Club 1872 meeting with Dave King

[Bill 13,717]

12 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said:

Just out of curiosity how many shares did it take for Alastair Johnston to becoming a director, or an ''Individual person of  significant control''

 

It seems to me individuals or someone representing corporate identities can become a director or have significance without having share control or even many shares. I'm thinking of the old regime were faces just appeared and disappeared at whim. then now we have Mr Johnston suddenly appear again.

You become a director because the board thinks you can contribute to the successful running of the company, not just because you’ve bought shares. All I’ve been saying is the board clearly doesn’t put C1872 in that category. That’s the reality of it, whatever anyone says. 

[aweebluesoandso 290]

13 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

AJ isn't a director due to his shareholding. He has presumably been brought on board because he is able to contribute in some way.

 

Generally we want people of ability or those who can contribute something on the board, and not just those with the largest shareholding.

I understand that BD, i was pointing out how it's  fine to bring in people whenever for whatever, but not allow supporters representation when ever for whatever reason, looks a bit like double standards?

 

Who is a ''Individual with significant control'' anyway. 

[aweebluesoandso 290]

20 minutes ago, Bill said:

You become a director because the board thinks you can contribute to the successful running of the company, not just because you’ve bought shares. All I’ve been saying is the board clearly doesn’t put C1872 in that category. That’s the reality of it, whatever anyone says. 

Of course, but who's to say the representative the supporters appoint to the clubs board, isn't the next Alan Sugar?

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, aweebluesoandso said:

Of course, but who's to say the representative the supporters appoint to the clubs board, isn't the next Alan Sugar?

And who’s to say he is? As a supporter I’d want to know what he is today, not what he might be in future. 

 

The point is is there’s no absolute morality here. It’s about what the board considers right or wrong, not what a shareholder like C1872 thinks is in their own interest. There’s been an ongoing misrepresentation that buying shares would somehow create an entitlement to a directorship and that a seat on the board would bring some sort of influence. Neither is the case. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Bill

[Bluedell 5,482]

Just now, aweebluesoandso said:

I understand that BD, i was pointing out how it's  fine to bring in people whenever for whatever, but not allow supporters representation when ever for whatever reason, looks a bit like double standards?

 

Who is a ''Individual with significant control'' anyway. 

As Bill says, perhaps they don't look on them being able to contribute anything. I'd disagree, and believe that there should be a place for one, for a number of reasons, some of which I've detailed earlier.

 

''Individual with significant control'' is a new concept, introduced in 2016. It's to identify cases where the directors of a company aren't really the ones with overall control. For example, I'm a director of a company where I have no shares. The ''Individual with significant control'' is the person who holds a majority of the shares in the ultimate holding company.

 

In a way, you can look at the directors of TRFC. They would have little overall control as to the way the club went forward and would need to act within the remit set by the directors of RIFC. All the directors of RIFC have been set up as ''Individuals with significant control''.

 

 

[aweebluesoandso 290]

12 minutes ago, Bill said:

And who’s to say he is? As a supporter I’d want to know what he is today, not what he might be in future. 

 

The point is is there’s no absolute morality here. It’s about what the board considers right or wrong, not what a shareholder like C1872 thinks is in their own interest. There’s been an ongoing misrepresentation that buying shares would somehow create an entitlement to a directorship and that a beast on the board would bring some sort of influence. Neither is the case. 

If you buy enough shares it does give you the authority to call EGM and call for resolutions, even putting a candidate forward for a place on the board.  Also the board can appoint a supporters representative if they wish, it's just that they don't wish to at this moment in time, well that could change?

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, aweebluesoandso said:

If you buy enough shares it does give you the authority to call EGM and call for resolutions, even putting a candidate forward for a place on the board.  Also the board can appoint a supporters representative if they wish, it's just that they don't wish to at this moment in time, well that could change?

This will not please everyone.

 

I think there’s a question to be asked ... is the right to a seat on the board at least being inferred by C1872 as an encouragement to supporters to make donations ... when clearly no such right exists and the board continues to signal its difficulties with such an outcome?

Edited March 26, 2018 by Bill

[compo 6,605]

Who would the members of club 1872 put forward as their representative on the board and why that person .

[Darthter 542]

An important point of note: 

The Boardroom of a Football club, is not a "football" environment - it is 100% business orientated and not a suitable place for "Shug fae Larkhall", just because a fans group demanded he be there.

ANY potential Board member should bring something to the table.  If C1872 were able to get a representative on-board, it must be the right person who can not only represent C1872, but also bring something practical to the regular running of the club.

Also, any Rep that C8172 got on the Board would still be bound by various confidentiality agreements and would most likely still anger fans when unable to answer questions/concerns in specific detail.

Does the current shareholding empower C1872 to propose a new Board member???  If it does, that would be a better way to go IMHO.  Pick & propose the right candidate, then reply on the democratic voting power of the shareholders.

 

With regard to shareholding....a number of folk have commented that they are happy to simply continue to increase the number of shares.  What for??  What is the outcome/reason for doing so??  Yes it will input money into the club if purchased via a share issue, but then what??  There is no point having a notable slice of the shares, then not do anything with that.

[Gaffer 1,665]

16 minutes ago, Darthter said:

An important point of note: 

The Boardroom of a Football club, is not a "football" environment - it is 100% business orientated and not a suitable place for "Shug fae Larkhall", just because a fans group demanded he be there.

ANY potential Board member should bring something to the table.  If C1872 were able to get a representative on-board, it must be the right person who can not only represent C1872, but also bring something practical to the regular running of the club.

Also, any Rep that C8172 got on the Board would still be bound by various confidentiality agreements and would most likely still anger fans when unable to answer questions/concerns in specific detail.

Does the current shareholding empower C1872 to propose a new Board member???  If it does, that would be a better way to go IMHO.  Pick & propose the right candidate, then reply on the democratic voting power of the shareholders.

 

With regard to shareholding....a number of folk have commented that they are happy to simply continue to increase the number of shares.  What for??  What is the outcome/reason for doing so??  Yes it will input money into the club if purchased via a share issue, but then what??  There is no point having a notable slice of the shares, then not do anything with that.

I agree and this is what I've been asking almost since this thread began.  What is it that our rep can offer the board?  I have no idea who the Club 1872 directors are, but I've seen nothing from that organisation which suggests they could offer any additional skills or expertise.  Can anyone correct me on this?  Equally, our shareholding is insignificant and any value is outdone by the threat of sensitive information being leaked.  If I was  on the football club's board, I wouldn't want a fan rep on it.  I would however welcome input from any organisations which could sensibly represent a section of the fans on relevant subjects.  Equally, I'd welcome lobbyists or special interest groups for particular issues coming in to participate in specific agenda items of a board where relevant.

 

The issue of buying shares in the company was appealing to me because if we could reach specific thresholds, the board would then require the fans (or members) support to execute certain parts of their strategy, and thereby provide some degree of protection.  However, what I'm seeing now is a push for Club 1872 to use this shareholding to force a position on the board, but to do what?  I'm still not satisfied that my views would/could be represented and yet I'd be funding someone's personal opinions to be expressed as if they were my own too.  That's not sitting well with me right now.

 

This makes me question the motives.  Rather than Club 1872 go asking for a seat on the board, why not start from within the membership to see what agendas we want advanced, or what skills and expertise we could offer the club?  It all seems a bit amateurish to me, but not knowing any of the characters involved, or how these things work, I may be a lone voice, or certainly in a minority.  I'll be watching how this unfolds carefully, because I won't continue my funding if my purpose for doing so is outweighed by my concerns about the way I which it's being done.