Report of first meeting of Rangers CIC Working Group

[BrahimHemdani 1]

REPORT OF FIRST MEETING OF RANGERS CIC WORKING GROUP

LOUDEN TAVERN GLASGOW

18 FEBRUARY 2014.

 

The meeting was already under way when I arrived just before the appointed hour of 6.00pm.

 

I counted an attendance of 36 people, which means that more than 80% of those who attended the inaugural meeting put themselves forward for the Working Group.

 

Richard Atkinson again had the floor. He said that the CIC should embrace:

 

• All fans’ groups

• Fans in no group

• High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI)

• The 12% of fans with shares (presumably included also in the first two groups)

• Institutional Investors

• Trading Partners

 

The meeting threatened to degenerate a bit at this point when RST members raised the work they have done in the past and what they saw as lack of support from SDS. However, Richard handled this well and said the CIC was about fans coming together and moving forward.

 

In answer to my question he said that the proposed CIC would not be a plc but would follow the Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) model (which means that it cannot issue share capital and hence does not need initial capital or a prospectus – both of which are very costly).

 

There was a lengthy discussion about the involvement of HNWI’s.

 

Richard concluded the first part of the presentation by saying that the Working Group:

 

 Needs to be disciplined

 Needs teamwork

 Has to be a group not a bunch of individuals

 Those involved need to turn the other cheek and not rise to criticism

 Is not about “open shop” – not because of trying to keep things secret but because it will create questions and he encouraged those involved not to answer forum questions if they did not know the correct answer; otherwise it would just create more work for him to correct the incorrect answers.

RANGERS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU ARE.

 

The first stage of the second part of the presentation was taken up with a discussion about the name for the organisation. Richard proposed http://www.rangers.coop which had already been registered by SD. However, a number of people expressed concern about the coop brand and a gentleman (I think his name is Ian Gilfillan but I might well be mistaken) proposed Rangersfirst.org which he has already registered and said he was happy to transfer. This was agreed. Web page, FB and Twitter accounts should be up and running in the next couple of days.

 

Discussion moved on to the WORKING PARTIES membership of which would be based on a skills audit to be issued tomorrow:

 

1. IT

1.1 Internal (communication)

1.2 External (social media)

1.3 Graphics

 

2. MEMBER SERVICES (getting the message out)

2.1 Marketing/Sales

2.2 Engagement with Members

 

3. EXTERNAL MEDIA – PR (proposed to use Paul Goodwin of SDS in the short term as a “buffer”). [Personally I am not overly comfortable with that but most people seemed to accept it.]

 

4. COMMERCIAL

 

5. LEGAL & COMPLIANCE

 

6. ACCOUNTING

 

7. GROUP ENGAGEMENT

 

8. ADMINISTRATION

 

9. ENDORSEMENTS

 

There will be 4/5 members in each group out of which Richard anticipates leaders to emerge who will form a Working Group of Leaders.

 

He stressed that it is not a closed shop at this stage, those with relevant skills are urged to come forward.

 

Forums will be asked to provide a dedicated slot for Rangersfirst.

 

Richard concluded proceedings just after 8.00pm by saying that “a lot of people have baggage but this Group is about relationships with each other”.

 

The first meetings of the Working Parties will be next week.

Edited February 18, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[rbr 1,278]

I'm really actually excited about this , good luck to all involved , Rangers First

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'm really actually excited about this , good luck to all involved , Rangers First

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am too; actually I would have preferred RangersFirst but Rangersfirst was already registered and probably easier.

[Bluedell 6,069]

They were told about the issues with the coop last year. It's good that it's now been binned.

[Bluedell 6,069]

The problem with Rangersfirst is that it's a term that was already been used over the last few years in respect of the singing. It may be better to get something a bit more unique and not a term that may cause confusion.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

They were told about the issues with the coop last year. It's good that it's now been binned.

 

Yes, I was really surprised that he introduced it; but to be fair to him he quickly judged the mood of the meeting.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The problem with Rangersfirst is that it's a term that was already been used over the last few years in respect of the singing. It may be better to get something a bit more unique and not a term that may cause confusion.

 

I'm sure all suggestions will be welcome but I have to say it sounds good to me, even if it's been used before.

 

I guess the important thing is that it is identifiable in terms of social media; not something that I know anything about I have to say (so I won't be in that WP!)

 

There were no other names put forward tonight.

 

Also it is my understanding that the legal name of the company must include Community Interest Company or CIC.

[Frankie 8,889]

Thanks for the report BH...

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Thanks for the report BH...

 

You are welcome.

 

I was in touch with Richard last night about RangersFirst or Rangersfirst and he says it is something that will be looked at by the Graphics Working Party (another one that will not include me!)

[SteveC 150]

They were told about the issues with the coop last year. It's good that it's now been binned.

 

 

 

yes, but at my age "coop" was nice to see as it reminds one of The Moody Blue!

 

good luck with all this - it is exciing. it will be harder for us than anyone else as we have the schum and their mhedia lapdogs ever ready to attack and destabilise.