Club1872 confirm £1million raised for share issue

[buster. 4,808]

8 minutes ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

It is worth noting C1872 have not been forced down any road, it is of their choosing to go back on their word and use the majority to try and force change. It smacks of a lost cause blazer trail, which we have seen before of course. 

 

The real winners in this are RIFC, who have had C1872 where they want them from the beginning. Never independent, compromised and controlled from day 1 and soon to have even less influence if that is possible.  Another circa £1m in to the club yet C1872's holding will be drastically diluted at the same time. 

 

But as long as the club prospers all will be well.

 

The old 'blazer chasing' line almost reminds me of certain governments and the citing of 'WMDs'.

Personally, I have thought for a longtime that Club1872 should have a seat at the main table given the % shareholding and find it strange that this becomes a stick to beat them. IIRC Forlansister said there was little chance of this happening, I'm not sure why but FS knows more about these type of things than I do. 

 

I think it relevant to state that both RIFC and Club1872 have at base, the same motivations and it isn't wildly outrageous that they co-incide and work together on many issues. 

 

The known consequences of how certain individuals have funded the ongoing financial shortfall shouldn't be a surprise regards dilution. But when 10M was being spent last summer, not many complained.

 

 

[Frankie 8,150]

42 minutes ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

Shares or projects?  Or is buying shares a project? I am quite sure C1872 made the distinction at sign up to get peoples cash. Desperate times now indeed.

 

The really laughable part is your sniping from the sides comment. Virtually all the sniping involving C1872 comes from within. 

I'll be honest and say I don't pay much attention to Club1872 but I think the option has always been there to have buying shares as a project.

 

I can understand that some won't agree with that but the majority decide I suppose.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

The old 'blazer chasing' line almost reminds me of certain governments and the citing of 'WMDs'.

Personally, I have thought for a longtime that Club1872 should have a seat at the main table given the % shareholding and find it strange that this becomes a stick to beat them. IIRC Forlansister said there was little chance of this happening, I'm not sure why but FS knows more about these type of things than I do. 

 

I think it relevant to state that both RIFC and Club1872 have at base, the same motivations and it isn't wildly outrageous that they co-incide and work together on many issues. 

 

The known consequences of how certain individuals have funded the ongoing financial shortfall shouldn't be a surprise regards dilution. But when 10M was being spent last summer, not many complained.

 

 

I want meaningful board participation by the support, so the thought of some representative of the support wearing a blazer doesn't bother me in the slightest. As long as the C1872 representative knows who he is representing, the support, anywho why can't C1872 supply their own Blazers?

[Bluedell 5,329]

If certain members have specifically chosen for a proportion of their cash not to be used for shares then it's wrong that other members can decide that their wishes will be ignored and they will be used for something else. C1872 have said "These supporters can now participate knowing that the focus is not solely on increasing shareholding."

 

Those contributing towards projects should be asked on an individual basis if they are happy for their contributions to be used, or otherwise their contributions should be left alone.

 

In addition, C1872's advertising is misleading. They claim that the cash raised will be used  "to build Steven Gerrard’s playing squad for next season." They can't guarantee that and will have no idea how the funds will specifically be used.

[colinstein 294]

5 hours ago, buster. said:

The toxicity of the politics did leave a mark and our culture probably focuses more on loyalty toward the team and that I think is more easily expressed by attending football matches.

 

There are those who seem determined to ensure the political confrontation continues. 

Club1872 seem to have gradually getting through teething problems and correcting mistakes that were rightly crictised and also gave encouragement to those who are still hell bent on tearing it apart.

 

 

a lot of people are as much against fan ownership, as they were against the RST, Rangers First, and now Club 1872. Who knows what their motivation is but they've got a whole forum to spout their shite

[Bill 13,717]

21 minutes ago, colinstein said:

a lot of people are as much against fan ownership, as they were against the RST, Rangers First, and now Club 1872. Who knows what their motivation is but they've got a whole forum to spout their shite

Despite your obsession with victimhood, I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this forum say they were against Club1872. They may have an issue with how Club1872 conducts some of its affairs and as Rangers fans I think they have that right, particularly when people are donating the money that keep Club1872 in business.

