The CIC Meeting at The Louden - Twitter

[plgsarmy 111]

Christine, you may recall back in 2010; 20,000 was precisely the number we hit on as being realistic after looking at a lot of variables including number of shareholders, season ticket holders, worldwide fan base etc and also looking back at the Celtic example. I agree that it will not be easy by any manner of means but I also do not think it is an impossibe dream; otherwise I would not be prepared to commit my time to it.

 

Also I can understand why you might well feel aggrieved about SDS's stance but it is a fact in Scotland that they now have a much wider remit than just being the umbrella for Trusts; indeed it is arguable that Trusts are now a minor part of their work.

 

 

Alan, in 2010 I did believe it was possible but events since have made me sceptical. Nobody would be happier than me if there are 20,000 willing to sign up. As for SDS, I know their remit and perhaps they should stop charging trusts a membership fee.

[Zappa 0]

I do agree with and share your concerns about making this fly without the backing of the biggest online board. SoS showed, however, that a campaign which goes about its business in a slightly old fashioned way - and specifically, by engaging with fans in and around actual matches - can achieve results. Although it's an electronic age it is possible - if very very difficult - to get up to about 5k names behind this purely from leafleting, addressing Supporters' Clubs and media coverage. And what seems to be the absolute necessity for these kind of campaigns is to get some initial momentum behind them. 20k might be hopelessly optimistic, but I can't believe that we couldn't organise 5k fans.

 

Yep, 5k does seem a much more sensible and achievable target. If a new CIC scheme and the existing BuyRangers initiative could get 5k subscribers each, then that would be fantastic progress.

[Zappa 0]

With all due respect, this scheme can be hugely successful with or without the backing not only of the RST board but of every RST member.

 

As for FF, a cursory glance would tell you that many posters on the site back this scheme despite the stubborn opposition of the site owner and his loyal henchmen.

 

My wording wasn't very clear. Instead of saying "to be a success" I should have said "to reach it's full potential".

 

All I'm saying is that ideally you want as many people as possible singing from the same hymn sheet and on the same page and you certainly don't want the biggest and most influential Gers forum constantly rubbishing the initiative or those involved in it. That sort of sniping from the sidelines has played a part in the Trust not reaching it's full potential, so it's something that any new fan ownership initiative would do well to avoid (or at least minimise) if at all possible.

[Zappa 0]

Apologies but by the time I got home and thawed out from Ayr and had something to eat I didn't get the report finished tonight; although I think most of it has been said here or on Twitter etc.

 

I'll get it done tomorrow.

 

If this is indicative of the slacker attitude which you bring to this initiative, I call on you to stand down forthwith. Begone!

 

It's only about 312 days till Christmas!

[the gunslinger 3,366]

If they get 5k combined they will be doing well IMHO.

[3909 04 0]

My wording wasn't very clear. Instead of saying "to be a success" I should have said "to reach it's full potential".

 

All I'm saying is that ideally you want as many people as possible singing from the same hymn sheet and on the same page and you certainly don't want the biggest and most influential Gers forum constantly rubbishing the initiative or those involved in it. That sort of sniping from the sidelines has played a part in the Trust not reaching it's full potential, so it's something that any new fan ownership initiative would do well to avoid (or at least minimise) if at all possible.

 

Yes, that's true. It would of course be better for the scheme if RST figures embraced it instead of endlessly parroting, "I don't see why we can't just stick with Buy Rangers..."

 

FF looks like it's about 50/50 already, which is very encouraging.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Yes, that's true. It would of course be better for the scheme if RST figures embraced it instead of endlessly parroting, "I don't see why we can't just stick with Buy Rangers..."

 

FF looks like it's about 50/50 already, which is very encouraging.

 

It will be entirely possible for a new CIC scheme to embrace the existing BuyRangers scheme.

[SteveC 150]

If they get 5k combined they will be doing well IMHO.

 

I think the new one may surprise you, as our numerical friend notes above, even FF is responding favourably in the majority - despite a concerted campaign by a cadre to rubbish it. The more they are doing so, the more people are speaking up for it and that's only the posts you can see. If that is the response on a forum pre-set against the scheme it bodes well for areas it is pitched in that start off with open minds.

Edited February 16, 2014 by SteveC

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Nobody would be happier than me if there are 20,000 willing to sign up. As for SDS, I know their remit and perhaps they should stop charging trusts a membership fee.

 

I agree with those who say that an initial 5,000 might be a more realistic target but I also believe that there are circumstances in which 20,000 or more are perfectly achievable.

 

No doubt you will tell that to SDS.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Apologies again for the delay and I have not been able to contact Andy at the moment to have him review the following.

 

REPORT OF MEETING TO DISCUSS A RANGERS COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY

LOUDEN TAVERN GLASGOW

14 APRIL 2014

 

The room was full with approximately 50 persons representing various bodies and some fans in an individual capacity. (I have asked for clarification of the numbers.)

 

Paul Goodwin, Head of Supporters Direct Scotland, opened the meeting by saying that Community ownership allows an increased level of involvement and engagement by fans leading to financial responsibility, sustainability and transparency by clubs.

