BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Fair points from Shane but you get the feeling there's something the rest of us are not being told here. That's blatantly obvious, I'd say. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I don't get what the issue about offering a loan is. Why is it a huge decision? What are the downsides of doing it? Why wouldn't 100% of members not be in favour of it? I can understand his point about James Blair's conflict of interest to an extent, although as he isn't a director any conflict would be fairly limited. James Blair is listed as a Director of the Club Company Secretary | Appointed 9 March 2015 http://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/board/board-of-directors/ At the risk of being tarred with the same brush as Mr Bowman, who I do not know though I may have attended the same early meetings, let me say straight off that I immediately voted against the loan for two reasons: This is not the purpose for which the money is being donated to RF The loan as proposed is unsecured. The money has been donated to RF to buy shares in the Club, not to lend the Club money in the hope that some day that loan will be converted into shares. IIRC there was also a suggestion that at some point (after a 5% holding had been achieved) monies might be offered to the Club for specific projects, thereby increasing fans influence, which I think has always been the realistic objective rather than outright ownership. In my opinion it was irresponsible of the Board of RF (or such elements of the Board as made the decision) even to ballot the members on such a proposal, particularly so when it is clear that there was serious division amongst them and apparently the Club neither sought nor agreed to accept the monies. In these circumstances exactly how might RF proceed, if the proposal were to be carried? As a former main board member of SD and Chair of SDS, I have some knowledge of these matters and do not consider that James Blair has a conflict of interest in his two roles, since both should have broadly the same objective i.e. the well being of the Club. That said, it is a difficult horse to straddle, because of the confidentiality of boardroom discussions and the concept of collective responsibility. It is a rightful objective of football club trusts and CIC's like RF to "have a man on the board" but once that man gets there, it is easy for him or her to forget or be compelled to transfer their primary allegiance. Rather than accuse Mr Bowman of grandstanding, I very much regret to say that this looks like a piece of grandstanding by RF; one that has badly backfired. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 James Blair is listed as a Director of the Club Company Secretary | Appointed 9 March 2015 http://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/board/board-of-directors/ Err, no he isn't. He's listed as Company Secretary. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Err, no he isn't. He's listed as Company Secretary. I stand corrected but the way it's shown is confusing at best: Board Of Directors The responsibility of the Board, inter alia, is to provide leadership of the Company within a framework of prudent and effective controls which enable risks to be managed and assessed, set the Company’s strategic aims and ensure that the necessary financial and human resources are in place for the Company to meet its objectives and set the Company’s values and standards. The Directors are responsible for formulating, reviewing and approving the Company’s strategy, budget and major items of capital expenditure. The Company holds regular board meetings. Prior to each board meeting, directors are sent an agenda and Board papers as appropriate for matters to be discussed. Dave King Chairman and Director | Appointed 18 May 2015 John Bennett Director | Appointed 10 March 2015 John Gilligan Director | Appointed 6 March 2015 Paul Murray Director | Appointed 6 March 2015 Graeme Park Director | Appointed 3 August 2015 James Blair Company Secretary | Appointed 9 March 2015 In any event, the principles are the same and I don't consider that he has a conflict being a member of the Board of RF and Rangers International at the same time. As a solicitor, I would be shocked if he didn't stand down from one of the roles or at least recuse himself from any relevant discussion if he considered such a conflict arose. This does not affect my other comments and concerns. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) The bickering melee between supporters on this, has deflated my high of yesterday. After reading about the proposed loan to the club, I was on a high. Although now i believe the loan was never offered to the club, but was only being voted on to see whether the Rangers First could have the mandate from it's members to proceed with the loan offer. I think the club should have refrained from making their statement until the RF members had voted to decide if they wanted to give the necessary permission. Even after that i think the club could have communicated in private their intention to accept or decline said offer of a loan. It's all so unnecessary, the RF and certain officials within it, look to have been thrown under a bus here by a few. I think the RF has within it's rules, once a certain level of shareholding has been reached. Are allowed to switch between share buying and using their members funds for other uses, as long as a vote