Club1872 confirm £1million raised for share issue

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

Club1872 subscribers had the choice at sign up to donate their money to RIFC share purchases or other projects. The vast majority give to share purchase, no surprise given it is the whole raison d'etre of the organisation, whilst others were happy to donate to Rangers projects in the name of Club1872.

 

But it seems that for the forthcoming share placement in RIFC, in which Club1872 have rightly been invited to take part, Club1872 now want to call share buying in RIFC a 'project'.  Every member will get a vote, obviously, with the aim to circumvent Club1872's own rules, usurp the minority and say that their money will be used for a project - ie buying shares in RIFC with all funds.

 

A bit of a strange one that.

 

Edit:   Fwiw,  I voted against the proposal.

 

RIFC Share Issue Project Poll Club 1872 Shares CIC has the opportunity to participate in the upcoming share issue by Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC). In order to ensure that Club 1872 can subscribe for as many shares as possible, it is proposed that the share issue be designated a Project, so that monies raised for Projects can be used to acquire shares in the issue. This will also ensure that these monies directly benefit Rangers Football Club. Please click the link below and follow the on screen prompts to log in and to register your vote. The poll will close at 5pm on Thursday 14th June 2018. Members will also receive an update on the current funding position for the RIFC share issue.  VOTE HERE.   Club 1872

 

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Dragonfly Trumpeter

[pete 2,499]

A bit of money juggling there.

All resources should be used for shares when needed as that was the reason for setting up the organisation.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Im all for it

[craig 5,195]

It should probably have been considered at the outset that funds would be needed for future share issues.  No doubt they expected a larger uptake from Bears which would have meant being able to support both share purchases and projects.

 

It is a shame that Hearts Foundation rake in more than a Rangers fans organization.  Shows what can be done if everyone is pulling in the same direction.

[Malangsob 1,196]

Sorry, let me see if I am getting this correct. There was an organization formed by Rangers fans with the intention of gaining a financial foothold in the club.

 If all funds were to go toward share purchase wouldn't those projects be commensurate with the percentage of ownership?

Do they have a mission statement/statement of purpose (Club 1872)? If so, then this should have been outlined in that mission statement. If it was then specific allocations should be clarified.

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by Malangsob

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

1 hour ago, pete said:

A bit of money juggling there.

All resources should be used for shares when needed as that was the reason for setting up the organisation.

That being the case, why did they specify the RIFC shares and projects options? Money juggling you say, I think it is anything but. Was the projects option just to get even more cash into the organisation then?

 

Maybe it was and it has achieved it's goal. So  "we don't want your opinion, forget the agreement we had at sign up, and we will use your money as we see fit"....perhaps.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I split my monthly contribution 50/50 towards shares and projects, being a small businessman i liked the idea of having money put aside to build or acquire something for the benefit of the support.  However looking at the bigger picture i think keeping our share percentage up and putting money through a further share purchase back into Rangers, seems the right thing to do at this juncture. If we the support want to keep up with the big boys,we have to put our money where our mouths are.

Edited June 7, 2018 by aweebluesoandso

[BEARGER 1,829]

1. What is proposed here is not a "rights issue". A rights issue would be made available to all shareholders. What is proposed here is a straightforward private placing of shares to selected investors (including Club 1872).
2. The private placing can be made available to up to 150 people (maybe more, depending on how particular investors are categorised for prospectus exemption purposes - i.e. certain investors will fall into a particular exempt category and won't count towards the 150). In practice, these sorts of private placing are invariably made to far fewer than 150 people.
3. A rights issue would require a prospectus. The cost (and time involved) in producing a prospectus is significant. You need to get it approved by the UK Listing Authority. You are talking £1m plus in fees and at least 8 weeks (tends to be longer than that) to go through a prospectus process. Neither makes sense for us at this point in time. Plus the take up from small investors tends to be minimal (slightly different dynamic with a football club I know, but even so).

As well as raising new money (the main positive of course), the fundraising will have the incidental benefit to us of diluting other shareholders who we might prefer not to have on our shareholder register (the Easdales etc.).

[D'Artagnan 173]

Beyond belief.

 

There was feed back regarding this some time ago  - the overwheming majority of their members chose to opt for shares at the time of joining with a much smaller no. opting for projects only. The distinction was created for a reason.

 

But that distintion exists,  however  I suspect there were be a overwhelming vote in favour of utilising the projects money for share acquisition because the majority of members are in favour of shares. (Unless of course they restrict any such poll to members who only contribute to projects)

 

It seems the prospect of a seat on the board has become all consuming for this organisation, to the extent they are prepared to betray the wishes of some of their members.

Edited June 8, 2018 by D'Artagnan

[Bill 13,717]

Is it the case Club1872 is struggling to attract sufficient donations to meet its share placement obligations?

 

On another point raised above, I suggest the reason Hearts are apparently more successful at raising supporter funds is that their organisation isn’t carrying on its shoulders the tainted history of the old Rangers Supporters Trust which, like it or not, is still a source of discouragement for many.