Rangers FC AGM

[the gunslinger 3,366]

27 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Any share issues are effectively additional funding or turning loans into share capital. In C1872's case, it'll be additional funding.

 

The shortfall was guaranteed but that doesn't mean that they have any intention of investing. They may put the guarantee in place with a view to selling a couple of players.

 

Any cash invested will go towards the running of the club. It can't be ringfenced, despite what's been said in the past.

No but if you don't ask for all you know dividends could be paid etc. 

 

 

[Bill 13,717]

So, Rangers is already 95% fan owned. Makes you wonder what all the fuss is about with Club1872, which does rather have the smell of "wrong kind of Rangers fan" about it. Given the shareholding Rangers fans on the board have invested THEIR OWN money, it's the sort of commitment that doesn't exactly stand out as needing a lot of safeguarding against. As the dinosaurs came to appreciate, you should never be 100% confident about the future but it looks to me like we're in a better position than any time during the last 20 years, maybe more. We spent about 10 years treading water, followed by 8 years in the shit, so for me the biggest thing is the current direction of travel ......... forward.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Bill

[Bluedell 5,607]

45 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

No but if you don't ask for all you know dividends could be paid etc. 

 

 

Dividends can only be paid if the company has positive retained earnings and as it's sitting with a negative balance of over £30m, it's going to be a long while before we have the ability to pay dividends, never mind the desire to do it.

[buster. 5,132]

9 hours ago, Bill said:

So, Rangers is already 95% fan owned. Makes you wonder what all the fuss is about with Club1872, which does rather have the smell of "wrong kind of Rangers fan" about it. Given the shareholding Rangers fans on the board have invested THEIR OWN money, it's the sort of commitment that doesn't exactly stand out as needing a lot of safeguarding against. As the dinosaurs came to appreciate, you should never be 100% confident about the future but it looks to me like we're in a better position than any time during the last 20 years, maybe more. We spent about 10 years treading water, followed by 8 years in the shit, so for me the biggest thing is the current direction of travel ......... forward.

We are only at Base Camp.

The next 9 months are crucial and will determine if the notable progress made up until this point, continues and takes root.

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by buster.

[forlanssister 3,110]

The due diligence claim has left me totally bewildered, it assumes we are all idiots.

 

I think the statement effectively killed off any hope however infinitesimal it was of reaching 25% +1.

 

Short of some benevolent billionaire riding to the rescue (which has its own dangers) they are in danger of making themselves totally irrelevant, they are alienating even some of their most ardent believers. 

 

Club1872 needs immediate total root and branch reform, they need to use some of their 5% expenses to pay for some quality independent professional advice.

[plgsarmy 111]

Not that I’m trying to suck up to anyone on here but I thought John Bennett was fantastic. As for Club 1872, what little credibility they have left is gone after that statement.

[der Berliner 3,725]

Well, my glass is usually half full and I view things positively. Maybe it is just that some of our fellow board-members are far more clued up on these things, not least with regard to Club 1872. Yet, from day 1 you feel a certain level of negativity and minute dissection of anything Club 1872 says and does.

 

While it seems clear that not all is well at Club 1872 (IMHO, that is to be expected of a supporters organization whose board is probably made up of people who are not exactly made/trained for that role), I doubt that a) they have anything but the best interest for club and support in mind and b) there is no need to repeat the personal distrust time and time again in every other post. Don't hold back if you need to, but remind yourself that things in that respect won't change overnight nor will people have that short memories to forget post from the last page et al going on about the same issue.

 

As far as I can see it, Club 1872 has been given 3+ years to acquire King's shares. They will have to sort quite a few things out in that respect and quite a few questions need to be answered. They will sure buy more new shares if opportunity arrises and I expect them to offer investing supporters the choice how they shall use their money. As of now, nothing has happened though and I wonder why there is need for this constant FLAK and animosity. Club 1872 might not have clad themselves in glory about this, but people should likewise not claim that they are clad in shame either. They've done a tremendous job for our fan base so far and some ill-advise remarks and actions doesn't throw the former out of the window. I would assume they have taken the criticism on board and will change their cause of action accordingly. Sooner or later.

 

BTW, imagine they say that due to the investing supporters vote, they will stand back from the "deal" with King. That will essentially mean that someone or somepeople else will probably snap his shares up, which adds a more powerful shareholder or new (probably unknown) shareholders to the table. Would that be a good choice? Wouldn't that decrease the influence of the sole supporters shareholder vehicle? Just asking. Obviously, as long as we have Rangers supporters as major shareholders, much of the current discontent and stormy debate is of no earthly use. Hence my inital remark with regard to personal discontent with Club 1872 for one reason or another, which seems to have taken over part of the discussion.

[Bill 13,717]

I'm a bit late in studying it but having done so this morning, the Club1872 statement has to be as effective an act of self harm as you're likely to see. In one week it has managed to destroy the entire facade that it knows what it's doing or is doing it for the right reasons.

 

It's another sorry mess and one that's been commonplace along the line of descent of supporters' groups. Only root and branch change can rescue anything from this. The chaos of Club1872 has become the thing we need safeguarded against.

[plgsarmy 111]

This is an email I sent to the Club 1872 Board members in October 2018. Nothing changed as a result.
 

Dear Board Members,

 

I am sending this to the generic e-mail address and also individual addresses. I don’t have one for Euan so please pass it on to him. I have also heard that Bruce has now resigned.

