The latest Club1872 commotion

[26th of foot 6,084]

1 hour ago, D'Artagnan said:

Its all gone One flew over the cuckoos nest.....

"Everyone benefits from the discipline provided by Nurse Ratched"!

[Gonzo79 15,294]

"Juicy Fruit.".

[Bill 13,717]

Here we go, RST mark 2.

[Bill 13,717]

What chance a blazer and a seat on the board now?

[Uilleam 5,948]

2 hours ago, Bill said:

What chance a blazer and a seat on the board now?

[bmck 117]

20 hours ago, Bill said:

Here we go, RST mark 2.

I think this was the one from when I was last here Frankie. 

[Bluedell 5,627]

On 12/07/2021 at 08:55, Frankie said:

It's worth noting amongst all the posturing on both sides of this debate (namely Robert Marshall and Club1872) that Mr Marshall was questioned by police over comments he made on an open forum.

 

I won't pretend to know what's going on in this latest fan group clusterfuck but it's a timely reminder you can and will be held accountable for your online content.

It's a reminder that the board and shadow director will stoop any level to remain in control, and King doesn't want his puppets to leave his cash cow.

[Frankie 8,570]

6 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

It's a reminder that the board and shadow director will stoop any level to remain in control, and King doesn't want his puppets to leave his cash cow.

It's certainly a huge mess and off-putting for any fan interested in acquiring shares through Club1872.

 

I think all fans ask for is transparency; perfection doesn't happen in any business but to try and disbar someone for raising what, seems to me, valid operational concerns is worrying.

 

Clearly there's a lot of money in play here and a crucial percentage of our club's shares so it's not a huge surprise to see fall outs and political manoeuvrings. 

[Bluedell 5,627]

On 12/07/2021 at 12:57, the gunslinger said:

“Members are not being consulted on key decisions and Directors have acted outwith their powers to take decisions on behalf of the organisation.” This is one such complaint that was dealt with and dismissed by the Regulator as recently as April of this year. As has always been the case, the Regulator has access to all records and documents relating to complaints of this or any nature – including full Board meeting minutes, complete email chains, the Register of Interests and any other relevant documentation. As part of our work to enshrine Club 1872 members’ rights in the 2019 Articles of Association, members were defined as Contributors and given specific powers which they did not previously hold. All key decisions are referred to Contributors, as per our Articles of Association. The Regulator has carefully examined complaints relating specifically to our agreement to purchase New Oasis Asset Limited’s (Dave King) shareholding and, on the grounds that share purchases are a core function of Club 1872 Shares CIC and therefore do not require specific approval from Contributors, those complaints were dismissed. The main activity of the Shares CIC, as laid out in the Objects Clause of the Articles of Association, is to purchase shares in RIFC. The purchase of shares is not listed as a Key Decision in Schedule 2 of the Articles of Association because it is the core function of the organisation itself and therefore contribution to the Shares CIC in itself indicates support for that function. On that basis, Club 1872 does not seek to consult Contributors on shares purchases by the Shares CIC, nor would it be practical or appropriate to do so in many circumstances. To do so would certainly have jeopardised previous share purchases, as these have involved communication that sellers insist is kept confidential. This was the case when the Shares CIC purchased shares from MASH Holdings and was again the case in the negotiation of the most recent deal with Dave King. Where possible, the Board does inform Contributors of potential share purchases in advance and as an example of this we would remind Contributors of our previous public commitments to purchasing shares directly from RIFC Plc via share issues. We have, at various times, provided information on when share issues would take place and the extent to which Club 1872 would be able to participate. Over the course of the next year we have a very privileged position of being able to acquire a block of shares from Dave King at 20p per share. It is in the view of the Directors important that not only do we ensure that we, at a very minimum, hold more than 5% of RIFC that but we seek to increase the shareholding in RIFC year on year.

The directors made the unilateral decision to buy from Dave King and turned down opportunities to buy shares from the club. The members did not get the opportunity to decide whether the club should go to the club or an ex-director. It's laughable that the C1872 board (and shadow director) claim that the allocation of potentially millions of pounds away from the club is not a key decision.

 

It also didn't stop the C1872 asking members to authorise a shares purchase in 2019 so they previously set a precedent.

 

Members are only given a yes or no choice when it comes to votes and are never given the choice of options as then the C1872 board couldn't control the outcome.

 

On 12/07/2021 at 12:57, the gunslinger said:

“Directors have given themselves Executive powers/acted without the authority of the full Board.” This is false. As we have outlined in previous updates, Club 1872 Directors perform operational roles alongside working group members who volunteer to support the organisation. These operational roles include maintaining Club 1872 social media, liaising with numerous third parties, banking, maintaining the website, liaising with working groups etc. Without these roles being assigned and carried out, the organisation could not function and it has always been the case that Directors and working group members take responsibility for operational roles. Operational roles are delegated to individual Directors and working group members in accordance with Articles 8 and 10 of the Articles of Association and as agreed at Board meetings.

