Dave King to Sell Shares to Club 1872

[rbr 1,247]

6 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Yes, you're right. It is immature of me to be so rude.

 

It's just that I found it so difficult to believe that you can't tell the difference between a question mark and other punctuation.

 

I'll adjust my expectations for the sake of this thread.

Now that’s actually witty .

 

apologies for my rudeness , we just need to agree to disagree , plus English never was my strongest subject ,lol

[Bill 13,717]

34 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

You said "I'm not sure what the issue is with him" and that what you had been told tells us everything. That suggests you didn't understand the conflict of interest (at best) which was backed up by the fact you didn't ask Laura why C1872 refused to take part in the club share issues, particularly when she emphasised that buying shares was their core aim.

Anyone defending Club1872's conduct in this affair and holding up the recent podcast as some sort of antidote to suspicion is in denial of what looks like an obvious collusion at the heart of this proposed purchase of King's shares.

 

By far and away the most important aspect of all of this is the dismay and despondency that, after all we've been through, certain individuals in whom many fans put their trust continue to act in the shadows, accepting fans' money without the openness and honesty that surely requires. Further, that if the same people who divided the support for so long are still front and centre in important matters like this, purporting to act for the support, then that speaks volumes for the judgement and credibility of Club1872. Club1872 might be something we want to work but now more than ever trust must be earned and justified, not given away for free.

 

It would be a truly desolate situation if, despite all the crusading rhetoric, Club1872 turned out to be just one more outfit that held the fans in contempt, while being bankrolled by those same fans. However, if Club1872 really did refuse to take part in previous share issues but is now willing to buy King's shares, at no benefit to the club, then there is probably more reason to stop contributing money than increase it. One thing is obvious - something isn't right about this.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

15 minutes ago, Bill said:

Anyone defending Club1872's conduct in this affair and holding up the recent podcast as some sort of antidote to suspicion is in denial of what looks like an obvious collusion at the heart of this proposed purchase of King's shares.

 

By far and away the most important aspect of all of this is the dismay and despondency that, after all we've been through, certain individuals in whom many fans put their trust continue to act in the shadows, accepting fans' money without the openness and honesty that surely requires. Further, that if the same people who divided the support for so long are still front and centre in important matters like this, purporting to act for the support, then that speaks volumes for the judgement and credibility of Club1872. Club1872 might be something we want to work but now more than ever trust must be earned and justified, not given away for free.

 

It would be a truly desolate situation if, despite all the crusading rhetoric, Club1872 turned out to be just one more outfit that held the fans in contempt, while being bankrolled by those same fans. However, if Club1872 really did refuse to take part in previous share issues but is now willing to buy King's shares, at no benefit to the club, then there is probably more reason to stop contributing money than increase it. One thing is obvious - something isn't right about this.

that is some list of accusations. without saying anything discernible to the ordinary fan. 

 

 

[Bill 13,717]

4 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

that is some list of accusations. without saying anything discernible to the ordinary fan. 

Actually, I didn't make a single accusation and I'm sure the 'ordinary fan' is quite able to discern that.

 

You've been all over this thread from the beginning, trying hard to confront anyone who questions Club1872. If you put more effort into addressing the questions raised, rather than attacking those who raise them it might help your cause. I'm not a member, I don't personally know anyone that is, I've never met this Chris Graham fellow or any of the players. But I am smart enough to be able to look at the information available and come to my own conclusions. At the moment, that conclusion is expressed in my last post.

 

What's your conclusion?

[JohnMc 2,463]

This is a great thread with some important contributions. Yes, it's been tetchy at times but people are passionate about it and that can only be a good thing. 

 

While I can see a lot of merit in what Club 1872 are proposing to do I can understand why some are sceptical of the organisation and who ultimately benefits. I'm not sure if that invalidates this proposal though. 

 

Before I started working from my bedroom a living like a hermit earlier this year I used to attend conferences and seminars. A regular topic at these events was 'exit strategy'. This basically means how will you leave the business you own. This is harder and more complicated than it sounds. Firstly, if you want to sell your business then it needs to be attractive to someone else. My first feeling when I read about this was that Dave King has struggled to find an exit strategy, and this is the best he's been able to come with. The reality of owning shares in Rangers is you are unlikely to make money from them. You might find ways of making money while you own them; they're good for profile, I imagine many people are impressed by a visit to the directors box, there are contacts to be made and possibly contracts the club needs fulfilled too. But the actual shares themselves are difficult to sell. 