 

I'm almost certain they also would welcome any organisation that contributed to the prosperity and success of Rangers, whether that's Club1872 or any other.  However, given the events of recent years, Rangers many fans have a justifiably acute awareness of the difference between intention and delivery, whether that's in the Rangers boardroom or in organisations like Club1872. 

 

I have no particular opinion on Club1872. In fact, like Frankie, it occupies very little of my attention. What I do have an opinion on is the catalogue of fan organisations we've endured over the years that have said a great deal and delivered almost zero in terms of making a positive difference to Rangers FC. I don't know if Club1872 is like some of its less honourable predecessors or if its a paragon of virtue but I do suspect it would achieve a great deal more if it made more effort to convince Rangers fans outside its current circle that it was not the former.

 

Is that "shite"?

[buster. 4,808]

45 minutes ago, Bill said:

 

I have no particular opinion on Club1872. In fact, like Frankie, it occupies very little of my attention. What I do have an opinion on is the catalogue of fan organisations we've endured over the years that have said a great deal and delivered almost zero in terms of making a positive difference to Rangers FC. I don't know if Club1872 is like some of its less honourable predecessors or if its a paragon of virtue but I do suspect it would achieve a great deal more if it made more effort to convince Rangers fans outside its current circle that it was not the former. 

Fans group history has shown us that it becomes more difficult and complicated to fully focus on working toward delivering their mission, when there are others within the fanbase hellbent on discrediting individuals/groups for their own ends. 

 

That isn't a catch all excuse because no-one has been perfect but none the less it is a fact.

During the spiv years, some were prepared to colude with what was effectively 'the enemy' in their attempts to make sure groups didn't prosper towards their goals.

[craig 5,195]

9 hours ago, D'Artagnan said:

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.

I personally believe that is EXACTLY what they should do.

 

Anyone who voted for using their contributions for shares will be happy to do so.  Those same people will be happy to use the project money to buy shares too.

 

However, it is the people who are contributing to projects who are being asked to re-assign their funding - therefore, it is only they who should be voting on whether to allow that re-assignment.

[craig 5,195]

7 hours ago, Bill said:

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. 

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever about that Bill.

 

If, and it is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, we actually could act as "one", the potential is absolutely MASSIVE.  Just a tenner a month from even HALF of the people that went to Manchester would but 12 million into the club's coffers every year.  Just imagine that.  For the price of two pints we could, within 2 years, add 10,000 to the capacity or buy 2 players at, say, 4 million each year and even have enough to pay their wages.  We could completely refurbish Ibrox, we could return Auchenhowie to State of the Art.

 

But we are so fractured and mistrusting as a support that it is unlikely to ever happen.  More's the pity.

 

I think the quest for Boardroom representation, which D'Art mentions, is actually proving to be a mill around the neck of the fundraising efforts.

[Bill 13,717]

2 minutes ago, craig said:

I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever about that Bill.

 

If, and it is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, we actually could act as "one", the potential is absolutely MASSIVE.  Just a tenner a month from even HALF of the people that went to Manchester would but 12 million into the club's coffers every year.  Just imagine that.  For the price of two pints we could, within 2 years, add 10,000 to the capacity or buy 2 players at, say, 4 million each year and even have enough to pay their wages.  We could completely refurbish Ibrox, we could return Auchenhowie to State of the Art.

 

But we are so fractured and mistrusting as a support that it is unlikely to ever happen.  More's the pity.

 

I think the quest for Boardroom representation, which D'Art mentions, is actually proving to be a mill around the neck of the fundraising efforts.

I'm glad someone else has eyes to see where the problem lies and it's essentially a deficit of trust. There's no point in those who have committed themselves pretending otherwise because, like it or not, the judgement has largely been made by those who haven't.

 

It was entirely predictable when, instead of wiping the slate clean and starting with an entirely fresh agenda, they made it clear Club1872 was an evolution of past organisations, including having some of the same people involved. We might have had the unity you mention but that was sacrificed when the current organisation was set up. It's a simple matter of branding and in my opinion they got it wrong. But hey ho, it was ever thus on planet Rangers.