Dave King to Sell Shares to Club 1872

[rbr 1,256]

There are fellow fans taking out legacy memberships , who have absolutely no idea what their money is going to be used for , where its going to be held , who has access to is etc etc , another cluster fuck by the 1872 board , absolutely no transparency , everything in a rush as per usual .

[Bill 13,717]

2 minutes ago, rbr said:

There are fellow fans taking out legacy memberships , who have absolutely no idea what their money is going to be used for , where its going to be held , who has access to is etc etc , another cluster fuck by the 1872 board , absolutely no transparency , everything in a rush as per usual .

When fans are prepared to part with their money without what I would consider even a skeleton outline of a plan, is it any wonder Club1872 continues to conduct itself like this. It seems nothing ever changes and no one ever learns. 

[compo 7,052]

Maybe Dave's doing what they did in the old western movies getting out of town while the goings good ?

[craig 5,199]

1 hour ago, Stevie - 4lads Blog said:

That’s the thing isn’t it. I didn’t mention finances or anything at first, I said I support the concept and I wasn’t looking for so much come back from an innocent comment. I have lots of respect for @Bluedellalso and haven’t challenged him. I offered some speculative answers in relation to why he is selling rather than gifting 

 

I have also openly admitted there is plenty of questions and the lads make good points

 

Indeed, I am sitting down with Dave King & club1872 to get those answers to educate myself further. 

 

But above all, the combativeness is the response only shows my original point to be correct, the negativity surrounding it is extraordinary. As a support we literally argue over anything 

 

All my point was simply I backed the idea 

 

It’s an emotive subject obviously! 

Thanks Stevie, and thanks for taking my post in the manner in which it was intended.

 

I disagree about the combativeness to your original post.  I don't think that anyone on here is being combative.  I think Bluedell and rbr ask very legitimate questions.  And they are being asked in a non-combative way.  The problem with such an emotive subject is that the "sides" become entrenched.  And there should be ways around that - but the launching of it without any real meat to it just seems all very haphazard to me.  Both King and C1872 should have, prior to ANY announcement, have pre-empted any questions that may come of this.  They should have known the question of the funds going to King and not the club would be asked, C1872 should have known their governance structure would be questioned given lack of AGM's and, indeed, lack of any substantive communication for quite some time.  Then, BOOM, give us your cash.  That is NOT the way to run an organization that does, and will, have to rely on its members to continue funding.

 

Legitimate questions are not combative just because they question those on the other "side" of the fence.

 

Bluedell in fact also said he supports the idea.

 

My biggest issue with it all is that I just don't see how, if there is any need for future funding, that C1872 will be able to provide that through the members.  Do they even have a plan for that ?  Because the way this looks just now is that the ONLY thing they are interested in is buying King's shares - that does NOT guarantee that 2012 doesn't happen again and, as FS it was I think said, by owning 25% of the shares it actually is more likely to put us in a more precarious position, not less - I just don't see how C1872 find the funds for both the 13 million share purchase and then any additional funding that may be needed.  Now, granted, hopefully the model becomes self-sustaining, but there is no guarantee of that either.

[craig 5,199]

1 hour ago, rbr said:

There are fellow fans taking out legacy memberships , who have absolutely no idea what their money is going to be used for , where its going to be held , who has access to is etc etc , another cluster fuck by the 1872 board , absolutely no transparency , everything in a rush as per usual .

Exactly this.

[Stevie - 4lads Blog 922]

3 minutes ago, craig said:

Thanks Stevie, and thanks for taking my post in the manner in which it was intended.

 

I disagree about the combativeness to your original post.  I don't think that anyone on here is being combative.  I think Bluedell and rbr ask very legitimate questions.  And they are being asked in a non-combative way.  The problem with such an emotive subject is that the "sides" become entrenched.  And there should be ways around that - but the launching of it without any real meat to it just seems all very haphazard to me.  Both King and C1872 should have, prior to ANY announcement, have pre-empted any questions that may come of this.  They should have known the question of the funds going to King and not the club would be asked, C1872 should have known their governance structure would be questioned given lack of AGM's and, indeed, lack of any substantive communication for quite some time.  Then, BOOM, give us your cash.  That is NOT the way to run an organization that does, and will, have to rely on its members to continue funding.

