The Emperor needs new clothes

[D'Artagnan 173]

During the last 25 years or so , as either a member of various Rangers forums, a shareholder at AGM, supporters groups organisations or latterly as a director of Club 1872,, I have witnessed Rangers supporters attempt to hold various power brokers on a succession of Rangers boards, to account.

 

Whether it was Murray, Whyte, Green or the current incumbents, there was always a common denominator - such an it interrogative process always took roughly the same format - a series of well designed and researched questions to which the interviewee would respond with a series of answers. In terms of establishing the truth it is a pretty flawed format, particularly without access to some of the processes or information which would allow us to determine the veracity and integrity of the answers provided. As passionate and concerned football fans trying to gain insight into how their club is being run this flawed process adopted by Rangers fans is probably no different from that adopted by concerned fans of other clubs the length and breadth of the country.

 

There is one critical difference however which is a game changer - Rangers fans are not just concerned and passionate supporters - they are the second largest shareholder in the club via the Community Interest Company, Club 1872. This is both a relatively new and unique situation and one which all parties involved need to take time to re-assess and consider. Fans have bought into the concept in order to both protect the club and have a real say in its direction - that is not achieved by the flawed and ineffective question and answer processes aforementioned. Nor is it achieved by Club 1872 directors taking members concerns to Stewart Robertson on a regular basis. Perhaps when those concerns become tabled motions requiring a boardroom vote then we will be heading on the right direction.

 

Last week, along with other Club 1872 members I was asked to cast votes in respect of the forthcoming AGM. Such a request came at the conclusion of one of the most shambolic managerial appointments in the history of our club and one which had both sporting and financial ramifications. One or more of the names in front of me vying for re-election to the board, was responsible for this shambles, but exactly who I did not know. As those responsible had neither the honour to tender their resignations for such a serious error of judgement, nor were the rest of the board committed enough to previous pledges and assurances regarding transparency, I was as a consequence completely deprived of the necessary information required to allow me to make an informed choice to both protect and safeguard my club.

 

Furthermore, such a catalogue of failings as described aforesaid meant that I could be actually endorsing and enabling the directors responsible for this recruiting disaster aforementioned, ironically at a time when the club are going through the recruiting process once again. Faced with such a dilemma and set of circumstances, I came to realise I was unable to satisfy the obligation to protect and safeguard the club. In essence, in its current format, Club 1872 is just not working. That is not a criticism of either the concept nor the current directors, but it is, most certainly, a criticism of the current Rangers board.

 

They have failed to acknowledge Club 1872 as either an equal of significant partner in matters concerning the club

 

Their method of engagement with this new power base has not evolved, relying on draconian question and answers sessions as a means of “positive engagement”

 

The tragedy is that in such a comprehensive failing the Rangers board have collectively negated Club 1872’s mission statement of protecting and safeguarding the club. You cant safeguard a club with question and answers sessions – some of us have learnt the lessons the hard way.

 

The whole relationship between the club and Club 1872 needs to be re-established, re-assessed, and within the club itself, there needs to be a considerable degree of realisation that there is a new power broker at the table. How the club accommodates this newly established seat of power will be both interesting and challenging. Club 1872 based on its % shareholding merits a seat on the board of the club, whether that will be truly effective in allowing it to fulfil its remit of safeguarding and protecting hthe club remains to be seen. This will be a considerable pioneering undertaking for all involved, but it as an essential journey which both the club and Club 1872 must embark upon in order that the latter can serve its purpose and obligation of protecting the former. The current status quo offers a situation which is neither effective or tenable.

 

Whatever is decided upon one thing is abundantly clear - we as fans, with a considerable balance of power at our backs, will no longer be satisfied with token and ineffectual question and answer sessions. This new balance of power needs to be accommodated within the club structure in such a way that it can fulfil its remit of truly protecting and safeguarding the club.

 

In essence we no longer deserve better, we now have the power to insist upon it.

[Gaffer 1,665]

I enjoyed that read, and I agree with some of your points. However, you direct most of your criticism towards the Rangers board, but shouldn't it be aimed more at Club 1872? Power isn't something you're given, it's something you take. If the Rangers board is not showing the level of respect to the supporters' shareholding, why not exert the power we think we have? I'm assuming that's what you're calling for.

 

I'm a Club member and will continue to give the directors time to find themselves and grow into the roles. There are a couple of areas I don't understand. If the Club directors do get a seat on the board, what can we reasonably expect them to tell the members about the items discussed? I'm expecting to hear very little, acknowledging that we appoint directors that have the right motives, skills and experience to do what they can to hold the board to account. I must admit that I've had little interest in finding out how the Club's management team goes about its responsibilities, but I assumed they were doing what any minority shareholder does. And for me, what they can do is very little. Am I missing something? And since they (we) can't 'take' that position on the board, doesn't that just show that we don't yet have any power at all?

 

Having said all that, if we did have a seat on the board, it would be one of the most difficult positions to hold. The other directors on the Rangers board can have their need for confidentiality respected, however can that be the same with our appointed non-exec? How much pressure would there be for him/her to leak information? I think that's the part I understand the least about how it's supposed to work. I just wondered if anyone knew how this operates at other clubs and if it operates well.

[buster. 4,808]

I enjoyed that read, and I agree with some of your points. However, you direct most of your criticism towards the Rangers board, but shouldn't it be aimed more at Club 1872? Power isn't something you're given, it's something you take. If the Rangers board is not showing the level of respect to the supporters' shareholding, why not exert the power we think we have? I'm assuming that's what you're calling for.

