Club 1872 meeting with Dave King

[Gonzo79 13,638]

The board stand for election and make their case.  Members then have an option to vote for their preferred representative.  

 

Much like a General Election, you're then stuck with that choice until another vote occurs, regardless of whether you're happy or not.  

 

 

[Gaffer 1,665]

2 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

The board stand for election and make their case.  Members then have an option to vote for their preferred representative.  

 

Much like a General Election, you're then stuck with that choice until another vote occurs, regardless of whether you're happy or not.  

 

 

Thanks Gonzo.  So when the board members are up for election, do they talk about their priorities (their manifesto if you like)?  I haven't seen anything like that published so I wasn't sure if it was just a case of them selling their skills and expertise rather than what they would do if given a seat on the football club's board.

[Gonzo79 13,638]

It's usually a couple of paragraphs, Gaffer.  Nothing very in-depth.  

 

I remember them standing a couple of years ago and I think there were videos - like mini party political broadcasts, where they stated their area of expertise and their intentions.  Again though, all a bit superficial.  

[aweebluesoandso 290]

1 hour ago, Gaffer said:

Thanks Gonzo.  So when the board members are up for election, do they talk about their priorities (their manifesto if you like)?  I haven't seen anything like that published so I wasn't sure if it was just a case of them selling their skills and expertise rather than what they would do if given a seat on the football club's board.

Yes Gaffer each member had an election manifesto published on the C1872 website, i think you can go on and read them or the old ones, they also did a live question and answer section were you could ask each individual questions on their publish manifesto/

[pete 2,499]

I personally see it like a hung government. The smaller party can either want to govern with or go in opposition of. If our foot on the board is one person who will have very little say on matters and virtually tie the hands of club 1872, then I would say we should be looking at this from an opposition role. let the board know they have the full backing but they will not be guaranteed that backing in matters that is not in the interest of the club 1872 shareholders or RFC in general. I personally think C1872 is far stronger as an opposition block than one foot in the door.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Again in this thread there are some good ideas, debate and answers, I have a belief in C1872 that has not diminished over that last couple of turbulent years for them. My belief is firmly based in the idea that we as Rangers supporters need to help finance the club. Yes there is the argument that as yet C1872 hasn't invested heavily enough directly into Rangers as yet, but spending £1mil of supporters money helping to removing Ashley's influence was  and remains a good move.

 

I'm a little disappointed by Dave King's attitude towards C1872, rather than praising C1872 help in removing Ashley's negative vote on the resolution 10, to allow a new share issue, we are told our shareholding being diluted and the subsequent further share purchases, might not be enough  investment to secure a board representative.

 

It  just seems that  whatever the C1872 share percentage is, it's never going to be big enough to satisfy King to allow the support a genuine presence on the main board. So how do we deal with that situation? 

 

I have already said that i think the support have done more than enough already to secure a place on the board, but obviously that's not good enough.Ok then let C872 try another tactic, i think, but stand corrected if i'm wrong, that C1872 said  they have about £40k a month being paid into their account through direct debits and one off donations? That's nearly £500k a year that could be directly put into Rangers to cover some of any financial shortfalls, over say a ten year period that would amount to a £5mil investment from the support, would that then secure a place on the board.

 

C1872 need to ask the questions here, do we go on buying shares or do we try and exploit other avenues that best serves the club and the supporters dreams of meaningful club representation.

Edited March 24, 2018 by aweebluesoandso

[Gaffer 1,665]

3 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said:

Again in this thread there are some good ideas, debate and answers, I have a belief in C1872 that has not diminished over that last couple of turbulent years for them. My belief is firmly based in the idea that we as Rangers supporters need to help finance the club. Yes there is the argument that as yet C1872 hasn't invested heavily enough directly into Rangers as yet, but spending £1mil of supporters money helping to removing Ashley's influence was  and remains a good move.

 

I'm a little disappointed by Dave King's attitude towards C1872, rather than praising C1872 help in removing Ashley's negative vote on the resolution 11, to allow a new share issue, we are told our shareholding being diluted and the subsequent further share purchases, might not be enough  investment to secure a board representative.

 

It  just seems that  whatever the C1872 share percentage is, it's never going to be big enough to satisfy King to allow the support a genuine presence on the main board. So how do we deal with that situation? 