 

Legitimate questions are not combative just because they question those on the other "side" of the fence.

 

Bluedell in fact also said he supports the idea.

 

My biggest issue with it all is that I just don't see how, if there is any need for future funding, that C1872 will be able to provide that through the members.  Do they even have a plan for that ?  Because the way this looks just now is that the ONLY thing they are interested in is buying King's shares - that does NOT guarantee that 2012 doesn't happen again and, as FS it was I think said, by owning 25% of the shares it actually is more likely to put us in a more precarious position, not less - I just don't see how C1872 find the funds for both the 13 million share purchase and then any additional funding that may be needed.  Now, granted, hopefully the model becomes self-sustaining, but there is no guarantee of that either.

You are talking at me like I disagree with anything that you or anyone on this thread is saying

 

So again I will say that the questions everyone has asked have been relevant and fair. I haven’t disagreed with anyone or said anyone wrong - that’s a key point 

 

This started because I said I would support it and sad to see negativity, which it is, because every subject surrounding us ends up in bickering 

 

The above post is you telling me every reason why this is wrong when I haven’t offered anything to suggest those points weren’t correct, like I have been shouting in the thread 

 

I haven’t done anything like it 

 

In essence, your making the point at the wrong person if you think I’m saying you are wrong 

 

 

As I said before, I will sit down and speak with them next week, I’ll ask the questions and try to get answers best I can because I too have plenty to ask 

 

Respectfully, It doesn’t need everyone telling me how wrong club1872 are or what they should have done (like above) because I haven’t said they or this was perfect in anyway 

 

The biggest issue seems I said I would back it and I will - fan ownership like fan media, done properly, is key 

 

It’s our club and it’s ok to feel that way 

[craig 5,199]

The timing of this seems somewhat strange to me too.  Whilst Dave King will always be regarded as an integral part of the recovery of the Club, I am somewhat surprised at both his Chairmanship resignation and, moreso, the announcement of the selling of his shares.  I would have thought that he would have wanted one, or both, to still be ongoing when we take the largest, though not final, step of the journey.

[craig 5,199]

Just now, Stevie - 4lads Blog said:

You are talking at me like I disagree with anything that you or anyone on this thread is saying

 

So again I will say that the questions everyone has asked have been relevant and fair. I haven’t disagreed with anyone or said anyone wrong - that’s a key point 

 

This started because I said I would support it and sad to see negativity, which it is, because every subject surrounding us ends up in bickering 

 

The above post is you telling me every reason why this is wrong when I haven’t offered anything to suggest those points weren’t correct, like I have been shouting in the thread 

 

I haven’t done anything like it 

 

In essence, your making the point at the wrong person if you think I’m saying you are wrong 

 

 

As I said before, I will sit down and speak with them next week, I’ll ask the questions and try to get answers best I can because I too have plenty to ask 

 

Respectfully, It doesn’t need everyone telling me how wrong club1872 are or what they should have done (like above) because I haven’t said they or this was perfect in anyway 

 

The biggest issue seems I said I would back it and I will - fan ownership like fan media, done properly, is key 

 

It’s our club and it’s ok to feel that way 

We will need to agree to disagree because I am not talking "at you" when posting here - you are taking it as me speaking to what you believe in when it is me talking about the subject at hand.  I think you need to take it less personally.  The point isn't being made at you, it is being made at the process, or lack thereof.

 

I would suggest you read the post again and you will hopefully find that none of it is pointing at you - it is pointing at Dave King and C1872.

 

The "negativity" as you see it is absolutely warranted and, I would contend, isn't negativity but is actually justified questioning.  Just because it isn't the preferred desire of what C1872 want doesn't mean it isn't justified - it also isn't negativity when it is questioning what, how, why, when C1872 propose making this all work.

 

Rangers fans have been though more than enough previously to know that having a healthy cynicism, and a questioning mentality, is not only justified but actually NEEDED.  I would contend that those who support this without having ANY IDEA about the direction we are being taken are the ones who need to open their eyes.  Those who are supporting it just now haven't a clue on some of the questions raised, not a clue.  But they are blindly signing up, which is absolutely their prerogative - but they also shouldn't be pointing fingers at those who also have the club's best interests at heart but who want to know just how this will actually work.

