Kill Devil Hills & Club 1872

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

That's good in theory but will it actually work? There will be a "them and us" feeling between those who are "only" in a sub-group and those who are on the Board.

 

Will you get the same buy-in and commitment from those who are in a sub-group? I'm sure that there will be some, but for many they will feel like they are not being fully involved.

 

There may be initial interest, but how many will have dropped out after 6 months if they are being expected to work hard but not being given the carrot of being involved in decision making?

 

I'm not convinced the sub-group model will work long term.

 

I suspect this is spot on the money BD, but I would hope the flip side to that would be that some would not want the responsibility, and profile of Directorship or perhaps not have the time to take on such a role but would happily lend a hand in a sub-group to deliver a specific project that perhaps had a timespan of only a few months and was something they really bought into.

 

Thinking back to my own experience back in the day with RST I knew I never had sufficient time to offer myself up for Directorship, but I had discussions a couple of times about perhaps getting involved in sub-groups on subjects I was interested in or had knowledge about.

[union 0]

I will wait until after CoS appearance by King and any possible rights/share issue before deciding on anything, I remember only too well the dilution and debenture fiasco of the past.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I suspect this is spot on the money BD, but I would hope the flip side to that would be that some would not want the responsibility, and profile of Directorship or perhaps not have the time to take on such a role but would happily lend a hand in a sub-group to deliver a specific project that perhaps had a timespan of only a few months and was something they really bought into.

 

Thinking back to my own experience back in the day with RST I knew I never had sufficient time to offer myself up for Directorship, but I had discussions a couple of times about perhaps getting involved in sub-groups on subjects I was interested in or had knowledge about.

 

Perhaps it's a mix and match, with more on the board but still having some who are happy with the sub-groups.

[Gaffer 1,665]

What's your view on the sized of the board? Seven always seemed too small to me and a much bigger board would spread the workload more, ensuring more work gets done and would also mean that we're not left with the current situation of not having a quorum.

 

Just a thought .... there may be many more people who could commit some time to specific programmes on behalf of Club 1872, so perhaps we could consider how working groups (reporting into the board) could be used more often. This would allow people (perhaps even myself) to help with specific skills and expertise for limited periods of time, without having to commit to the increased demands of a role on the board.

 

In which case, we could retain a limited number of people on the board and fully utilise the wealth of experience from the wider support.

 

This is how a large commercial organisation's board would operate so we could adopt something similar. We could give the board members the authority to bring in the expertise as and when required.

[Gaffer 1,665]

I suspect this is spot on the money BD, but I would hope the flip side to that would be that some would not want the responsibility, and profile of Directorship or perhaps not have the time to take on such a role but would happily lend a hand in a sub-group to deliver a specific project that perhaps had a timespan of only a few months and was something they really bought into.

 

Thinking back to my own experience back in the day with RST I knew I never had sufficient time to offer myself up for Directorship, but I had discussions a couple of times about perhaps getting involved in sub-groups on subjects I was interested in or had knowledge about.

 

I wish I had read your post before writing mine TB. I just hadn't got to this page.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

It's a hugely tough vetting system the Bears have for someone to represent them. What faction are you from? Club1872 Peoples Front or those Feckers from the People's Front of Club1872? or god forbid the No Surrender Rangers First and Remember Rangers Trust.

 

I would put myself forward but i have been a acolyte of all of them, so that would rule me well out. Shame as I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me hugely qualified, I'm A Rangers fan.

Edited May 18, 2017 by aweebluesoandso

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I am fortunate to be able to say that I have been at the site in Kill Devil Hills as well as witnessing "The Lost Colony" play at Manteo on Roanoke Island. Some may also draw parallels with the disappearance of the settlers.

http://thelostcolony.org/about-the-play/

 

My comments for what they are worth, based on my past experience in the RST, SDS, RFB and in the formation of RF as well as the boards of other organisations:

 

• An organisation born out of two warring factions was always bound to have significant teething problems.
  
• Club 1872 is at a very low ebb, survival is the name of the game and new elections are the key.
  
• I do not agree with the short term re-appointment of any resigned directors, however talented and well-intentioned; ahead of new elections which should be organised asap.
  
• I think 7 is a good number for a board of directors, any more makes decision making very difficult, any less makes it unrepresentative.
  
• The directors need to have the power to make certain decisions whilst others are left to the members on the one member one vote basis; the two are not mutually exclusive. If the only decision a director can make is to put an issue to the membership; there is no point in being a director.
  
• No one director should be able to override the others, whatever the theory or reasoning behind this situation.
  
• No one director should be the sole signatory on bank accounts.
  
• No person with a conflict of interest real or perceived through direct or indirect involvement with Rangers FC should be allowed to stand for election to the Board. I do not agree that such conflicts can be "managed".
  