by the membership is reached in agreement? The club has said they don't need investment or a loan as this junction, but although they did need a loan shortly before the new year. To pay off the Ashley £5mil and some extra financing till the end of season. Why wasn't the supporters groups canvassed by Dave King or the club, on the prospect of investment from them, before they accepted some new investment from new sources? Bad communications all round imo, I joined the RF and the Trust to help the club, but more i want the supporters to have part ownership of the club. We hear the sound bites from the club that they want closer links with the support, but when the opportunity arises to achieve this goal, they look elsewhere for the investment, that would have facilitated closer links between us. The fans groups and RF just need to continue on the same road, keep knocking at the clubs front door, sooner or later the club, as they have said in their statement, will accept our funding. ensuring our rightful place at the table, Edited January 8, 2016 by aweebluesoandso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 The trouble with splinter groups is they keep splintering. See the life of Brian. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 it looks to me like RF are buying shares and putting the money up front. It would give them 5% of the club I'm all for fan ownership 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jaws 570 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I'm slightly confused by all of this. It doesn't appear to make sense to me. First of all lets be clear what a company secretary is. Its not somebody who does dictation and makes the tea as AS chairman Holt has tried to imply in his recent rantings (player registration and liaison with league and cup bodies is part of the secretaries remit). It is in actual fact probably the most important position within a companies structure. The secretary or the 'secretary office' deals with all legal aspects of the company's business including, most importantly, insuring board decisions are carried out and advice to the board/board members regarding legislation, law and lawful practice while doing so. Its also the secretary's job to register and communicate with shareholders. In this case its the fan initiative RF. From my understanding RF have raised this money through its members in order to invest in shares should they become available whether through transfer/buyout or in any future IPO. What is confusing to me is why RF are, aggressively, attempting to create a share issue through this loan when no, shares have become available nor IPO been offered to raise capital? Could anyone shed any light on it for me? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I'm slightly confused by all of this. It doesn't appear to make sense to me. First of all lets be clear what a company secretary is. Its not somebody who does dictation and makes the tea as AS chairman Holt has tried to imply in his recent rantings (player registration and liaison with league and cup bodies is part of the secretaries remit). It is in actual fact probably the most important position within a companies structure. The secretary or the 'secretary office' deals with all legal aspects of the company's business including, most importantly, insuring board decisions are carried out and advice to the board/board members regarding legislation, law and lawful practice while doing so. Its also the secretary's job to register and communicate with shareholders. In this case its the fan initiative RF. From my understanding RF have raised this money through its members in order to invest in shares should they become available whether through transfer/buyout or in any future IPO. What is confusing to me is why RF are, aggressively, attempting to create a share issue through this loan when no, shares have become available nor IPO been offered to raise capital? Could anyone shed any light on it for me? Your not the only one confused by this. If we assume that the club are being truthful then I cannot see anything that they have done wrong. There is enough bad press and scaremongering by our media about the clubs finances that directors had to make plain that no loans were required at this time. Why did RF go public with this? Only those in positions of governance in RF can answer, they don't owe me any explanation but their members who provide the funds certainly are due a explanation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jaws 570 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Your not the only one confused by this. If we assume that the club are being truthful then I cannot see anything that they have done wrong. There is enough bad press and scaremongering by our media about the clubs finances that directors had to make plain that no loans were required at this time.Why did RF go public with this? Only those in positions of governance in RF can answer, they don't owe me any explanation but their members who provide the funds certainly are due a explanation. I completely agree with you with regards to RF members being fully informed as to what was going on. On the other hand from an emotional perspective you/we are thinking why turn down a 500k loan as it could be handy? However from a business perspective I'm thinking hostile attempt to arrest shares albeit veiled. Edited January 8, 2016 by Big Jaws 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.