 

The subject ends up in bickering because, like it or not, C1872 got way, way, way too far ahead of itself and hasn't made any attempt whatsoever to pre-empt any questions prior to asking people to sign up for the legacy membership and start contributing.  That, for me, is poor governance.  When something as important as this is being rolled out one of the very first things you ask yourself is "what questions will the members ask" and, as I said previously, some of the ones raised on here should have been obvious to C1872.

 

Will I sign up for the legacy membership ?  Probably.  Will I do it blindly as many have already done ?  Absolutely not.  When will I do it ?  When I know that the direction C1872 is actually taking is something that is sustainable.

 

The most operative words to your post above is "done properly" - anyone suggesting that C1872 have handled this properly so far haven't seen how governance is handled elsewhere, IMHO.

[Stevie - 4lads Blog 922]

1 hour ago, craig said:

We will need to agree to disagree because I am not talking "at you" when posting here - you are taking it as me speaking to what you believe in when it is me talking about the subject at hand.  I think you need to take it less personally.  The point isn't being made at you, it is being made at the process, or lack thereof.

 

I would suggest you read the post again and you will hopefully find that none of it is pointing at you - it is pointing at Dave King and C1872.

 

The "negativity" as you see it is absolutely warranted and, I would contend, isn't negativity but is actually justified questioning.  Just because it isn't the preferred desire of what C1872 want doesn't mean it isn't justified - it also isn't negativity when it is questioning what, how, why, when C1872 propose making this all work.

 

Rangers fans have been though more than enough previously to know that having a healthy cynicism, and a questioning mentality, is not only justified but actually NEEDED.  I would contend that those who support this without having ANY IDEA about the direction we are being taken are the ones who need to open their eyes.  Those who are supporting it just now haven't a clue on some of the questions raised, not a clue.  But they are blindly signing up, which is absolutely their prerogative - but they also shouldn't be pointing fingers at those who also have the club's best interests at heart but who want to know just how this will actually work.

 

The subject ends up in bickering because, like it or not, C1872 got way, way, way too far ahead of itself and hasn't made any attempt whatsoever to pre-empt any questions prior to asking people to sign up for the legacy membership and start contributing.  That, for me, is poor governance.  When something as important as this is being rolled out one of the very first things you ask yourself is "what questions will the members ask" and, as I said previously, some of the ones raised on here should have been obvious to C1872.

 

Will I sign up for the legacy membership ?  Probably.  Will I do it blindly as many have already done ?  Absolutely not.  When will I do it ?  When I know that the direction C1872 is actually taking is something that is sustainable.

 

The most operative words to your post above is "done properly" - anyone suggesting that C1872 have handled this properly so far haven't seen how governance is handled elsewhere, IMHO.

You are doing it again and you haven’t even read a thing I have said 

 

You have continuously told me how wrong Club1872 are, what they are doing etc is wrong because they have went about it the wrong way 

 

Can you show me anywhere, in this thread, where I have said anyone is wrong and these questions are unfair, or what they are saying is wrong?

(you won’t be able too) 

 

I haven’t 

 

All I said was my first comment, not even a quote 

 

The things people are saying are fair questions (again repeating myself incase the previous times aren’t clear)

 

What is poor is the negativity and arguing on various platforms again amongst ourselves which descends into a farce - my original point - not those asking valid questions 

(repeating myself) 

 

 

Believe it or not, it is ok to think positively about this 

 

just as it is to be sceptical 

 

As I have said above, neither are wrong nor have I attempted to tell anyone either way! 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Stevie - 4lads Blog

[Gonzo79 15,294]

This thread sums up why Rangers supporters might make a mess of fan ownership. 

 

Even when we agree questions need to be asked, we start disagreeing about whether those questions are being posed correctly.  

 

I'm even arguing with myself about all of this.  ? 

 

King could've given us another couple of months enjoying football before announcing the offer FFS. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Gonzo79