Club1872 resignations

[Bluedell 5,329]

Club 1872 Directors are aware of concerns by members due to a blog by resigning directors. The Directors feel the blog contains inaccuracies, was unnecessary and unprofessional.

 

I'm not sure why the existing members feel that an explanation of the reasons for the resignations is unnecessary. It's concerning that the existing board do not feel that the members have a right to know. This comes across as if they are trying to withhold information from members.

 

Calling it a blog and unprofessional is itself unprofessional.

 

The Board would like to point out that it does operate to the highest standards and that the perceived conflict which triggered the resignations was most definitely NOT seen as a problem to the remaining board members, two of whom have significant levels of corporate governance experience.

 

I also have "significant levels of corporate governance experience" and believe that the there is a problem. The difference between me and those on the board is that I have no vested interest on either side of the argument and can make an objective decision, and one of those making that call was shown to have a conflict of interest himself last week, and is hardly in a position to look objectively at others.

 

The best thing for Club1872 would have been to address the issue and have the member in question tender his resignation. By taking this approach the remaining board seemed determined to rip C1872 apart and look to cause conflict rather than a quiet resolution that addresses members concerns.

[stewarty 1,876]

A sensible response from the remaining board. There are always two sides to any story, so hopefully the public meeting will allow for that to be put forward. On the face of it, it is really concerning to read what came out over the weekend.

 

My only aside though, is that given the way that Blair's views on independence and conflicts of interest during the Board elections have been undermined by his actions in the Takeover Panel, and possibly now by this, I don't have a lot of faith in his views if he is one of the two members with significant governance experience referred to.

[Royal_Blue_Legend 1]

Update from Club1872:

 

http://club1872.co.uk/news/board-comment-on-resignations/

 

For me, if the blog accurately reflects the resignation letters then fair play to them for speaking out. It's clear there is a smear campaign (I can guess where that's coming from) against the 3 directors who did step down and i find it disappointing that 1872 won't support them in a positive and professional manner.

 

We can all be confident that the outgoing party gave their all to the organisation and this latest statement will likely trigger another round of membership cancellations.

[craig 5,195]

I'm not sure why the existing members feel that an explanation of the reasons for the resignations is unnecessary. It's concerning that the existing board do not feel that the members have a right to know. This comes across as if they are trying to withhold information from members.

 

Calling it a blog and unprofessional is itself unprofessional.

 

 

 

I also have "significant levels of corporate governance experience" and believe that the there is a problem. The difference between me and those on the board is that I have no vested interest on either side of the argument and can make an objective decision, and one of those making that call was shown to have a conflict of interest himself last week, and is hardly in a position to look objectively at others.

 

The best thing for Club1872 would have been to address the issue and have the member in question tender his resignation. By taking this approach the remaining board seemed determined to rip C1872 apart and look to cause conflict rather than a quiet resolution that addresses members concerns.

 

Completely agree BD.

 

Those who resigned had every right to highlight the reasons for their resignations. It can't be forgotten that as Board members they have joint and collective responsibility - in the event of resigning you generally don't just say "I resigned" and leave it at that. You would give a reason for the resignation such that the members can see the transparency (go figure.... we, including C1872, are screaming out for transparency from the Club.... and yet the remaining Board members of C1872 wanted to stifle such transparency...).

 

If either of the two statements is unprofessional it is the one from the remaining members of the Board. Those resigning were professional in that they stated why they resigned and highlighted issues with a member of the Board - but without actually naming the Board member that caused issues. That is professional. If the remaining Board wanted the right of reply they had that and could have said so, and said they wished to point out any inaccuracies. In their response they barely even attempted to point out the inaccuracies other than to say "we don't agree".

 

I also have significant corporate governance experience (seems like that is all we do these days is governance) and I can also assure them that I too saw an issue with the situation as highlighted by the resigned members. If the remaining Board members see no potential conflict of interest then I rapidly am losing faith in their suitability to run C1872 - and would also question the corporate governance experience of those with it. To suggest you see no conflict of interest when

a) one of your Board has applied for an official RFC role

b) one which also would have C1872 report directly to that role

c) one where you are attending a meeting with the very people who would be interviewing and recommending the hire seems ridiculous to me.