 

Rangers are a huge club, but geography dictates that to outside investors Crystal Palace or Burnley are more attractive. They have access to riches we can only dream of. That narrows the field of potential buyers enormously. As things stand investing in shares in Rangers is more than likely going to lose you the investment. Whatever we might think about David Murray he was a shrewd operator and even he wasn't able to sell his shares. Dave King is a sharp cookie, a formidable businessman, tenacious and brave, yet he's already lost millions and I can understand why he doesn't fancy losing much more. In the end if his fellow directors don't want to buy his shares and if his children don't want to inherit them, then he needs to look outside for a buyer. Of all the potential buyers that throws up I think Club 1872 are definitely more positive than an investor with no previous connection to the club for example. Personally I'd prefer Club 1872 owned Dave King's shares than a minor Saudi prince or an American with a couple of minor league baseball clubs and an ice-hockey franchise looking to diversify his portfolio. 

 

For me the challenge all this needs to overcome is cultural. The reservations that some posters hold have been well articulated, but they're largely reservations about the governance of Club 1872 and and the efficacy of this particular proposal. I don't see that as at he big challenge, the big challenge is supporter apathy. Listening to the 4 Lads podcast I was alarmed to hear that Club 1872 only has 'around 7,000' members. That's fewer than sit in the Copland Road every other week (before I started working from my bedroom). With 45,000 season ticket holders and an active support of somewhere over 250,000 individuals that 7,000 number is depressingly low. But this isn't just a Rangers support problem or a Club 1872 problem. Clubs all across the UK struggle to attract fan involvement in ownership. Earlier this year Wrexham supporters agreed to sell their club to Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney a couple of fairly successful Hollywood actors with no connection to Wales far less Wrexham. I found this profoundly depressing. Not so long ago poor ownership led to Wrexham FC collapsing and being placed in administration. Sound familiar? Saved by a local car dealer poor finances dogged the club for several more years before eventually their Supporters Trust bought the club. A similar thing happened to Notts County a few years ago, where the Supporters Trust agreed to sell to a middle eastern consortium, with disastrous consequences. You really don't need to look too deeply to find football clubs with unpopular owners or being very badly run. 

 

Yet, despite this British football supporters, undeniably passionate and emotionally involved, resist becoming actually involved. So our football clubs remain open to rapacious asset strippers and incompetent chancers. For me that's the big challenge for Dave King and Club 1872, because if the events of the last 10 years didn't stir us from our apathy, then what will? I also suspect our other major shareholders will be looking at this with interest. At some point in the future they will want to dispose of their shares too. Some might have children equally passionate and interested and keen to inherit, but others might want their money back. In the end I believe football clubs should be owned by their supporters. Whether that's a small number of supporters who own large chunks or a large number who own small chunks. What Hearts have done is interesting, and worth spending time studying, but a number of clubs worth far less than Rangers have struggled to create something similar.  It seems most supporters simply don't want involved in running a club. 

 

I suppose the other question relates to whether people feel grateful to Dave King and what he did for Rangers. Are significant numbers grateful enough to give him £500 each? That's the reality of what's being proposed for me. This isn't so much about buying a significant stake in the club, or who controls Club 1872, both of those things will change in time. This is about whether Dave King should get his investment back or not. If he doesn't we might find it very hard to attract another wealthy supporter should the need ever arise again. 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Actually, I didn't make a single accusation and I'm sure the 'ordinary fan' is quite able to discern that.

 

You've been all over this thread from the beginning, trying hard to confront anyone who questions Club1872. If you put more effort into addressing the questions raised, rather than attacking those who raise them it might help your cause. I'm not a member, I don't personally know anyone that is, I've never met this Chris Graham fellow or any of the players. But I am smart enough to be able to look at the information available and come to my own conclusions. At the moment, that conclusion is expressed in my last post.

 

What's your conclusion?

that you don't like it for the sake of awkwardness and can't articulate why. If i a being honest. 