• I agree with BD's comments about sub groups, sounds great in theory but unworkable in practice other than on a short term ad hoc basis. What ever happened to the RF sub groups?
  
• I also think there is great difficulty with the compromise model of one organisation charged with buying shares and investing in the Club. I understand why this came about and that there are some economies of scale but even with set percentages there will still be conflicts. Perhaps there should be two boards?
  

 

I have been sorely tempted to cancel my monthly subscription but have taken the view that that would be pointless; the only way to change the organisation for the better is from within.

Edited May 18, 2017 by BrahimHemdani
conflicts of Interest

[Bluedell 5,329]

No person with a conflict of interest real or perceived through direct or indirect involvement with Rangers FC should be allowed to stand for election to the Board.I do not agree that such conflicts can be "managed". .

 

I believe that such a conflict could be managed. However the current experience has shown that in some cases, even if there are reassurances and these reassurances come from someone who should know how conflicts of interest should be managed, problems can emerge.

 

As such, I agree with BH that such a clause is needed, with one proviso.

 

I would like to see C1872 have a goal of having supporter representation on the Board of the club. This shouldn't mean that if such a person was on the C1872 Board that they would have to stand down.

 

However that person would need to have the sole aim of representing the support and nothing else.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I believe that such a conflict could be managed. However the current experience has shown that in some cases, even if there are reassurances and these reassurances come from someone who should know how conflicts of interest should be managed, problems can emerge.

 

As such, I agree with BH that such a clause is needed, with one proviso.

 

I would like to see C1872 have a goal of having supporter representation on the Board of the club. This shouldn't mean that if such a person was on the C1872 Board that they would have to stand down.

 

However that person would need to have the sole aim of representing the support and nothing else.

 

BD.

 

As I can tell you with some authority from my role on SD, the position of Supporter's representative on a Club board is extremely difficult if not impossible to manage for at least two reasons:

 

1) Once elected as a Club director the supporter has a fiduciary duty to the the Club, which includes the confidentiality of discussions. This leads to the second major issue because the supporter cannot report back in any detail;

2) The Supporter's organisation quickly view the person they elected to represent them as a "rogue director" and conflicts arise.

 

(We have the current example of messrs King and Murray being "hopelessly conflicted" in their roles as Directors of RIFC and RRL.)

 

No question that it is a laudable concept but it is another concept that may not work in practice, indeed it has failed in numerous clubs.

 

I think a directly elected respected supporter would be a better idea, which is one of many reasons that I want to see a membership scheme starting with all those who buy ST's.

 

I would run that separately to C1872, which is clearly a shareholders organisation first and foremost.

Edited May 18, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[Bluedell 5,329]

BD.

 

As I can tell you with some authority from my role on SD, the position of Supporter's representative on a Club board is extremely difficult if not impossible to manage for at least two reasons:

 

1) Once elected as a Club director the supporter has a fiduciary duty to the the Club, which includes the confidentiality of discussions. This leads to the second major issue because the supporter cannot report back in any detail;

2) The Supporter's organisation quickly view the person they elected to represent them as a "rogue director" and conflicts arise.

 

(We have the current example of messrs King and Murray being "hopelessly conflicted" in their roles as Directors of RIFC and RRL.)

 

No question that it is a laudable concept but it is another concept that may not work in practice, indeed it has failed in numerous clubs.

 

I think a directly elected respected supporter would be a better idea, which is one of many reasons that I want to see a membership scheme starting with all those who buy ST's.

 

I would run that separately to C1872, which is clearly a shareholders organisation first and foremost.

 

Surely your "directly elected" fan would have the issues that you highlight in point 1?

 

There's no point in discussing the method of election now as we're so far away from it, but I'm not suggesting that it has to be a board member of C1872, but only that it shouldn't be precluded.

 

In respect of your point 1, I'm well aware of the duties that the fan would need to perform, and of course there would need to be some level of confidentiality. That would need to be spelled out clearly and guidelines put in place that the club were comfortable with and the fans were made aware of. that doesn't mean that it can't happen and these problems can't be overcome. I have something similar in my business and it gets dealt with relatively easily.

 

As for point 2, it does seem possible, as there seems to be a level of jealousy and resentment and the person standing would need to be aware of it and deal with it accordingly. I refuse to accept that it can't happen due to the bitterness of some fans, albeit, social media makes it that much more difficult nowadays.

 

As for C1872 being a shareholders organisation first and foremost, surely representatives on the board of these shareholders goes hand in hand. What's the point of having shares if you can't influence anything?

 

I'd end by saying it seems strange that for someone who has been on the boards of SD and RST that you're putting up so many objections to having a fan on the board.