The CIC Meeting at The Louden - Twitter

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Having something like this in place that can move quickly if we do go into admin again would be good.

[andy steel 0]

Admin II would certainly be dismaying, but for more important reasons than the knocking back of any progress the CIC model may have made. That would be the least of our worries, I reckon.

 

One thing I took from the presentation was that if we got about a 5-10% holding, and continued to take contributions, we could thereafter decide whether to increase the shareholding, or to fund specific projects within the club: pay for scouting, for example. That way, any money invested would be certain to yield some kind of a return, even allowing for admin events. Of course the club would have to accept such donations and sign up to the legal safeguards, which might be an issue, but the idea only flies if there's a sizeable enough holding in the first place: otherwise the club just gives us the rubber ear.

 

In order to get the club to be 'transparent and accountable', in the short term we need to speak the language of the plc, alas. Which involves an element of risk, it's true enough. I share Bluedell's suspicions, but I'm willing to give this a bash.

[Zappa 0]

Having something like this in place that can move quickly if we do go into admin again would be good.

 

Agreed and in fact, having both this and the Trust's BuyRangers initiative already in place if we did go into admin could be ideal because then any people who have issues with the Trust could invest through the CIC and a plan could potentially be put in place to form an alliance of some sort between the two initiatives in order to buy the club out of admin.

 

I must say though, that I share the concerns of Andy and others who've mentioned that OMOV (one man one vote) and the views of any Bears who are HMWI (high net worth individuals) may not coincide.

 

Bears who would invest/donate a million quid and end up having the same voting power as someone who puts in a hundred or couple of hundred quid are few and far between, especially when a million quid would buy you roughly 4 million shares in the market at the moment.

 

At the end of the day, the whole OMOV ideology isn't necessarily a good thing for fan ownership models because it immediately rules out a certain percentage of potential contributors.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Good point zappa

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Agreed and in fact, having both this and the Trust's BuyRangers initiative already in place if we did go into admin could be ideal because then any people who have issues with the Trust could invest through the CIC and a plan could potentially be put in place to form an alliance of some sort between the two initiatives in order to buy the club out of admin.

 

I must say though, that I share the concerns of Andy and others who've mentioned that OMOV (one man one vote) and the views of any Bears who are HMWI (high net worth individuals) may not coincide.

 

Bears who would invest/donate a million quid and end up having the same voting power as someone who puts in a hundred or couple of hundred quid are few and far between, especially when a million quid would buy you roughly 4 million shares in the market at the moment.

 

At the end of the day, the whole OMOV ideology isn't necessarily a good thing for fan ownership models because it immediately rules out a certain percentage of potential contributors.

 

This is absolutely correct Zappa and was one of the reasons why (even if SDM had not scuppered it) we were going to have difficulty with the original model in 2010. Some people who said they would invest attached all sorts of conditions.

 

However, as I pointed out in my report (according to SD publications) a CIC normally is one vote per share not one member one vote, though Mr Atkinson seems determined to take it down the latter route.

 

At the meeting his answer was just to get the so much per month from them at first and worry about the rest later. I'm not sure that that works.

 

It is possible to have a hybrid CIC where there could be different share classes. One class could be for high net worth investors with specific rights: such as the ability to approve further share offerings and appoint a certain number of directors to the board. Another ‘supporter’ class of shares could be issued to fans directly. The exact balance of rights can be negotiated to fit the circumstances of the Club and the demands of investors.

 

Portsmouth, for example, is not a CIC because under Football League rules it can't be. All clubs have to be companies limited by shares. The club is 75% owned by the Trust and 25% by high net worth fan-investors.

 

I am not certain but I suspect that the same or similar applies in Scotland.

 

It is obviously critical to get this right and therefore it is vital to know who or what the target audience actually is. Personally I am not convinced that the HNW individuals who support our Club actually will put their hands in their pockets in support of fans influence.

 

This aspect is sure to be hotly debated tomorrow.

[Zappa 0]

This is absolutely correct Zappa and was one of the reasons why (even if SDM had not scuppered it) we were going to have difficulty with the original model in 2010. Some people who said they would invest attached all sorts of conditions.

 

It's not surprising that anyone would attach certain conditions to making a large investment in a loss making business.

[pete 2,499]

It's not surprising that anyone would attach certain conditions to making a large investment in a loss making business.

 

Calscots Gersnet plan is still the best idea I have read yet.

[rea 0]

The adaption is that you treat HNWI individuals as investors that get a return. rather than investors getting a bigger say.

 

of course many different models can work, this is just what i proposed that you can donate per month as much as you like for OMOV or you can put more money in (if you can self certify) but get a return.

 

Part of the Portsmouth Model works on this basis.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Just in from the meeting of the Working Group tonight; give me some time for dinner and I'll write up a post for a new thread. Not going to guarantee a time but I'll post it before I go to bed.

[forlanssister 3,114]

The adaption is that you treat HNWI individuals as investors that get a return. rather than investors getting a bigger say.

 

of course many different models can work, this is just what i proposed that you can donate per month as much as you like for OMOV or you can put more money in (if you can self certify) but get a return.

 

Part of the Portsmouth Model works on this basis.

 

How does that square when one wannabee office bearer has previous for chasing off HNWI's in our darkest hour and deepest need then plastering correspondence to said HNWI and his boss all over the internet for the world to see and then spends a large part of his time on here calling our most high profile HNWI a "convicted criminal" an "unfit to be a director"?