 

Also you haven't read everything i have said. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by the gunslinger

[Soulsonic5791 408]

Will fan ‘participation’ ever truly work?

 

Would fan ‘majority shareholder’ (a la Hamburg) work either?

 

For me, I reckon that the coverage this has been afforded hasn’t been all that helpful, and that isn’t meant as a slight on Stevie’s pod per se. I can see why Dave King would want to capitalise on the current feel good factor, but couldn’t this have been promoted to C1872 membership as an opportunity to increase the share block and pay back Dave as a thank you for playing his part in rescuing the Club? Whether this is implied or not misses the point. If it was the stated aim from the outset, a lot of the questions raised regarding  the deal and some of the accompanying innuendo could have been minimised if not largely avoided.

 

Governance appears to have been a delicate issue for C1872 since its inception and this no doubt partly informs why there are only circa 7000 members. King has said that he is willing to wait for an extended period to allow C1872 to raise the funds. I would imagine that he will be waiting a long time if C1872 continues to be run in the current manner.

 

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

This is a great thread with some important contributions. Yes, it's been tetchy at times but people are passionate about it and that can only be a good thing. 

 

While I can see a lot of merit in what Club 1872 are proposing to do I can understand why some are sceptical of the organisation and who ultimately benefits. I'm not sure if that invalidates this proposal though. 

 

Before I started working from my bedroom a living like a hermit earlier this year I used to attend conferences and seminars. A regular topic at these events was 'exit strategy'. This basically means how will you leave the business you own. This is harder and more complicated than it sounds. Firstly, if you want to sell your business then it needs to be attractive to someone else. My first feeling when I read about this was that Dave King has struggled to find an exit strategy, and this is the best he's been able to come with. The reality of owning shares in Rangers is you are unlikely to make money from them. You might find ways of making money while you own them; they're good for profile, I imagine many people are impressed by a visit to the directors box, there are contacts to be made and possibly contracts the club needs fulfilled too. But the actual shares themselves are difficult to sell. 

 

Rangers are a huge club, but geography dictates that to outside investors Crystal Palace or Burnley are more attractive. They have access to riches we can only dream of. That narrows the field of potential buyers enormously. As things stand investing in shares in Rangers is more than likely going to lose you the investment. Whatever we might think about David Murray he was a shrewd operator and even he wasn't able to sell his shares. Dave King is a sharp cookie, a formidable businessman, tenacious and brave, yet he's already lost millions and I can understand why he doesn't fancy losing much more. In the end if his fellow directors don't want to buy his shares and if his children don't want to inherit them, then he needs to look outside for a buyer. Of all the potential buyers that throws up I think Club 1872 are definitely more positive than an investor with no previous connection to the club for example. Personally I'd prefer Club 1872 owned Dave King's shares than a minor Saudi prince or an American with a couple of minor league baseball clubs and an ice-hockey franchise looking to diversify his portfolio. 

 

For me the challenge all this needs to overcome is cultural. The reservations that some posters hold have been well articulated, but they're largely reservations about the governance of Club 1872 and and the efficacy of this particular proposal. I don't see that as at he big challenge, the big challenge is supporter apathy. Listening to the 4 Lads podcast I was alarmed to hear that Club 1872 only has 'around 7,000' members. That's fewer than sit in the Copland Road every other week (before I started working from my bedroom). With 45,000 season ticket holders and an active support of somewhere over 250,000 individuals that 7,000 number is depressingly low. But this isn't just a Rangers support problem or a Club 1872 problem. Clubs all across the UK struggle to attract fan involvement in ownership. Earlier this year Wrexham supporters agreed to sell their club to Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney a couple of fairly successful Hollywood actors with no connection to Wales far less Wrexham. I found this profoundly depressing. Not so long ago poor ownership led to Wrexham FC collapsing and being placed in administration. Sound familiar? Saved by a local car dealer poor finances dogged the club for several more years before eventually their Supporters Trust bought the club. A similar thing happened to Notts County a few years ago, where the Supporters Trust agreed to sell to a middle eastern consortium, with disastrous consequences. You really don't need to look too deeply to find football clubs with unpopular owners or being very badly run. 