 

He gave examples of clubs in fans ownership around the world especially Germany, Spain and Argentina as well as Scotland and England, the most striking example of which was Portsmouth.

 

Richard Atkinson, a member of the Scottish Council of SD and former St Mirren FC Director https://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-atkinson/28/5b1/699

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23721154

 

then gave the main presentation.

 

He confirmed (as I said earlier in this thread) that because of its SG funding, SD in Scotland has a wider remit than SD in England (where the Football Supporters Federation undertakes this kind of work). Therefore SDS can speak to anyone interested in Community Ownership of a Scottish Football Club. The motivation (not sure if he said his motivation) is that certain football club assets should be community owned. He gave the following examples:

 

• St Mirren – Target £2 million

 

1007 @ £13.50 per month committed but not drawn down (implying other funding and/or approx a 7.5 year commitment). He said there were community companies who would provide the capital.

 

• Dunfermline – HNW individuals & Donations.

 

Regular giving after the event was approx 1,000 @ £20 per month.

 

• Hearts (FOH) – out of CVA

 

7,600 @ £15.50 per month to repay funder.

Equivalent to approx 50% of season ticket holders.

 

He made it clear that the circumstances were different in each case.

 

• Rangers? should be 20,000 pro rata excluding overseas supporters.

 

Say £15 per month = £3.6 million per year

 

Company Law prescribes:

 

5% shareholding – Can call and EGM (at current prices and assuming availability this would cost £800,000 which he claimed was achievable in 3 months).

 

10% shareholding – can block the purchase of all shares

 

25% shareholding – can block special resolutions e.g. to sell assets

 

30% shareholding – must make an offer for all shares.

FAN OWNERSHIP

 

The purpose of the scheme should be to achieve CONSULTATION and TRANSPARENCY.

 

He said that if the Club was willing to conceded these objectives then it would not be necessary to buy shares but instead the money could be put into special projects e.g. youth academy. “A fans group with sufficient capital can engage with the Club in a number of ways.”

 

A COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY is “designed to be wide ranging, open and transparent” (RA) and can have various different structures. A holding company would own the shares. The members would decide who sits as the trustees. The structure would be one member one vote + high net worth individuals.* The company could buy shares from the 12% of individuals who currently own shares in their own right. A CIC must meet the so-called ‘community interest test’.

 

* Here I took slight issue with Richard. According to http://www.supporters-direct.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Supporter_Share_Ownership.pdf “CIC’s that are structured as a CLS or Plc can issue shares but work to the principle of one-share-one-vote, thus allowing an individual, entity or small group of people to have overall control” (page 7) and do not conform to co-op principles and “CICs work to the principle of one-share-one vote, it is also possible for them to issue a category of share that provides certain rights on a one-member- one-vote basis (page 8).

 

Also according to http://www.supporters-direct.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Financing-Supporter-Community-Ownership-Briefing-3.pdf

 

“i) A CIC does not have to conform to co-operative principles.

 

ii) Shareholders in a CIC usually have one vote per share, meaning that the more you invest the more influence you have, which contrasts with the IPS ‘one member one vote’ structure.

 

HOWEVER

 

iii) The CIC model can replicate one member one vote if required or provide for weighted voting.

 

AND

 

iv) There is also the ability to allow for different classes of shareholders or members with different voting rights. This means that a CIC might be useful where both fans and high-net worth investors are involved in the ownership and governance of a club.” (Pages 36/37)

 

So what is clear is that the precise structure of the CIC is critical.

 

Richard said that they have a standard/proposed structure.

 

The differences between the Community Benefit Scheme model (the current RST BuyRangers Scheme) and a CIC are clearly set out in these documents (which were not referred to at the meeting) but according to Richard “the essential difference is that a CIC is not tied to buying shares and has the ability to offer institutional shareholders a different method of return (e.g. by offering them (or others) a coupon or interest on their money at a rate between 0% and 8%.

 

THE WAY FORWARD

 

If it is agreed to form a CIC, Richard proposed that the First Trustee be a solicitor and that the second director is a Corporate Member who he suggested would be SDS. (In my opinion this requires clarification because, so far as I am aware SDS is not itself a legal entity but part of SDUK.) He proposed the formation of a working group under this initial structure which he said would not be legal until a significant number move from the working group to be trustees.

 

He also suggested that one way to kick start the new scheme might be to seek £1 per person.

 

An information page and sign up has been launched on scottishfans.org/rangers.

 

Andy was kind enough to say that I made a plea for unity which was warmly received. I said that under the original IPS Supporters Trust model e.g. Gersave, Arsenal Fanshare Society, the Clubs simply ignored the supporters; under the CBS/RST/BuyRangers scheme the RST were only back to the position they were in with oldco and (if Shoredbear is correct about the numbers paying monthly) it will take them 10-20 years to get to 5% as well as having to raise £100,000+ for a rights issue in order to prevent dilution of their current holding; and that what was needed was a scheme to bring everyone together; and that I saw a CIC as being that vehicle.

 

The meeting closed with those present unanimously agreeing to proceed along the CIC lines suggested.

 

(To be fair to the RST, Gordon Dinnie had left by that point and Christine Somerville was sitting behind me so I do not know if she had her hand raised.)