Darthter 542 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 I think the main problem appears to be a lack of clear direction.... There was the initial push for a notable shareholding, now that they have it no-one really knows what to do with it. I actually agree that a fans rep on the board could be a good thing - but it must be an appointment that can "serve both masters". Also C1872 (and the fans) must be crystal clear on the expected objectives. Any C1872 rep is there to put forward the views of that shareholder, not to dictate how the club is run. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 2 hours ago, compo said: Who would the members of club 1872 put forward as their representative on the board and why that person . I would offer the position to Donald Findlay, might not please everyone right enough lol 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 1 hour 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. Maybe not a Shug fae Larkhall, but another Dave fae Castlemilk. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 56 minutes ago, Gaffer said: 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. Great post Gaffer. I'd like to try to answer your question "What is it that our rep can offer the board?" ... nothing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsonic5791 408 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 Having read Gaffer's recent comments, I would imagine that his feelings would be reflected amongst a multitude of fans who would like to contribute in some form but are unsure what it is that they would be backing. When Rangers First was established I seriously contemplated making a contribution but never went through with it. Why? The underlying objectives were unclear other than acquiring a shareholding. I must admit that as a lapsed member of the RST, I was skeptical of this organisation especially in light of the trust's 'Student Loans' fallout. What made me doubly skeptical of it was, as soon as the board assumed power, moves were put in place to amalgamate the various fan's bodies who had a shareholding. Why was this? What purpose did it truly serve? Then the new fan body proposals were sent out to season ticket holders (as if they were stakeholders) to vote on. When Alex Macdonald and Willie Henderson were wheeled out at Ibrox to promote it I was completely turned off. Then there was the board members resignations and the Craig Houston stuff which didn't exactly help the image. Here's a thought - let's imagine for a second that King, Park and the rest sell up. The new 'owners' decide to return to the Easdale/Ashley model of running the club at a loss but have the usual floating charges on the assets etc etc. What happens to Club 1872's shareholding if they decide to further dilute through the issuing of new equity to themselves (as Dave and Chums are doing currently) or far worse (and God forbid) fold the thing up? The fans would be stiffed again. Under the current ownership model, it would make more sense to me if the fans were secured creditors. How realistic this is (if indeed it's not already been explored by Club1872 or is the case in some fashion) I'm not too sure. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 29 minutes ago, Bill said: Great post Gaffer. I'd like to try to answer your question "What is it that our rep can offer the board?" ... nothing. That's quite a statement, C1872 hasn't nominated any one as yet, but you deem he or she has nothing to offer. So amongst how many Rangers supporters around the globe, some very high profile Bears. Who some are self made multi millionaires, politicians, QC, ex Military and none have nothing to offer. I heard of talking ourselves down but that really is going to far. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted March 26, 2018 Author Share Posted March 26, 2018 22 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said: Here's a thought - let's imagine for a second that King, Park and the rest sell up. The new 'owners' decide to return to the Easdale/Ashley model of running the club at a loss but have the usual floating charges on the assets etc etc. What happens to Club 1872's shareholding if they decide to further dilute through the issuing of new equity to themselves (as Dave and Chums are doing currently) or far worse (and God forbid) fold the thing up? The fans would be stiffed again. Under the current ownership model, it would make more sense to me if the fans were secured creditors. How realistic this is (if indeed it's not already been explored by Club1872 or is the case in some fashion) I'm not too sure. It's a fair point. It would be easy enough in theory for RIFC to sell the shares in TRFC to another company. I'm sure it was something that I raised when Green first floated the shares. We own shares in a holding company and not the club itself. It would also be easy to do a rights issue and really dilute C1872's shares. RF was set up with a view to owning some of the club's assets under a CIC. RST had one too. I believe both companies are still in place so the vehicles are still there to do that. The problem is that we've seen that these organisations can be hijacked quite easily. We had the situation that one person controlled all of C1872's cash (and may still do). Would we want such a situation to emerge? The nature of a CIC should prevent abuse, but I think further investigation would be required. Having the fans as secured creditors may not work as the security is needed elsewhere. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 12 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said: That's quite a statement, C1872 hasn't nominated any one as yet, but you deem he or she has nothing to offer. So amongst how many Rangers supporters around the globe, some very high profile Bears. Who some are self made multi millionaires, politicians, QC, ex Military and none have nothing to offer. I heard of talking ourselves down but that really is going to far. just coz your a millionaire, politician, QC or ex-Military, doesn't automatically mean you have something productive to offer a PLC Board.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, Darthter said: just coz your a millionaire, politician, QC or ex-Military, doesn't automatically mean you have something productive to offer a PLC Board.... Doesn't mean they don't either, but to say no one from C1872 (whoever takes the position, if ever offered) has nothing to offer is outright nonsense. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsonic5791 408 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 18 minutes ago, Bluedell said: It's a fair point. It would be easy enough in theory for RIFC to sell the shares in TRFC to another company. I'm sure it was something that I raised when Green first floated the shares. We own shares in a holding company and not the club itself. It would also be easy to do a rights issue and really dilute C1872's shares. RF was set up with a view to owning some of the club's assets under a CIC. RST had one too. I believe both companies are still in place so the vehicles are still there to do that. The problem is that we've seen that these organisations can be hijacked quite easily. We had the situation that one person controlled all of C1872's cash (and may still do). Would we want such a situation to emerge? The nature of a CIC should prevent abuse, but I think further investigation would be required. Having the fans as secured creditors may not work as the security is needed elsewhere. Using a CIC to acquire club assets is highly ambitious and I'd need to be convinced of how realistic a goal that is. When you say '....as the security is needed elsewhere.' Bluedell, can you elaborate please. What exactly do you mean? 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.