Jump to content

 

 

Dave King to Sell Shares to Club 1872


Recommended Posts

Snatched from FF ...

 

Couple of interesting points from the Club 1872 FAQ on this matter:

Will Club 1872 be involved in the day to day running of Rangers?

No. Club 1872 is a major shareholder but is not directly involved in the day to day running of the club. With a large shareholding, Club 1872 will be in a position to scrutinise the decisions made by the Executives and the Board of Rangers and work with them to grow and develop the club whilst representing the views and concerns of our members. As we grow our shareholding we will also, in line with the wishes of our members, seek formal representation on the Rangers Board. It will remain the job of the Executive Team to run Rangers on a day to day basis and make operational decisions.

How would Club 1872 be represented on the Rangers board?

As we build our shareholding and grow our membership through legacy donations, Club 1872 will re-enter discussions with Rangers about representation on the RIFC Board. It is important to stress that it will not be Club 1872 Directors who take up an RIFC Board position. The Directors will identify candidates who can not only represent Club 1872 but also make an important contribution to the RIFC board through their expertise and experience. The chosen candidate will then represent the organisation’s shareholding on the board and ensure that the views of Club 1872 members are represented at all times. This will not change the way Rangers Football Club is run on a day to day basis. Club 1872 would not be involved in day to day decision making at Rangers, but rather would retain oversight of that process through regular interaction with the Rangers Board and Executive Team
.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

Where would we be if we had bought david Murray's shares instead of whyte. 

 

I believe the rst bought new shares not Murray's.

 

Understand why but look what happened 

When the RST was launched in 2003, it was already two minutes to midnight.

 

Under the Companies Act, anyone owning in excess of 90% of the Equity could take the club private; thus no accounts and no AGMs. Murray owned 91.8% of the equity. Remember, he had departed the scene, leaving McClelland as Chair and Bain in charge. The first three years were all about grabbing the narrative and annoying Murray. It worked in that he returned and agreed to sell us shares by trances until his equity had been sufficiently reduced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

4 hours ago, Stevie - 4lads Blog said:

Again your tone is completely harsh when I made a simple post on the matter 

 

I said that because I asked perhaps his family said he has to get something back, perhaps the club knew it was a loan, it was a question which is a reasonable one you have drawn assumptions on. I asked it to speculate that perhaps it was always known he would need it back 

 

I’m not looking for an argument with you or @rbr, Indeed I have said you both make fair and good points. I have acknowledged it isn’t perfect 

 

However I believe in the concept of fan ownership, Rangers can not depend on people bailing us out. We have to have a business model

 

It’s selfish to expect that to continue forever, I don’t expect Park or Bennett to walk away with nothing either 

 

I am not as knowledgeable as you both, but I have a very simplistic view

 

However, I have questions to ask, I will seek to have then answered and share them on my platform very soon.

 

I don’t think anything anyone is saying is unfair either with regards to both your points 

 

I don’t think I am either! 

Stevie - with all due respect, Bluedell has a greater grasp on the financial matters than the vast majority of Rangers fans.  I have great respect for you, but when people start talking finances without having expertise in the field and without prior knowledge they become very, very dangerous conduits.  For example, if King's family had said he needed to get something back, why even convert into shares ?  The club could have had a new share issue, C1872 could have raised the money in that way and then the club used those funds to repay his loan - no need for share conversion.

 

I think most of us agree that as a concept fan ownership is one to be supported - but there are a number of questions that need answered - what happens when further funding is necessary - do they honestly believe that they can find those additional funds ?  What will their corporate governance structure look like ?  What voice do the fans actually have with the running of what would be the largest single shareholder of the club ?

 

There are tons of questions, and very few answers.

 

I think it is dangerous for fans to simply support this without having answers, without knowing what the plans are, what the direction is.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, der Berliner said:

 

Ain't this acquisition of shares not similar to the buying of shares from Ashley & Co. a wee while back? While I see the whole point of putting money into the club, is safeguarding its future by acquiring shares (at a lower price too, as far as I understand it) not on a similar wavelength?

