Trouble with Club 1872 Working Group?

[plgsarmy 111]

I've accumulated a number of shares in the club, initially out of a sense of loyalty in the first issue and then progressively after the price fell significantly. I consciously avoided the RF and RST schemes simply because I prefer to make my own decisions and plough my own furrow. I fully expect to see the value of my investment crippled by the dilution of a future share issue but, since I have no pretence at influencing anything at the club, it won't disappoint me too much. If the deal is right I might even take up the next share offer.

 

Which brings me to a question that you look best placed to answer. Its a genuine question and I've no wish to grind axes over it. It's this. While I'm happy to accept your assertion that 10% shareholding is an impressive total, are you saying that the accumulation of those share is the achievement - or is it something that only the ownership of those share allows Club1872 to do? If it's the former, will Club1872 be able to fund 10% of any future share issue or (like me) is it prepared to see its shareholding diluted. If it's the latter, what are the specific achievements Club1872 has achieved or hopes to achieve in the future as a result of its shareholding?

 

These are probably quite obvious points to those of you who have followed the emergence of Club1872 but, as I've said before, I've paid little attention to it this far.

 

Edit: I should perhaps add that I did place my own shares at the discretion of Vanguardbears in terms of voting privileges.

 

Doesn’t your final sentence totally contradict what you said earlier? Many of us have our own shares but also choose to put monthly donations into a collective fans’ shareholding.

[Bill 13,717]

Doesn’t your final sentence totally contradict what you said earlier? Many of us have our own shares but also choose to put monthly donations into a collective fans’ shareholding.

No, not at all, why would you think there's a contradiction? There's clearly a distinction between ownership, together with the rights that go with it, and making a discretionary decision to give someone proxy voting rights on a case by case basis. For further clarification, those proxy arrangements are not ongoing. But my post wasn't about personal ownership preferences, it was about seeking clarity on the actual benefits that collective ownership has brought or is intended to bring, specifically in light of the proportional pre-emption rights that would come with any future share issue. Having 10% of the club's shares is one thing but would require Club1872 to maintain sufficient reserves to fund the purchase of 10% of any future issue if they want to continue to have a 10% holding, assuming that the level of shareholding is as important as is being inferred elsewhere in this topic. That's a lot of money and surely would only be worthwhile if that level of shareholding is actually delivering tangible benefits to it's members and the club.

 

It also beggars the question of whether there is in fact a conflict of interest between creating future investment in the club via another share issue and maintaining the influence of Club1872. As I said previously, I would lose some value through dilution and am prepared to see that happen. However, if the effectiveness of Club1872 really does depend on maintaining at least its current percentage shareholding then it has more to lose than simple share value unless it is in a position to fund and fulfil its pre-emption opportunities.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

One way to help them fulfill those options springs to mind.