It's interesting that they have decided not to specifically address the allegations made by Rev Stuart McQuarrie.

 

On 12/07/2021 at 12:57, the gunslinger said:

“The Club 1872 Board has refused to hold Contributors meetings and is not upholding Contributors’ rights.” The Club 1872 Board is absolutely committed to ensuring Contributors’ rights are upheld at all times, including the right to attend or call Contributors meetings. That is why we worked with the CIC Regulator for over a year to enshrine those rights in the Articles which were then approved by Contributors in December 2019. To be clear, during our work with the Regulator through 2018 and 2019 there was concern on her part that the previous Articles (which were the Articles of Rangers First) did not properly enshrine those rights. A myth has been created and perpetuated by some individuals involved in the current smear campaign that Contributors’ rights have somehow been eroded since the days of Rangers First. That is demonstrably false and is something we will be happy to lay out in full detail to anyone who wishes to understand the true legal position. Although it may have been the intention of those who set up Rangers First to grant those rights to Contributors, they were only introduced with legal power in the most recent Articles which were approved by Contributors in December 2019. Until that point Contributors had no legal right to call or attend meetings or even to vote on key decisions of the organisation. During our work with the Regulator we addressed particular concern that Contributors meetings of Rangers First had been described as “AGMs” when in fact Contributors had no legal rights under the Articles at such meetings. In December 2019 the Club 1872 Board presented to Contributors a set of Articles which, for the first time, would enshrine their right to call and attend meetings. The requirement to hold an Annual Contributors Meeting was put in place in those Articles for the first time. Within weeks of those Articles being approved and adopted, the UK went into lockdown and the Board was prevented from organising a Contributors meeting. The Club 1872 Articles of Association are the framework by which the organisation is properly and effectively governed, but they do not override UK law and as such it was not possible to hold a meeting during 2020. This was a matter of disappointment and frustration for the Board, as we have stated in several previous updates along with our commitment to holding a meeting as soon as we are able to do so. The Regulator is aware of the limitations imposed by the extraordinary circumstances which prevented the Board from holding a Contributors meeting in 2020 and has accepted the Board’s position on this. As mentioned above, we have looked at alternatives to the traditional meeting format that can be put in place should we be unable to hold a face to face meeting within the coming weeks. A meeting will be held by the end of September 2021. For the avoidance of doubt, claims being made on social media that the Club 1872 Board has deliberately avoided holding Contributors meetings are false. Between its formation in May 2016 and the UK going into lockdown in March 2020, Club 1872 held five Contributors meetings (a sixth was scheduled but did not go ahead as only three Contributors had confirmed an interest in attending) as well as a number of focus groups to consult Contributors on proposed changes to the Articles. Directors have also made themselves available to meet Contributors in the Club 1872 office on match days and by appointment at other times.

There's a big difference between having a "contributors meeting" which is a glorified Q&A session and an AGM.

 

There was a constitution put in place much earlier, back in 2017, and there was nothing to stop the C1872 board having AGMs, other than their desire not to have their narrative questioned. This constitution said that meetings were to be held 4 times a year!

 

On 12/07/2021 at 12:57, the gunslinger said:

“Sitting Directors have adapted the Articles to ensure they don’t need to stand for re-election”

 

On 12/07/2021 at 12:57, the gunslinger said:

Consultants are being paid to run Club 1872.”

Throwing in 2 allegations that I've not seen any one make to muddy the water. There was a consultant being paid by the club, who is heavily involved in C1872, who lost his job when King left, but they haven't addressed that allegation..

 

On 12/07/2021 at 12:57, the gunslinger said:

“Candidates were barred from the 2020 elections or have been barred from standing in future elections”

A candidate was threatened by the C1872 board into not standing in a previous election.

 

I am aware of 2 other people who were prevented from standing in the latest election. It appears to me that the C1872 board went through their social media with a fine tooth comb looking for something to highlight to the adjudicator. 

 

They are now disgracefully banning a religious minister from the organisation, showing what happens to whistle blowers and anyone who dares question the way that they are running things. They obviously couldn't find anything to report him to the police so they took another option.

[Bill 13,717]

I think what must worry many fans (it worries me) is the inference that Dave King could be complicit in these Club1872 manoeuvrings. Personally, I think King has every right to try to liquidate his investment but not by manipulating the use of fans' money and certainly not by clandestine arrangements with certain people at Club1872. If it turned out that way it would only confirm the club is never safe from personal ambitions, whether those come from within the Rangers board or fans organisations - and that the aspiration to have a safety net of fan-owned shareholding has been nothing but a smokescreen.

 

If the fans who have dedicated their money to owning shares still had title to those shares, instead of Club1872, then I believe those professing to represent the Rangers support would be compelled to act in an altogether more open and constructive fashion.

 

It is, I'm afraid, another sorry mess and, after all we've been through, it seems to flow from the same source.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Bill