 

There are a number of red flags that are raised with this situation with me. And that is before you start to even contemplate that C1872, at its very base premise, was one of independence from the Club. Yes, you CAN get independence but when you have a), b) c) above you lose the credibility and the perception of independence, whether it actually happens or not.

 

As I said in a previous post - you don't just need independence, you need to be SEEN to be independent - this whole situation calls into question that very basic premise.

 

And that is also before you get into all of the candidates at the time talking about "no personal ambitions for roles with the Club". Sure, things change - so you either resign (extreme unless successful) or recuse yourself from any meetings with people at RFC that can determine your success in the application.

 

I am mystified that those with "significant corporate governance experience" can't see the conflict of interest and lack of transparency.

[Frankie 8,145]

Whilst I don't like the tone of the statement, having an open meeting is the correct response (initially at least).

 

At that point it's up to both 'sides' of the board split to explain their actions and then the membership to decide how to move forward. For example, can the membership call for a vote of no confidence or the like?

 

From personal experience these splits are never pretty and almost always detrimental in the short-to-medium term. Trust in such organisations - especially when we consider the financial aspect - has to be paramount and it's fair to say the lack of progress for Club1872 in recent months does point to issues in the boardroom and there appears to be the kind of problems we all hoped wouldn't occur when the group was formed.

[Darthter 542]

I agree. Could be the membership do something about it, tell the guy in question to resign and the 3 to withdraw their resignations. I have emailed Club1872.

 

Club 1872

Copland House

2nd Floor, Ibrox Stadium

Edmiston Drive, G51 2XD

e: info@club1872.co.uk

 

someone was talking earlier in the thread about C1872 remaining independent of the club as a reason for the resignations.....If total independence from the club is required, is it not wrong that c1872's address is at Ibrox???

[craig 5,195]

someone was talking earlier in the thread about C1872 remaining independent of the club as a reason for the resignations.....If total independence from the club is required, is it not wrong that c1872's address is at Ibrox???

 

No, I don't believe that poses any problems - so long as you are renting office space or even just renting a mailing address. If, however, these are being provided free gratis by the Club then you COULD have an independence issue. Effectively, so long as your transactions are at arms length then independence isn't an issue.

 

It is a good question to be asking though.

Edited March 20, 2017 by craig

[Bluedell 5,329]

someone was talking earlier in the thread about C1872 remaining independent of the club as a reason for the resignations.....If total independence from the club is required, is it not wrong that c1872's address is at Ibrox???

 

I don't have an issue with it as long as it doesn't affect the C1872 directors from complaining about any issues. It's good that the club supply facilities that would otherwise be a drain on resources.

[craig 5,195]

I don't have an issue with it as long as it doesn't affect the C1872 directors from complaining about any issues. It's good that the club supply facilities that would otherwise be a drain on resources.

 

Not sure you could claim to be independent if your office space is being provided for free - the cloud of having those facilities pulled from you by the landlord (the club) could give rise to a lack of independence, or at least the suggestion of it.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Not sure you could claim to be independent if your office space is being provided for free - the cloud of having those facilities pulled from you by the landlord (the club) could give rise to a lack of independence, or at least the suggestion of it.

 

There's loads of similar issues, like the club providing advertising etc.

 

In my view, as long as the directors are independent then it should be fine. It's difficult for C1872 itself to be totally independent due to the relationship between the 2 organisations.

 

I don't see whether C1872 pays rent or doesn't affects anything. There's still a relationship. Nobody from C1872 benefits from the existence of rent. If C1872 were paying rent and the club pulled the lease then what are C1872 going to do about it?

 

It would however be a good way to get cash from C1872 to Rangers if the club were able to invoice VAT free.