 

I'm a Club member and will continue to give the directors time to find themselves and grow into the roles. There are a couple of areas I don't understand. If the Club directors do get a seat on the board, what can we reasonably expect them to tell the members about the items discussed? I'm expecting to hear very little, acknowledging that we appoint directors that have the right motives, skills and experience to do what they can to hold the board to account. I must admit that I've had little interest in finding out how the Club's management team goes about its responsibilities, but I assumed they were doing what any minority shareholder does. And for me, what they can do is very little. Am I missing something? And since they (we) can't 'take' that position on the board, doesn't that just show that we don't yet have any power at all?

 

Having said all that, if we did have a seat on the board, it would be one of the most difficult positions to hold. The other directors on the Rangers board can have their need for confidentiality respected, however can that be the same with our appointed non-exec? How much pressure would there be for him/her to leak information? I think that's the part I understand the least about how it's supposed to work. I just wondered if anyone knew how this operates at other clubs and if it operates well.

 

On the face of it, the second largest shareholder group would have every right to request a seat at the boardroom table and get one.

 

But as you point towards, it would mean looking for a way to make it work for all parties, not least the challenge and thickness of skin for the individual selected.

 

Making it work and the perception of such may be two different things. There already seems to be a divide of sorts, where many of those sceptical of due impartiality between Rangers and C1872 won't be happy without a blow by blow account of what is going on upstairs.

 

It would be sad if we couldn't make it work because a seat at the table is what IMO corresponds to a large shareholding and what is needed.

[Bill 13,717]

A lot of talk about “power” but I suspect the reality is there isn’t any. Otherwise, that power would be being exercised instead of debated.

[Uilleam 5,409]

I thought, for a moment, that this was a thread about McInnes......

[Bluedell 5,329]

When we had the club Company Secretary effectively controlling C1872 until recently (or perhaps he still does...does he still control an override on any decisions?) then there was no marked independence in C1872.

 

Even their recent reactive statement on the management situation didn't come across as hard hitting and had a degree of reluctance to it.

 

They could be demanding a place on the board now. C1872 and the current board really need to establish their clear independence.

[buster. 4,808]

When we had the club Company Secretary effectively controlling C1872 until recently (or perhaps he still does...does he still control an override on any decisions?) then there was no marked independence in C1872.

 

Even their recent reactive statement on the management situation didn't come across as hard hitting and had a degree of reluctance to it.

 

They could be demanding a place on the board now. C1872 and the current board really need to establish their clear independence.

 

I agree regards a place on the board. It surely corresponds with the growing shareholding C1872 has.

 

Thinking out loud and prepared for being told I'm being stupid but if C1872 got a seat on the board, would that in some ways make it more difficult to be independent from the Rangers board ?

[Bluedell 5,329]

I agree regards a place on the board. It surely corresponds with the growing shareholding C1872 has.

 

Thinking out loud and prepared for being told I'm being stupid but if C1872 got a seat on the board, would that in some ways make it more difficult to be independent from the Rangers board ?

 

Potentially, and as you point out, it's not a particularly easy post to occupy, but it needs a strong C1872 to not let it and to get their representative to get their points across without worrying about ramifications of criticisms.

 

For it to work, the members' expectations of what the role entails will need to be clarified and it needs to be made clear right from the start that there will need to be some degree of confidentiality but it can also allow a better feedback than currently exists.

[D'Artagnan 173]

On the face of it, the second largest shareholder group would have every right to request a seat at the boardroom table and get one.

 

But as you point towards, it would mean looking for a way to make it work for all parties, not least the challenge and thickness of skin for the individual selected.

 

Making it work and the perception of such may be two different things. There already seems to be a divide of sorts, where many of those sceptical of due impartiality between Rangers and C1872 won't be happy without a blow by blow account of what is going on upstairs.

 

It would be sad if we couldn't make it work because a seat at the table is what IMO corresponds to a large shareholding and what is needed.

 

Club 1872's mission statement was to protect and safeguard the club for the future and finding the best way to facilitate this should be a priority. it is not so long ago our club was in malevolent hands and we should not ignore the possibility of history repeating itself.

 

If a seat on the board enables Club 1872 to fulfil its remit then fine take it, but the directors must ensure it enables them to exercise the due dilligence required - if it doesnt it becomes little more than a cosmetic exercise.

[buster. 4,808]

Club 1872's mission statement was to protect and safeguard the club for the future and finding the best way to facilitate this should be a priority. it is not so long ago our club was in malevolent hands and we should not ignore the possibility of history repeating itself.

 

If a seat on the board enables Club 1872 to fulfil its remit then fine take it' date=' but the directors must ensure it enables them to exercise the due dilligence required - if it doesnt it becomes little more than a cosmetic exercise.[/quote']

 

It's up to C1872 to find something that works for as many of it's members as possible.

 

Both those currently on the Rangers and C1872 boards will share the same broad hopes about the the football club's future. However, amongst some there is an almost adversarial tone employed when addressing surrounding issues and individuals.

 

At the moment, there are fans on both boards. The football club are trying to manage scarce resources in an ambitious way. eg. DK referred to the future necessity of regular European group stage football, which is far from a given.

 

C1872 members/fans in general.... wouldn't accept if the football club weren't ambitious. They wouldn't be for recommending the football club to reign in expenditure to a degree where we didn't need European football......even though there is a risk.

 

To my uneducated eye, the C1872 membership would have to trust whoever they chose/elected to take a seat on the football club board wrt how risk was being managed.