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
    • William Cowie
    • Alex Wilson
    • Joanne Percival
    • Laura Fawkes
    • Iain Leiper
    • Stevie Sinclair
    • Craig Houston
    • James Blair
    • Johnathan McGookin
    • Scott McCulloch
    • James Durrant
    • Kelly Johnstone
    • Brian Donohoe
    • Iain Martin

Recommended Posts

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?


Easiest way would be for example say Club 1872 to underwrite a rights issue (or a proportion of it) but that doesn't in itself guarantee additional shares if it's fully subscribed, an Open Offer is another method but that's quite limited (not sure if a Cash Box Placing could be another option).


The dis-application of preemption rights is a useful tool in the right hands so it's basically it comes down to a case of whether you trust the current Board or not. It has to be voted on annually whether to renew it or not. Personally I think it would be the correct option in the short term but don't foresee the need for it to be a permanent fixture.

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


It's not theoretical at all it'll be very real come close of play on Thursday.


We shall see!


I wouldn't be so disparaging of my potential constituency.


I explained in both my application and Hustings

The consequences of "Dissapplication" and the immediate effect.


I watched the hustings and to be honest you came across better than most that evening. Other than what's in this thread the only other thing I can find is the quote below from http://club1872.co.uk/my-club-1872/elections-2/johnathan-mcgookin/ I assume this is what you mean by your "application".


I find the bit in bold rather disingenuous as I'm of the opinion getting 90% of the eligible membership to vote is practically impossible but I suppose that's why it was phrased in that particular manner, I imagine the election results will give an indication of those not suffering voting apathy.



2. To vote in favour of the removal of pre-emption rights at RIFC plc. The club’s previous 3 AGMs have seen unsuccessful attempts to have pre-emption rights removed. These subscription privileges ensure existing shareholders are offered new shares issued by the company on a pro-rata basis before that of an external party. This ensures that “Club1872” we always have the opportunity to maintain its percentage shareholding in the Plc. I would propose that for Club 1872 to vote in favour of the removal of pre-emption rights, that this will first require 90% approval of the eligible membership.



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


Indeed it will.



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.


I didn't allege anything at all I stated my opinion that none of the candidates have in my opinion adequately explained the dis-application of preemption rights and the possible outcomes thereof.


I wasn't being literal!


Looks pretty literal to me.


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


Not exactly the actions of men wanting a return on their investment is it?


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.


Well I suspect that makes me one of many,many fools, but wft do I know I've only been dealing in shares for 33 years. I really doubt it would provide anything resembling a profitable return.


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


It is my belief first issue at least will have to be on a non-preemptive basis.


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.


Getting shares for cash isn't a return it's an exchange.


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.


You contradict yourself by stating "of any kind", it's hard to see things as pretty obvious when you are constantly inconsistent through out the thread.


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.


I too am aghast that you cannot explain your position constantly and adequately due to flip flopping all over the place. The loans will only ever be "effectively written off" when and if they actually are written off until then they are still being carried and at some point will have to settled be that via repayment (worst option imho) conversion into equity whether via ordinary shares (your worst nightmare by the look of it)or some other type of stock whether over a period of time or in a single event or imho the least likely option a write off again over a period of time or in a single instance.


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 fail to see how an open ended unsecured interest free loan could possibly be described as "an incentivised investment"


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


Pointing out that our finances are not as strong as we need them to be to get to where we need to be and pointing out that it's my belief we need a large injection of capital is a world away from "continually reiterating the "so-called" perilous nature of our finances".


Therefore, where does this conjecture stem from?


What conjecture?


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.


As previously stated the loans will have to settled at some point, my preference but what appears your worst nightmare is to convert them into equity.


At maybe a much higher price...

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


If underwriting part or the whole of any issue the shares can be at a discount.


That's up them.




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.


Here's me thinking the only asset currently held is equity consisting of ordinary 1p shares in RIFC plc, (though Bluedell my question my use of asset!) and of course a cash balance.


One more thing good luck in the election.

Edited by forlanssister
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to confirm that I've used Gersnet's two votes to vote for the following:


Iain Leiper 24 - 72.73%

Joanne Percival 23 69.70%

William Cowie 21 63.64%

Laura Fawkes 21 63.64%

Craig Houston 21 63.64%

James Blair 20 60.61%

Iain Martin 18 54.55%


Thanks to everyone who took the time to vote in our poll, and congratulations to those who were successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would everyone be happy if the above selection was the 1872 board?


Doesn't matter if they are nothing more than an extension of the Club :ninja:


In all seriousness, I couldn't possibly say one way or another as I don't really know any of them, hence why I never voted in the Gersnet poll. Rather than being voting apathy it was because of a complete lack of knowledge of those vying for election.


Either way, I wish all successful candidates well and hope that Club 1872 can become the vehicle that we all wish it to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't matter if they are nothing more than an extension of the Club :ninja:


In all seriousness, I couldn't possibly say one way or another as I don't really know any of them, hence why I never voted in the Gersnet poll. Rather than being voting apathy it was because of a complete lack of knowledge of those vying for election.


Either way, I wish all successful candidates well and hope that Club 1872 can become the vehicle that we all wish it to be.


I didn't vote either.

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.

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.