 

Yet, despite this British football supporters, undeniably passionate and emotionally involved, resist becoming actually involved. So our football clubs remain open to rapacious asset strippers and incompetent chancers. For me that's the big challenge for Dave King and Club 1872, because if the events of the last 10 years didn't stir us from our apathy, then what will? I also suspect our other major shareholders will be looking at this with interest. At some point in the future they will want to dispose of their shares too. Some might have children equally passionate and interested and keen to inherit, but others might want their money back. In the end I believe football clubs should be owned by their supporters. Whether that's a small number of supporters who own large chunks or a large number who own small chunks. What Hearts have done is interesting, and worth spending time studying, but a number of clubs worth far less than Rangers have struggled to create something similar.  It seems most supporters simply don't want involved in running a club. 

 

I suppose the other question relates to whether people feel grateful to Dave King and what he did for Rangers. Are significant numbers grateful enough to give him £500 each? That's the reality of what's being proposed for me. This isn't so much about buying a significant stake in the club, or who controls Club 1872, both of those things will change in time. This is about whether Dave King should get his investment back or not. If he doesn't we might find it very hard to attract another wealthy supporter should the need ever arise again. 

Great post, full of calm insight. There are a couple of points I'd like to make in response.

 

The first is that I fully empathise with Dave King and the difficulty of executing an exit strategy. It took me five years and eleven attempts to sell what was a very profitable business. I also think he has every right to sell those shares and if he had allowed me the opportunity I might even have been among the fans willing to buy some of them, something I've wanted to do but been denied the opportunity.

 

The second is that I believe the main obstacle in all this has always been Club1872 itself, or whatever previous incarnation of it you choose. I support the club in every way I reasonably can. I buy a season ticket I can't always use even in normal times, I subscribe to RTV, I have a MyGers membership that's all but useless to me, I buy the merchandise. I could afford to contribute to something like Club1872 but I don't and I'm convinced there are many more like me. I agree that a membership of only 7000 is so far below par the only surprise is it hasn't rung alarm bells long ago. I won't give a penny to Club1872, not because I don't like its logo or because I don't want to help safeguard Rangers but because I've always felt uncomfortable about the way it operates, how it interacts with its members, the lack of clarity and detail in its stated objectives. Everyone has to exercise their own judgement about Club1872 but, like its predecessors, for me almost nothing about it feels like something I would want to be involved with. If Club1872 was my business and after all these years I had only 7000 customers, I'd be taking a long and very hard look at myself. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Bill

[Bluedell 5,329]

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

This is about whether Dave King should get his investment back or not. If he doesn't we might find it very hard to attract another wealthy supporter should the need ever arise again. 

Are you suggesting that we as a support should be morally obligated to buy the shares? 

 

£13m for King and then another £33m for the next 7 investors who make up 50% of the share capital?

 

Where does it end?

 

[JohnMc 2,463]

17 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Are you suggesting that we as a support should be morally obligated to buy the shares? 

 

£13m for King and then another £33m for the next 7 investors who make up 50% of the share capital?

 

Where does it end?

 

Morally obligated? No, I don't think so, King went into this with his eyes open. He knows better than most that his shares might be worth a lot less than he spent on them. Had he agreed to buy the shares on the proviso that Club 1872 or the greater support would then buy them from him, in a similar way to Budge at Hearts, then I'd feel their was an obligation on our part, but that didn't happen as far as I know. 

 

I think it would be better for the long term future of club if significant investors are able to get most of their investment back. I think selling to supporters is preferable to selling to people with no emotional attachment to the club. That might not be possible of course. I don't think it's good for the club if we're seen as a black hole you throw money down without any hope of ever getting it back. Perhaps if the club itself set up a share-buying scheme, where small investors, like Bill up thread, were able to invest into it and they slowly bought existing shares from current shareholders at an agreed rate or at market value, then people like King and Park etc would have an exit strategy and people like Bill, you and me would have the opportunity to own shares. That might mean that in ten years time 'we' and hundreds of others have bought control of the club and that King and the 3 Bears have seen a return on their original investment. Perhaps the money is held in escrow until someone is ready to sell. I'm sure there are a number of hurdles to this back-of-a-fag-packet idea. Currently apathy seems to be the main one and that's what needs changed.