 

I have already said that i think the support have done more than enough already to secure a place on the board, but obviously that's not good enough.Ok then let C872 try another tactic, i think, but stand corrected if i'm wrong, that C1872 said  they have about £40k a month being paid into their account through direct debits and one off donations? That's nearly £500k a year that could be directly put into Rangers to cover some of any financial shortfalls, over say a ten year period that would amount to a £5mil investment from the support, would that then secure a place on the board.

 

C1872 need to ask the questions here, do we go on buying shares or do we try and exploit other avenues that best serves the club and the supporters dreams of meaningful club representation.

I think that's a really interesting point and it's something I've been thinking about since this thread started.  There are just too many challenges facing us having a seat on the board.  One of the main ones for me is still the confidentiality angle.  I can't imagine any of the directors or shareholders being happy at the prospect of a rep feeling obliged to disclose (or rather leak) information of a sensitive nature to satisfy the demands of the membership, especially if they want to be voted in again.

 

However that side, as you say, we need to think about where we can add value.  And if we can agree on that, perhaps that's where we focus our intention instead.  The issue is, can we agree on that?  Buying shares seems like an objective we can all get behind.  But what other shared objectives could we have?

 

-  Addressing the media imbalance?  This to me is a real contender because it's something I believe we are all in agreement about and something that can be done separately from the club.

 

-  Lobbying for a better match day experience?  Football aside, there is lots that could be done to improve the experience for us.  The 'entertainment' pre match is almost non existent, and the food is absolutely shocking.  Even if I'm hungry I can't bring myself to eat anything in the stadium these days.  Then there's the facilities for the disabled.

 

I then started to think about other shared objectives and realised there's perhaps something even more important that we could do.  Since the future of our club is likely to be youth development, is this something we could focus on?  I was thinking of something along the lines of:

 

-  Regional Rangers football academies (funded by Club 1872 in part or in full);

-  Obviously an exclusive deal with the club to have first options on the players;

-  A standard sell on clause which means that Club 1872 then gets some money reinvested from sales of these players to further expand the network; and

-  Reduced or free tickets for youngsters to attend matchdays at Ibrox to encourage the next generation.

 

I'm a business guy so I always think about sustainability, partnerships, investment and returns, and this seems like it's at least worth considering.  It would mean that we could operate independently of the football club, but maintain a strong working relationship with them, meaning we could offer a respected opinion on developments in the club.  It would also open the door for future investment into Club 1872 meaning that it could eventually become self funding.

 

One of my fears is that we lose the next generation so we need to be thinking of ways we can attract youngsters in the same way we were as kids.  If Club 1872 wants to make a material difference to the future of Rangers, why not focus on the young bears?  I'd pay for that.

[trublusince1982 243]

Fans bodies are too reactionary as if their immediate thoughts must be known. Until a fans group can attract the support of the majority of fans they should be treated as a minority opinion.

[boabie 230]

1 hour ago, trublusince1982 said:

Fans bodies are too reactionary as if their immediate thoughts must be known. Until a fans group can attract the support of the majority of fans they should be treated as a minority opinion.

I can see where you're coming from here mate but C1872 are more than a fans group and should not be treated in the same way . They are financing Rangers directly.

If the majority of Rangers fans are unhappy with c1872 being treated differently they have a very easy solution - start doing the same.

[Soulsonic5791 408]

Having read the comments on the thread, I find myself still scratching my head with regard to fan involvement with the management of the club.

 

Does anyone agree that the shareholder interests among the differing equity blocks in all likelihood vary significantly in nature? 

 

As such, I'd love to find out what the number one priority of each shareholding is with regard to the reasons for buying shares. Therein lies the potential for a fundamental disconnect between fan investment and other investors. Club wellbeing aside, I struggle to see the current impasse between the varying interests being resolved to the satisfaction of the 'fans' anytime soon.

 

Would the offer of a secured loan from Club 1872 result in the organisation being viewed differently from the board's perspective?

Would Club 1872 seek to defer any potential future dividend in return for something else?

Did the RFFF money which is being used for the stand etc. at Auchenhowie have any conditions attached?

 

All investors want some sort of return. The difference is how the return manifests itself.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Soulsonic5791