Bluedell 5,624 Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said: As far as i'm aware their 10.5% shareholding entitles them to call an EGM and put forward resolutions? Maybe Bluedell can confirm> Yes, 10% required to call an EGM of a public company. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsonic5791 408 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said: As far as i'm aware their 10.5% shareholding entitles them to call an EGM and put forward resolutions? Maybe Bluedell can confirm> Yeah they have that capability but I would strongly suspect that they are unlikely to exercise it. At least whilst they are broadly aligned with the Club i.e. having offices in the stadium, having advertising hoardings etc, etc. Maybe it's just me, but I struggle to see them as independent any longer. Edited March 27, 2018 by Soulsonic5791 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said: Yeah they have that capability but I would strongly suspect that they are unlikely to exercise it. At least whilst they are broadly aligned with the Club i.e. having offices in the stadium, having advertising hoardings etc, etc. Maybe it's just me, but I struggle to see then as independent any longer. I don't think they would exercise it under this regime, however who knows who will hold the reins in the future, that's another reason i joined C1872 to stop the Whyte's Green's and Ashley' s of this world ever getting a foothold in our club again. Sometimes there is a perception of the lines blurring between club and C1872 . I can understand that, no one is calling for a revolution here, or for the People's Front of Govan Rear Independence Movement. Just one wee voice in the boardroom lol Edited March 27, 2018 by aweebluesoandso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) What would be the point of calling an EGM unless they first knew they had the shareholder support to win a vote ... other than costing the club a lot of money and making a nuisance of themselves to ensure they would never achieve a seat on the board. What gets me about all this is that, no matter who sits in it, a seat on the board would simply tie C1872's hands. Directors have legal duties and obligations to the company and would have no choice but to abide by board decisions. Being a director gives you very little power unless you hold a majority of hands round the table. Being a shareholder gives you very little power unless you control a majority of the shares. There seem to be more than a few fans who think C1872 has some sort of right to a seat on the board - it doesn't. Or that a seat on the board would carry enough stroke to influence the board's decisions - it wouldn't. It's only an opinion but I increasingly feel C1872 has allowed this myth to take root in order to build it's share-buying funds and promote the current flawed strategy. I don't contribute to C1872 so it doesn't affect me directly but I wonder if those who do know that the objective they're buying into is effectively undeliverable. If C1872 wants to flex its muscles it could be far more effective operating from outside the boardroom. But that would require guile and hard work. Edited March 27, 2018 by Bill 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, Bill said: What would be the point of calling an EGM unless they first knew they had the shareholder support to win a vote ... other than costing the club a lot of money and making a nuisance of themselves to ensure they would never achieve a seat on the board. What gets me about all this is that, no matter who sits in it, a seat on the board would simply tie C1872's hands. Directors have legal duties and obligations to the company and would have no choice but to abide by board decisions. Being a director gives you very little power unless you hold a majority of hands round the table. Being a shareholder gives you very little power unless you control a majority of the shares. There seem to be more than a few fans who think C1872 has some sort of right to a seat on the board - it doesn't. Or that a seat on the board would carry enough stroke to influence the board's decisions - it wouldn't. It's only an opinion but I increasingly feel C1872 has allowed this myth to take root in order to build it's share-buying funds and promote the current flawed strategy. I don't contribute to C1872 so it doesn't affect me directly but I wonder if those who do know that the objective they're buying into is effectively undeliverable. If C1872 wants to flex its muscles it could be far more effective operating from outside the boardroom. But that would require guile and hard work. How is board representation unachievable? If you gain enough shares to ask for a resolution at an EGM for it, you then do your cavassing to other shareholders, who might be sympathetic to the idea. So it can be done. No one is saying that's what should be done, merely pointing it out it can be done, but you won't except the theory. Anyone even a support Rep must abide by corporate law and the care and discreteness that requires, that doesn't stop them putting the wishes ans expectations of the fans to the board, the two are mutually inclusive. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said: How is board representation unachievable? If you gain enough shares to ask for a resolution at an EGM for it, you then do your cavassing to other shareholders, who might be sympathetic to the idea. So it can be done. No one is saying that's what should be done, merely pointing it out it can be done, but you won't except the theory. Anyone even a support Rep must abide by corporate law and the care and discreteness that requires, that doesn't stop them putting the wishes ans expectations of the fans to the board, the two are mutually inclusive. If Ally McCoist can swing a vote with his small shareholding I am sure the board would be pretty frightened of losing the C1872 vote. I agree totally that C1872 would be better using their block outside the boardroom. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 I think, the 1st thing that C1872 has to do is have a clear agenda on what they want to tackle. I can imagine the conversation at the moment: C1872: "Dave, the fans have some issues you need to address..." DK: "no problem, what are they?" C1872: "Well, a couple of the guys don't like the away strip, some folk think the pies are too greasy & the chips soggy. Someone mentioned the blue paint on the gates was the wrong shade. The DR printed some shitty articles. A number of fans don't like G Murty. When can we expect these and all the others to be fixed???" DK: ????? C1872 must identify those issue that are most important, analyse & research full, then put it to the board & include suggestions on how they can be rectified & how C1872 can help if required. To do that, doesn't require a board presence....just access to board members, and the weight of their shareholding behind them. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, aweebluesoandso said: How is board representation unachievable? If you gain enough shares to ask for a resolution at an EGM for it, you then do your cavassing to other shareholders, who might be sympathetic to the idea. Yes and then you find the other shareholders are not in the least bit interested in having a supporter on the board and you're told to fuck off with your tail between your legs. What do you do then - call another EGM in the hope you get lucky and waste even more of the clubs money. Tell me how many of the "other shareholders" have been approached by C1872 to test the waters ... and how many have endorsed the idea of a supporters' rep on the board. What's that you say? None? Perhaps it's the complete lack of support that encourages you, who knows? Edited March 27, 2018 by Bill 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, Darthter said: I think, the 1st thing that C1872 has to do is have a clear agenda on what they want to tackle. I can imagine the conversation at the moment: C1872: "Dave, the fans have some issues you need to address..." DK: "no problem, what are they?" C1872: "Well, a couple of the guys don't like the away strip, some folk think the pies are too greasy & the chips soggy. Someone mentioned the blue paint on the gates was the wrong shade. The DR printed some shitty articles. A number of fans don't like G Murty. When can we expect these and all the others to be fixed???" DK: ????? C1872 must identify those issue that are most important, analyse & research full, then put it to the board & include suggestions on how they can be rectified & how C1872 can help if required. To do that, doesn't require a board presence....just access to board members, and the weight of their shareholding behind them. Surely any group aspiring to join the Rangers board will already have done this before asking for other people's money to fund it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 Surely the club liaison manager should work both ways and he is a vehicle to put complaints to the directors. 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.