Jump to content

 

 

Club 1872 Stewart Robertson Meeting Summary


Recommended Posts

Rangers First always had a Community Interest Company and part of its remit was to safeguard some of the clubs' assets through CIC ownership. This obviously carries into C1872 which has ownership of RF's CIC plus RST's.

 

I presume that any infrastructure investment would be through the CIC, although I'm not sure how the protection would work in practice.

 

I understand that members of C1872 have the choice of how their cash is invested. I think the default may be 50:50 between shares and capital projects but members can opt for just one if they wish.

 

Seems like a fair enough way to go about it.

 

Thats about right BD - unlike RF which was shares acquision only - the CIC is in different parts now to accommodate the wishes of members.

 

The shares CIC will solely be for the acquisition of shares and the projects CIC for projects.

 

But both are still goverened by CIC rules.

 

In the case of the Projects CIC any projects undertaken would still have to satisfy the conditions laid out for a Community Interest Company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty right now is that there are no shares for sale in the open market. C1872 is taking in funds on a monthly basis and sitting on a pile of cash. They either have to save the funds for a share offering, or offer a soft loan to Rangers (in return for equity ala King etc.) which has been put on the table per the meeting with SR. Not sure what else they can do at this time?

 

I think many anticipated more shares being issued by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many anticipated more shares being issued by now.

 

100% agreed. Not really sure I understand the delay in more shares being issued, but can only imagine that this relates to legal issues.

 

The concern that I have with the soft loans/debt being converted into equity at a share offering, is that no money comes into the club from those shareholders. Any new money raised would need to come from the existing shareholders wishing to maintain their percentage but not currently participating and providing the soft loans. Would King/Park/Taylor hold roughly 30% of the existing shareholding? What would their percentage increase to by the conversion of debt to equity? How much could we reasonably expect to raise from C1872 and other non soft loan providing shareholders in monetary value?

 

All of the above are legitimate questions, not being sarcastic, but if C1872 can find other Rangers projects to invest in, in the short term, surely that has to be good. If, to use the Paul Murray example at the time of the regime change, perhaps C1872 purchases the Ibrox pitch (think Chelsea has something similar) which then basically ensures that Ibrox could not be used for any other purpose. We then rent this back to Rangers for a notional amount? Again, I don't know if this would fall within the CIC conditions. However, I do believe that we have to be a bit more creative in our thinking in order to get money into the club and to get us back challenging sooner rather than later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agreed. Not really sure I understand the delay in more shares being issued, but can only imagine that this relates to legal issues.

Possibly down to Ally not get his backside in gear and failing to vote at the last AGM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly down to Ally not get his backside in gear and failing to vote at the last AGM.

 

I laughed! But wouldn't the resolution have allowed for new shareholders to participate in a share offering, rather than be restricted to existing shareholders?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I laughed! But wouldn't the resolution have allowed for new shareholders to participate in a share offering, rather than be restricted to existing shareholders?

 

It would have given the directors the freedom to convert debt to equity and to issue shares to new investors as well as existing ones.

 

Some would have seen their shareholding percentage being diluted but it would have seen more cash coming into the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is twice the vote has failed.

 

It has always surprised me that there was not a bigger push to have this passed.

 

I think that they thought they had it in the bag last time, given, as I understand it, Ally had reassured them the previous day that he would vote for it.

 

I guess that there's a sensitivity as well, given it benefits the directors to an extent. It may make it too difficult to promote too actively, particularly with some hostile shareholders in the background who could see their share diluted.

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.