s.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't, and it doesn't follow that it's inevitable that they won't increase their investment.

 

 

 

 

Where have I alleged you're bereft of honesty?

 

Misinterpreted your comment, in that case.

Seemed, You alleged I hadn't been honest with members in the reality of the situation involving preemptive rights.

 

 

 

The sooner the better in my opinion that's why I think it will be months away yet you think it's years away.

 

Limiting it to 5% may well be a sensible course in the long term but not at present as we need to raise way more than that limit would allow

 

 

 

I certainly don't expect them to be written off (be nice if they were though!) but your previous post states "I'll put it to you that all those on the Plc board with investments have done so to make money. Which is fine!" Quite a difference eh?

 

I wasn't being literal!

Again, theoretically speaking, its junior debt! This won't plunge the Plc into administration. There is no security, no interest, no repayment date.

The Plc investors are well aware that time is on their side in regards to this provision.

They will not demand repayment, because they set the terms and operate the finances. In terms of Public Perception, demanding cash, would tar their reputation.

But only a fool would assume that receiving shares in RIFCPlc at this time, is of less worth than cash. Out with the control it would provide, the return in years to come will be profitable.

 

 

 

I'm well aware of that and that's why I believe an issue will be months away rather than years as we simple don't have access to income streams other than the ones we currently have. We also have a severe maintenance backlog to address and potentially costly improvements to be made to the stadium which will result in an ongoing revenue constraint.

 

According to SR...No issue of new shares, on a preemptive basis, until after litigation.

 

 

 

I do it simply because I believe it's for the betterment of the Club, if I wanted a return I wouldn't put money into anything Rangers related, I do purely as an emotional investment.

 

Indeed. As I stated! "Assurance"

But, as a company the money is used to get a return. That "return" being "shares" or compliant projects. So of course the money is used for investment purposes.

 

 

 

A few lines further back you claim "A share issue (of any kind) is nessesary now!" then "Not though, when one of our largest revenue stream is embroiled in litigation, when we're not back in Europe", we can't wait years for litigation to be settled, we can't factor in a return to Europe and nor should as that's basically asking to be bitten on the arse.

 

A share issue where all shareholders can participate in providing funds, direct to the Plc, is quite quite different than an exclusive arrangement where the only beneficiaries are Plc investors. I thought that was pretty obvious.

 

I assume by pre-emotive you mean preemptive as far as I'm aware we can issue shares on a preemptive basis but not currently on a non-preemptive basis. I previously listed three options that didn't require the issuing of a prospectus but concede there is a 5m Euro limit on that. An open offer would also allow Club 1872 to gain extra entitlement through the Excess Application Facility. The last Open Offer resulted in 4,197,058 shares being not picked up at a price of 20p.

 

 

 

 

 

What's it to be "want a return on their investment", "If those involved aren't eager for a quick return", "I don't accept said investments aren't incentivised with a higher return" or "Those loans are effectively written off", "They could simply right them off" you're all over the place in this instance.

 

Not at all! Aghast you can't interpret what I'm explaining.

In terms of "effectively written off" that's taking into consideration the lack concern on the repayment of these loans. No caveats or provisions.

 

Also! It is the case (although of course they won't) they could effectively "right off" these loans.

I'm simply asserting the reality of the situation.

 

Whereas the verity of this these loans is to invest, an incentivised investment, hence they were exclusive. That's the plan.

Only an opinion, of course.

 

 

 

 

I expect the figure to be vastly improved from the ones previously but still to be way short of where we need to be due to the uncertainty of other income streams not delivering what they should.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes there must be a balance but I still believe a non-preemptive rights issue will be necessary initially.

 

 

 

I don't expect you to accept a plan that would decimate Club 1872 rather just an acknowledgement that a short term dilution is a probability but that in itself would not harm Club 1872 in the long term and may well aid it (basically what you quoted Stuart Robertson as saying).

 

Which Ive stated, I would support a bilateral arrangement.

 

I don't expect regular placings between King and others but short term I believe it to be necessary and to pull in others of their ilk.

 

Time will tell.

 

 

 

I don't have to accept anybody's opinion (nor they mine), I'm certainly not pontificating (others on here are much more accomplished at that than I) and whist I see where your opinion and understand where it's coming from nothing you've written so far persuades me that my own opinion is any less valid than yours.

 

I'm always open-minded in that regard.

Each to their own. I happen to believe, I'll take the appropriate steps (if elected) that will prosper both, But I'm always open to differing opinions.

 

 

Seriously why the f*&k would I be trying to create unease, I'm certainly proferring an opinion you think you're not doing likewiase? Nothing I read in your discussion with SR causes me to alter my view in fact some of the content reinforces it.

 

Well, continually reiterating the "so-called" perilous nature of our finances is not something evidenced within my discussing with SR.

Therefore, where does this conjecture stem from?

Where does this belief that settling subordinated loans is a necessity, now, of all times. Especially, when as you say the Plc could hold a share issue.

It's not about funding the Plc, persay! ts about settling debt. (Dissapplication)

But I'm willing to support in certain circumstances. I've been clear on that.

 

 

They can offer more shares than they know will be taken up (it's not underwritten, though Club 1872 underwriting part of it could be a viable) the unsold shares can then be released to Club 1872 over a period of time ergo growing it's stake back up and even eventually exceeding its'

 

At maybe a much higher price...

That being said! I would open to a compromise that could work for both, ballaterally.

 

 

 

 

 

Covered earlier in the reply.

 

 

Club 1872 owns circa 6% of RIFC shares ergo it owns 6% of the tangible assets.

 

And? (Refer to my answer, previous)

 

 

Club 1872 currently have the same to show for it as all other shareholders holding at least 5%.

 

That's up them.

 

You have the right to call a General Meeting ( though one of your fellow candidates at the hustings demonstrated his ignorance of such matters by claiming 10% was necessary for that), the right to propose a resolution at a General Meeting, the right to require the company to circulate to shareholders a statement relating to a proposed resolution to be put to shareholders’ meeting and the right to prevent the deemed re-appointment of the company’s auditor .

 

Again! Benefits to all with 5% or more. Club1872 as a supporters initiative, goes way beyond the realms of a standard shareholder. The majority of the assets in its possession, are primarily to prosper the football club. That puts us in a unique position.