The latest Club1872 commotion

[ranger_syntax 4,328]

27 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Actually RS its a bit more complex than that with C1872 being set up as CLC - they have to demonstrate member involvement in the ongoing running of the company. When I did the Annual Report for the CLC Regulator in the 1st year of its inception we had to demonstrate & present 4 examples of member participation in the decions made and such decions being carried through to fruition and inception.

That's interesting.

 

I'm only thinking about it from the perspective of an individual though. 

 

If I donate to Club 1872 and stop donating then, in future, someone else will control the shareholding that I paid for.  That is to say that it will be controlled by whoever controls Club 1872. A combination of the membership and the board. I would lose control because I had not remained an active participant.

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said:

That's interesting.

 

I'm only thinking about it from the perspective of an individual though. 

 

If I donate to Club 1872 and stop donating then, in future, someone else will control the shareholding that I paid for.  That is to say that it will be controlled by whoever controls Club 1872. A combination of the membership and the board. I would lose control because I had not remained an active participant.

That's the deal. The role of Club1872 members is simply to hand over money when asked, on the pretext they're playing a part in securing fan ownership. The reality, as you've just made clear, is very different.

[gaspard 562]

1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said:

That's interesting.

 

I'm only thinking about it from the perspective of an individual though. 

 

If I donate to Club 1872 and stop donating then, in future, someone else will control the shareholding that I paid for.  That is to say that it will be controlled by whoever controls Club 1872. A combination of the membership and the board. I would lose control because I had not remained an active participant.

Alternatively Follow Rangers allows the member to transfer all the shares they have bought whilst part of their collective into their own name at any time.

 

I'm not a member of either group nevertheless comparing the 2 collective models,  if I should in the future decide that a supporters collective would be a benefit to Rangers, I would find FR a much more attractive proposition. If the group no longer appeals for whatever reason then you have the option to bail out with your investment.

 

1872 of course do not offer that option,  hence the predicament some members must be faced with just now,  I know guys who just want to terminate their involvement but feel compelled to remain given their financial contributions to date. The reality is that every member will have to abandon their investment at some point. Mortality is unavoidable. 

 

Which makes a bit of a mockery of the 1872 legacy membership, a legacy for who? Dave Kings kids by the looks of things.

[bmck 117]

It feels like a variation on the same discussions we were having the last time I was around. Enough to make you despondent.

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, gaspard said:

Alternatively Follow Rangers allows the member to transfer all the shares they have bought whilst part of their collective into their own name at any time.

 

I'm not a member of either group nevertheless comparing the 2 collective models,  if I should in the future decide that a supporters collective would be a benefit to Rangers, I would find FR a much more attractive proposition. If the group no longer appeals for whatever reason then you have the option to bail out with your investment.

 

1872 of course do not offer that option,  hence the predicament some members must be faced with just now,  I know guys who just want to terminate their involvement but feel compelled to remain given their financial contributions to date. The reality is that every member will have to abandon their investment at some point. Mortality is unavoidable. 

 

Which makes a bit of a mockery of the 1872 legacy membership, a legacy for who? Dave Kings kids by the looks of things.

Like many other fans, I have shares. These shares give me a vote in proportion to the size of my shareholding - a "say" in the running of the club. I am happy to grant my voting rights to someone else if I agree with their intentions. That someone else could easily be Club1872 if I agreed with specific proposals they were putting forward, although given the state of them, I think that's fairly unlikely. I have in the past given my voting rights to Vanguardbears, who I trust far more to act in a sensible and unselfish manner.

 

There is absolutely no need for Club1872 to own your shares. In fact it's little more than a laughable scam. Club1872 should be acting on your behalf, not hoovering up your shares, paid for with your money. Perhaps if that was the case they would act in an altogether more mature and respectful manner.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Why do we "need" this at all? I'm a Rangers fan. I own shares in Rangers. I'm perfectly able to express my opinion as a shareholder without having my hand held by what I regard as some quite dark and dubious people.

first of all glad to see you having so much fun. You clearly don't need this. others will. 

 

I am sure you will be rattling 500 plus into the club just shortly. That's brilliant. I don't have that kind of lump sum but have been able to put in about 300 through Club 1872 recently also brilliant. 

 

Club 1872 has put over 2 million into the club. That can't be ignored. You may not need them but the club does and the more successful they are the better and that involves all the changes you so rightly propose. 

 

 

 

 

[Bluedell 5,627]

1 hour ago, bmck said:

It feels like a variation on the same discussions we were having the last time I was around. Enough to make you despondent.

Welcome back stranger! 

[Bluedell 5,627]

4 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

That's interesting.

 

I'm only thinking about it from the perspective of an individual though. 

 

If I donate to Club 1872 and stop donating then, in future, someone else will control the shareholding that I paid for.  That is to say that it will be controlled by whoever controls Club 1872. A combination of the membership and the board. I would lose control because I had not remained an active participant.

That's a definite weakness of the C1872 model. 

[gaspard 562]

24 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

first of all glad to see you having so much fun. You clearly don't need this. others will. 

 

I am sure you will be rattling 500 plus into the club just shortly. That's brilliant. I don't have that kind of lump sum but have been able to put in about 300 through Club 1872 recently also brilliant. 

 

Club 1872 has put over 2 million into the club. That can't be ignored. You may not need them but the club does and the more successful they are the better and that involves all the changes you so rightly propose. 

 

 

 

 

Have they "put over 2 million" into the club? I thought they bought most of their holding from sports direct and refused to participate in the last 3 club issues despite being invited by Rangers to do so.

 

I'm receptive to correction if mistaken. 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

1 minute ago, gaspard said:

Have they "put over 2 million" into the club? I thought they bought most of their holding from sports direct and refused to participate in the last 3 club issues despite being invited by Rangers to do so.

 

I'm receptive to correction if mistaken. 

they have done lot's of things including putting in over 2 million. 

 

including 500k this year so far.