 

I am writing this as a person who was on the Working Group that set up Club 1872 and heavily involved in the first six months of its operation. I have always tried to be supportive of the organisation although at times I have found it difficult. I am  not trying to harm the organisation or any individual involved but I have grave concerns about the election proposals plus more general ones that I will go into later.

 

1. Election proposal – what is the rationale behind moving from requiring a proposer and seconder to suddenly requiring 15 donating members to nominate an individual to the Board? This would preclude the vast number of members from putting themselves forward. The only people that would know for sure who is and isn’t donating are people with access to your database. From the outside it appears that you are limiting the number of people standing and making it more of a closed shop, which is the last thing that you should be doing.
2. Three year term for directors – I have no objections to this in principle but you have failed to explain how this would work. If the plan is at the next election for five people to be elected for three years then that is very wrong. This has to be rotated so that there are still annual elections with a proportion stepping down each year. This enables continuity but also allows people with new ideas to be elected on an annual basis. Perhaps this is the plan but the proposal does not make this clear. You also need a method to appoint directors after resignations either by co-option or a one-off election. 
3. Maximum of five directors – I strongly oppose this and would make it a minimum of five directors required. Given the history of resignations from the Board and with the amount of members money that is being put at your disposal then I think it is necessary for the Board number to increase rather than decrease.
4. Other – Communication with members has been awful. We used to get summaries of Board meetings and information on meetings with the club plus the occasional members meeting but that has all but disappeared. I know there was a ‘quarterly’ newsletter but out a few weeks ago which smacked of there are elections coming up so we better put something out. Failure to address comments made about the organisation is also a concern, particularly when these are made by an ex-director. In addition, the organisation has never held an AGM or given members an opportunity to ask questions on the accounts. The last two sets of accounts posted have been unaudited and only signed off by one director, who is not an accountant. I realise the CIC regulations state somewhere that independently audited accounts are not required for a CIC but given the vast amount of money involved I believe it would be prudent to have an proper audit, regardless of there being a cost. There are two different companies listed on the last two sets of accounts and people will wonder exactly what their role is.

 

As I said, I want the organisation to thrive but membership numbers have, at best, remained stagnant. I think this is mainly due to the fact that the Club is now more stable and the number of different ways that supporters can put money into the Club. I wish you well but I‘m now considering whether it is worthwhile to keep my donation going as it isn’t the organisation that I had envisaged. I may share this with others.

 

Regards

Christine Sommerville

[Bill 13,717]

5 minutes ago, plgsarmy said:

This is an email I sent to the Club 1872 Board members in October 2018. Nothing changed as a result.
 

Dear Board Members,

 

I am sending this to the generic e-mail address and also individual addresses. I don’t have one for Euan so please pass it on to him. I have also heard that Bruce has now resigned.

 

I am writing this as a person who was on the Working Group that set up Club 1872 and heavily involved in the first six months of its operation. I have always tried to be supportive of the organisation although at times I have found it difficult. I am  not trying to harm the organisation or any individual involved but I have grave concerns about the election proposals plus more general ones that I will go into later.

 

1. Election proposal – what is the rationale behind moving from requiring a proposer and seconder to suddenly requiring 15 donating members to nominate an individual to the Board? This would preclude the vast number of members from putting themselves forward. The only people that would know for sure who is and isn’t donating are people with access to your database. From the outside it appears that you are limiting the number of people standing and making it more of a closed shop, which is the last thing that you should be doing.
2. Three year term for directors – I have no objections to this in principle but you have failed to explain how this would work. If the plan is at the next election for five people to be elected for three years then that is very wrong. This has to be rotated so that there are still annual elections with a proportion stepping down each year. This enables continuity but also allows people with new ideas to be elected on an annual basis. Perhaps this is the plan but the proposal does not make this clear. You also need a method to appoint directors after resignations either by co-option or a one-off election. 
3. Maximum of five directors – I strongly oppose this and would make it a minimum of five directors required. Given the history of resignations from the Board and with the amount of members money that is being put at your disposal then I think it is necessary for the Board number to increase rather than decrease.
4. Other – Communication with members has been awful. We used to get summaries of Board meetings and information on meetings with the club plus the occasional members meeting but that has all but disappeared. I know there was a ‘quarterly’ newsletter but out a few weeks ago which smacked of there are elections coming up so we better put something out. Failure to address comments made about the organisation is also a concern, particularly when these are made by an ex-director. In addition, the organisation has never held an AGM or given members an opportunity to ask questions on the accounts. The last two sets of accounts posted have been unaudited and only signed off by one director, who is not an accountant. I realise the CIC regulations state somewhere that independently audited accounts are not required for a CIC but given the vast amount of money involved I believe it would be prudent to have an proper audit, regardless of there being a cost. There are two different companies listed on the last two sets of accounts and people will wonder exactly what their role is.

 

As I said, I want the organisation to thrive but membership numbers have, at best, remained stagnant. I think this is mainly due to the fact that the Club is now more stable and the number of different ways that supporters can put money into the Club. I wish you well but I‘m now considering whether it is worthwhile to keep my donation going as it isn’t the organisation that I had envisaged. I may share this with others.

 

Regards

Christine Sommerville

I hope at the very least your sharing of this letter might help some fans to stop donating money to this dysfunctional organisation. The cause might have some merit but the implementation is quite unsafe.