Dave King to Sell Shares to Club 1872

[der Berliner 3,234]

2 hours ago, Bill said:

Let's get one thing crystal clear, nothing in the latest announcement is about fan ownership. The fans, albeit not the fans but Club1872, will never own Rangers. That much I would stake my house on.

 

What is being proposed is that buying King's shares will mean the club is safeguarded from future malfeasance by rogue owners. That's the promise but until someone can show me how that promise will not only be kept but guaranteed, it can only ever be an empty promise.

 

Safeguarding Rangers from a repeat of past mismanagement won't be achieved by owning shares and expressing good intention. It will only be achieved if that shareholding is used in the right way by astute people acting with honest intentions. And here's the thing - nothing I've read gives me any assurance that Club1872 and the people controlling it, as it currently stands, are either astute or entirely open and honest.

 

The only thing I see clearly is that Club1872 does not run its affairs in anything like the right way. I'm not particularly close to the organisation, which makes this view all the more valid, since I have no personal axe to grind about personalities involved, for or against. While Club1872 remains the opaque, clandestine and quasi-democratic outfit it is today, there is no way I can believe it worthy of using a blocking shareholding wisely. Right now the changes required are at least as much about Club1872 as Rangers. In my opinion, Club1872 could be a trustworthy safeguarding presence on the Rangers board but not as things stand and that's why, with Rangers' interests at heart, I could never join the blind faith queue or put my trust in an outfit that simply hasn't shown it deserves it.

... so by "default" you assume that they would use their block "not in the best interest" of Rangers? I would have assumed that once anything important happens by, it is not a cabal of leaders that makes a decision, but that members will be asked to vote on how Club 1872 will use their block of shares?

Edited December 4, 2020 by der Berliner

[Bluedell 5,329]

13 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

I agree and on that basis say that this is worth a look. 

 

The main issue is the Club 1872 governance. IF i put my 500 into Club 1872 the football club aren't losing out. 

I see what you're saying. 

 

I'd make a couple of comments:

1. You could say to C1872 that you have cash to invest but only in the club, and if enough people do it the they should look into that option as well
2. You could also look to buy £500 worth in the open market...potentially getting more shares, plus you own them and can attend AGMS etc. It's 2,777 shares that are then controlled by someone with Rangers best interests at heart.

[Bluedell 5,329]

2 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

I would have assumed that once anything important happens by, it is not a cabal of leaders that makes a decision, but that members will be asked to vote on how Club 1872 will use their block of shares?

You mean like the decision of how best to invest £13m?

[Bill 13,717]

20 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

... so by "default" you assume that they would use their block "not in the best interest" of Rangers?

No I don't make that assumption at all. That's something you've chosen to believe

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

I would have assumed that once anything important happens by, it is not a cabal of leaders that makes a decision, but that members will be asked to vote on how Club 1872 will use their block of shares?

That's a bold assumption for which I see no clear justification. From what I can see, the reality is that most of the membership have awarded Club1872 a certificate of infallibility and most resolutions are passed with incredible 95+% majorities. I'm saying that for my part I can't see the basis for that faith. Perhaps someone can set out in some detail the basis by which Club1872 can guarantee to inform and represent it's members .... and in the process explain why a decision like this is announced by the person selling the shares before Club1872 has even consulted its members?

Edited December 4, 2020 by Bill

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I signed up to it i did so as i believe fan ownership is vital up to a certain point. The same reason I backed the RST all those years ago. 

 

We nearly lost Ibrox not so long ago. 

 

It's money I can afford and if rangers have a share issue i can match it with them. 

 

No question Club 1872 has a lot of work to do to improve governance. 

 

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

worth noting you sign up to the initial £500 then ongoing investment. 

 

in theory in 26 months time there could be millions being raised for the club a year. 

[Bill 13,717]

8 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I see what you're saying. 

 

I'd make a couple of comments:

1. You could say to C1872 that you have cash to invest but only in the club, and if enough people do it the they should look into that option as well
2. You could also look to buy £500 worth in the open market...potentially getting more shares, plus you own them and can attend AGMS etc. It's 2,777 shares that are then controlled by someone with Rangers best interests at heart.

I took the decision long ago that if shares were evenly priced to all parties then the appropriate way to hold Rangers shares was on a personal basis. That way I don't need someone else to tell me what are "the best interests of Rangers" nor do I run any risk of that someone using "my" shares against my own judgement. I object to my pre-emption rights being denied when new shares are being issued, while understanding the strategic requirement to do so on ONE occasion. The voice of the ordinary Rangers shareholder is largely being suppressed.

[compo 6,109]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

I took the decision long ago that if shares were evenly priced to all parties then the appropriate way to hold Rangers shares was on a personal basis. That way I don't need someone else to tell me what are "the best interests of Rangers" nor do I run any risk of that someone using "my" shares against my own judgement. I object to my pre-emption rights being denied when new shares are being issued, while understanding the strategic requirement to do so on ONE occasion. The voice of the ordinary Rangers shareholder is largely being suppressed.

Likewise 

[Bluedell 5,329]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

I took the decision long ago that if shares were evenly priced to all parties then the appropriate way to hold Rangers shares was on a personal basis. That way I don't need someone else to tell me what are "the best interests of Rangers" nor do I run any risk of that someone using "my" shares against my own judgement. I object to my pre-emption rights being denied when new shares are being issued, while understanding the strategic requirement to do so on ONE occasion. The voice of the ordinary Rangers shareholder is largely being suppressed.

I can understand the pre-emption rights issue from both sides. It's obviously much more expensive to open it up, but I remember having similar objections pre-2012 when my pre-emption rights were denied in oldco.

[buster. 4,808]

17 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

worth noting you sign up to the initial £500 then ongoing investment. 

 

in theory in 26 months time there could be millions being raised for the club a year. 

In theory, but much of what is being said surrounding this issue is divorced from the actual cold, hard reality in front of us.

 

Generally, as a support, it seems as though we continue not being able to see the wood for the trees.