Club 1872 Stewart Robertson Meeting Summary

[Gaffer 1,665]

That's what I've heard. He is weak and isn't allowed to make any big decisions. Martin Bain Mk2.

 

Shame as we won't know if he could do the job properly and be an effective MD when he isn't being allowed to.

 

Every board member of any organisation has restrictions (delegated authorities) on what they can and can't decide on their own - even the MD. They are just one part of a board of directors afterall. That's just one of the many important controls a business has in place to ensure that due diligence and consideration is applied to all big decisions. Surely that makes sense. And surely after some of the previous decisions (by you know who) to our club we would want that security?!?

 

As for him being weak, can't you at least wait to see who is appointed as manager and DoF? I'm not saying our directors are the best execs around. I've already said that the best execs will tend to go to big jobs in large companies. But being a director of a football club has all the downside of large multinationals (media exposure, intense scrutiny, etc) but without the finances and staff resources to address issues effectively. I can appreciate the job they are trying to do, and as long as I believe their motives are the same as mine (to get back to where we belong at the top of the game) I'll accept they're doing the best they can for the club.

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

I'm only passing on what I've been told by someone who has regular contact with several club senior staff and directors.

 

I don't know anything about Robertson other than he came from Motherwell, is a Rangers supporter and is doing everything he can to do the job to the best of his ability.

 

My info is he is not being allowed the freedom to carry out the job description and has to run everything by King, who nobody can get hold of for days at a time. Therefore the patsy description is valid in the context I put it in, and reminds me greatly of the Bain/Murray relationship, although at least Robertson has the CV to do the job if he was allowed.

[Scott7 6,173]

That's a better way of putting it.

[Walterbear 557]

I think the questions were answered fairly however I'd have liked a little more detail on the alternative commercial opportunities and how much money we were targeting from new areas to raise money. I wouldn't expect commercially delicate info but this is an area to follow up on at the next interview. Clearly they are not expanding the dept without targets in mind.

 

I think the interview reaffirms we are stabilising and not 'lobbing' money at the problem which is fcertainly the priority but the impression is we going at a fairly slow pace and the main reason for that is a lack of cash. I would have expected a statement to confirm the new DOF and manager will be given a reasonable budget from the board for example to at least match what MW got. I know there are legal cases hindering development but my view is DK should be putting in £10m now or very shortly and that a significant proportion should go on scouting infrastructure and facilities. The absence of commitment to this (relatively low amount given the size of our club) demonstrates the level of risk being attached to the legal issues and clearly they must keep money back to prevent admin2 given those circumstances.

 

The upgrades mentioned may be important but it's not much after 2 years even considering the broken club which the board inherited. If club 1872 were allowed to invest in training infrastructure it would be a great use of cash. Perhaps it was part of a private conversation but not sure why the MD and 1872 aren't making an immediate statement to say they are following up on how to use 1872 money. Saying 'we await a proposal' when 1872 are sitting opposite doesn't transmit a level of urgency to me. I am sure the MD is working hard but I would expect a more energetic response.

 

Given the step backwards on the playing field I feel we need a step change in pace and I think DK and board need to demonstrate a bit more personal risk taking over the next 6 months. I appreciate everything they have done but it's important the fans continue to push in a constructive manner and in a way that recognises the bad place we have come from. I dont think a follow up in 6 months is the right time period. I'd like to see something shortly after the new team come on board (8 weeks). Rangers is a small to medium business like most clubs with the exception of the Man Us and Real Madrids of this world so a 3 monthly meet would be entirely appropriate to assess progress and plans with the fans given what is at stake and given that it is the fans above all who have kept the club afloat.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Walterbear

[MacK1950 2,399]

Certainly I can understand the diligence on the financial front as it is not feasible to go for boom and bust and am glad to wait for it to come right.

As for the playing side being a step back I cannot agree on that as we have moved up to a higher division but not coped with it in the way that we all wish,so if we had made a step back we would be languishing in the bottom six,so as we are chasing for second I see this as positive and something to build on.

[Walterbear 557]

Fair point Mac. If I can clarify. By step back in the playing side I meant we have faltered this season in terms of solidifying the defence, getting more goals and we are not convincing in the middle. In terms of position in the league i would have taken a 2nd or 3rd this season at the start but we have not been convincing and Aberdeen for example whilst very beatable are by and large playing better than us. I think we need a few fresh faces to stabilise the football and consolidate that tip 2 whereas I think the expectation had been that a couple of fresh faces this summer would be taking us up a level if not to beat Celtic just yet then to at least have a fair chance in 2 or 3 years. We are in danger of not achieving that as it oooks right now.

[D'Artagnan 173]

If club 1872 were allowed to invest in training infrastructure it would be a great use of cash. Perhaps it was part of a private conversation but not sure why the MD and 1872 aren't making an immediate statement to say they are following up on how to use 1872 money. Saying 'we await a proposal' when 1872 are sitting opposite doesn't transmit a level of urgency to me. I am sure the MD is working hard but I would expect a more energetic response.

 

Perhaps I can answer that for you Walterbear.

 

Club 1872 is formed as a Community Interest Company and there are strict guidelines on the use of member's money - which is where terms such as "asset lock" and "community test" come into play.

 

Use of money for projects by those who have opted for it, is permitted but even then must satisfy stringent tests.

Edited March 6, 2017 by D'Artagnan

[BEARGER 1,830]

How does Club1872 investing in infrastructure increase fans control/having a say in the club? This is something that does not sit right with me, I believe that all monies should go toward increasing fan shareholding. I know Club1872 members have a vote.

[Davie P 4]

How does Club1872 investing in infrastructure increase fans control/having a say in the club? This is something that does not sit right with me, I believe that all monies should go toward increasing fan shareholding. I know Club1872 members have a vote.

 

The difficulty right now is that there are no shares for sale in the open market. C1872 is taking in funds on a monthly basis and sitting on a pile of cash. They either have to save the funds for a share offering, or offer a soft loan to Rangers (in return for equity ala King etc.) which has been put on the table per the meeting with SR. Not sure what else they can do at this time?

[Bluedell 5,679]

How does Club1872 investing in infrastructure increase fans control/having a say in the club? This is something that does not sit right with me, I believe that all monies should go toward increasing fan shareholding. I know Club1872 members have a vote.

 

Rangers First always had a Community Interest Company and part of its remit was to safeguard some of the clubs' assets through CIC ownership. This obviously carries into C1872 which has ownership of RF's CIC plus RST's.

 

I presume that any infrastructure investment would be through the CIC, although I'm not sure how the protection would work in practice.

 

I understand that members of C1872 have the choice of how their cash is invested. I think the default may be 50:50 between shares and capital projects but members can opt for just one if they wish.

 

Seems like a fair enough way to go about it.