 

It is different because we knew that Ashley was no friend of Rangers.  From a purely financial perspective it is the same.  But it was the qualitative factors, not quantitative factors, which meant purchasing Ashley's shares made sense.  It helped get rid of him

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stevie - 4lads Blog said:

Anyway folks, my original post was not meant to provoke a response. Merely my own tuppence worth 

 

However one thing I agree on is there is a lot of questions that is to be answered and serious questions which need asking

 

That doesn’t mean I think any less of the idea, Never again should the events of 2012 happen, we all have an opportunity to ensure it doesn’t. That for me is the point 

This doesn't guarantee that.  Not even close.  I think it was foolish for it to be sold that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an element of one-dimensional and quite wishful thinking about this. At the root of Club1872's philosophy seems to be a wish to impose itself between Rangers and any controlling shareholding that might want to do harm to the club, which is all very laudable. However, as always in these things, there is another side to the coin. With sufficient shareholding, Club1872 could also obstruct actions which are in the best interests of the club but might have certain implications that Club1872 don't agree with. That which has the ability to safeguard also has the means to do harm.

 

Not that I'm suggesting for one minute that Club1872 currently has anything but the best of intentions but that on its own is seldom enough in real life. Decisions can be taken for all sorts of well-intentioned reasons, not all of which will turn out to be as wise as first thought.

 

Underpinning everything I hear about Club1872 is the incontestable presumption that it knows best and, by inference, always will. Who runs Club1872? Who will run Club1872 in the future, say, 20 years from now? What does 25+% Club1872 shareholding do to our ability to attract new outside investment? Or attract new experience and skill on to the board? Any significant investor would want to know the pedigree of the senior shareholders and certainly of anyone who can stop special resolutions.

 

I totally get the hypothetical notion of benign oversight. What I see no evidence of are any safeguards that Club1872 will always act with good judgement and will never be influenced by the sort of madcap characters who infested RST in the past.

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 26th of foot said:

When the RST was launched in 2003, it was already two minutes to midnight.

 

Under the Companies Act, anyone owning in excess of 90% of the Equity could take the club private; thus no accounts and no AGMs. Murray owned 91.8% of the equity. Remember, he had departed the scene, leaving McClelland as Chair and Bain in charge. The first three years were all about grabbing the narrative and annoying Murray. It worked in that he returned and agreed to sell us shares by trances until his equity had been sufficiently reduced.

and those shares died with whyte mine included. 

 

I am not having a go at the RST merely pointing out that solely buying shares at share issues has it's own perils. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, craig said:

 

 

Stevie - with all due respect, Bluedell has a greater grasp on the financial matters than the vast majority of Rangers fans.  I have great respect for you, but when people start talking finances without having expertise in the field and without prior knowledge they become very, very dangerous conduits.  For example, if King's family had said he needed to get something back, why even convert into shares ?  The club could have had a new share issue, C1872 could have raised the money in that way and then the club used those funds to repay his loan - no need for share conversion.

 

I think most of us agree that as a concept fan ownership is one to be supported - but there are a number of questions that need answered - what happens when further funding is necessary - do they honestly believe that they can find those additional funds ?  What will their corporate governance structure look like ?  What voice do the fans actually have with the running of what would be the largest single shareholder of the club ?

 

There are tons of questions, and very few answers.

 

I think it is dangerous for fans to simply support this without having answers, without knowing what the plans are, what the direction is.

 

That’s the thing isn’t it. I didn’t mention finances or anything at first, I said I support the concept and I wasn’t looking for so much come back from an innocent comment. I have lots of respect for @Bluedellalso and haven’t challenged him. I offered some speculative answers in relation to why he is selling rather than gifting 

 

I have also openly admitted there is plenty of questions and the lads make good points

 

Indeed, I am sitting down with Dave King & club1872 to get those answers to educate myself further. 

 

But above all, the combativeness is the response only shows my original point to be correct, the negativity surrounding it is extraordinary. As a support we literally argue over anything 

 

All my point was simply I backed the idea 

 

It’s an emotive subject obviously! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave King's decision doesn't reflect well on his faith in the other shareholders to act in Rangers' interests ..... or their ability or willingness to fund the acquisition of his shareholding. Is he foreshadowing little problems brewing in the boardroom. Because, the more I think about it, the less sense it makes for the fans to be financing King's sharesale instead of investing in the club.

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.