Club1872 purchase some of Dave King's shares

[JohnMc 2,766]

I don't have a huge issue with them buying King's shares. I understand the argument that the money would be better going into the club, and in a perfect world that would be ideal. However, if Club 1872 don't buy King's shares I worry about who does. Assuming our major shareholders and current directors haven't expressed an interest in buying them then, for me, Club 1872 is a better option than some of the alternatives. 

 

From a business perspective if we want people with resources and business acumen to get involved in the club it would be an easier 'sell' if there's a clear exit strategy too. Club 1872 or something similar strikes me as a decent one. The thought of a decent chunk of the club falling into the hands of someone like Mike Ashley or Charles Green again is a bigger concern for me than Club 1872, for all its faults. 

 

The antagonism that seems to exist between Club 1872 and some of the current board isn't helpful, it pushes us to take sides. Fixing that would be in everyone's best interests. Easier said than done I accept. 

 

If, as a support, we expect our shareholders to simply write off a lot the value of their shares rather than expect to at least recoup what they paid for them, then I worry that will discourage a fair number of people from investing in Rangers. Even the wealthiest of supporter must baulk at potentially losing millions of pounds. 

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

I don't have a huge issue with them buying King's shares. I understand the argument that the money would be better going into the club, and in a perfect world that would be ideal. However, if Club 1872 don't buy King's shares I worry about who does. Assuming our major shareholders and current directors haven't expressed an interest in buying them then, for me, Club 1872 is a better option than some of the alternatives. 

 

From a business perspective if we want people with resources and business acumen to get involved in the club it would be an easier 'sell' if there's a clear exit strategy too. Club 1872 or something similar strikes me as a decent one. The thought of a decent chunk of the club falling into the hands of someone like Mike Ashley or Charles Green again is a bigger concern for me than Club 1872, for all its faults. 

 

The antagonism that seems to exist between Club 1872 and some of the current board isn't helpful, it pushes us to take sides. Fixing that would be in everyone's best interests. Easier said than done I accept. 

 

If, as a support, we expect our shareholders to simply write off a lot the value of their shares rather than expect to at least recoup what they paid for them, then I worry that will discourage a fair number of people from investing in Rangers. Even the wealthiest of supporter must baulk at potentially losing millions of pounds. 

Since the decision who to sell his shares to rests entirely with Dave King, are you saying that he would knowingly sell his shares to someone he didn't know had the best interests of the club at heart. Whatever anyone thinks of him, I don't believe he would.

[JohnMc 2,766]

51 minutes ago, Bill said:

Since the decision who to sell his shares to rests entirely with Dave King, are you saying that he would knowingly sell his shares to someone he didn't know had the best interests of the club at heart. Whatever anyone thinks of him, I don't believe he would.

I think you're probably right, but sometimes events can overtake people. Circumstances outside his control might force King down a particular path, ill health might become an issue, perhaps his children or his wife might feel differently about the shares should they come into their possession. Plus, sometimes people hear what they want to hear, 'I was duped' springs to mind. I suspect David Murray would rather his legacy was 9 in a row and Auchenhowie rather than crippling debt and Craig Whyte. Knowing when and how to leave the stage isn't always in our own gift, no matter what we might have planned. 

[Bill 13,717]

4 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

The club need to set up an alternative way to put in cash for shares. 

 

I remain unconvinced they want normal fans investing though. 

Isn’t that what share issues are supposed to be for? I’ve always favoured individual supporters buying shares in their own name with their own money … and voting as they choose at an AGM. There has never actually been any need for an intermediary like Club1872. Fans owning shares IS fan ownership, Club1872 is just bollocks and froth to give certain people a sense of self-importance. 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Bill

[ranger_syntax 4,330]

Imagine if all of the bluster about Club1872 was matched by the purchase of shares.

 

[CammyF 8,131]

45 minutes ago, Bill said:

Isn’t that what share issues are supposed to be for? I’ve always favoured individual supporters buying shares in their own name with their own money … and voting as they choose at an AGM. There has never actually been any need for an intermediary like Club1872. Fans owning shares IS fan ownership, Club1872 is just bollocks and froth to give certain people a sense of self-importance. 

100% - there was a share issue where fans had the opportunity to purchase shares and this wasn't the greatest of successes.

 

There are many other ways fan invest in the club - season tickets, match day programmes, RTV, MyGers, merchandise etc. 

 

We as fans can pick and chose how we invest in the club, just like we can chose to be a member of Club1872 (or not) knowing their purpose is to increase their shareholding

 

[CammyF 8,131]

6 hours ago, Bluedell said:

They should wait until shares are available. If i's 6 months or 12 months time, what does it really matter. The club should take priority.

 

They are buying them from a third party and the purchase doesn't benefit the club. You were calling for Park to go last week and now you're wanting the supporters' cash to reimburse them?

 

I don't think King will find a buyer for his shares, other than from an organisation run by his placemen. King only started wanting his cash back once he had left the club. He never made any mention of it before that.

Why wait? They were set up to buy shares, they are buying shares. The club should take priority but if they can't buy shares from the club, they have the right to buy them from whomever is selling them.

 

I don't believe any of the current board are the correct people to take us forward, that includes King.

 

King (or Park) were never gonna walk away without wanting some of their investment back - don't have an issue with that and don't see the issue with an organisation (no matter how well, or otherwise they are being run), who's sole purpose is to purchase Rangers shares, purchasing Rangers shares. 

 

 

[Bill 13,717]

it’s intriguing to see the sole purpose of Club1872 finally revealed as ‘to purchase Rangers shares’. I wonder how many would still be donating money if they knew Club1872 existed only to serve its own agenda. Which of course it does. 

[CammyF 8,131]

42 minutes ago, Bill said:

it’s intriguing to see the sole purpose of Club1872 finally revealed as ‘to purchase Rangers shares’. I wonder how many would still be donating money if they knew Club1872 existed only to serve its own agenda. Which of course it does. 

Nobody forces members to join and contribute to Club1872, you're free to join, you can chose the amount you "donate" and if you're not happy, you can leave/stop donating. Or, you are free not to join in the 1st place. 

 

A lot of hyperbole around Club1872, it's "mission", it's strategy, those who run it, especially from fans who aren't members. 

 

 

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,348]

12 hours ago, CammyF said:

Nobody forces members to join and contribute to Club1872, you're free to join, you can chose the amount you "donate" and if you're not happy, you can leave/stop donating. Or, you are free not to join in the 1st place. 

 

A lot of hyperbole around Club1872, it's "mission", it's strategy, those who run it, especially from fans who aren't members. 

 

 

I think that's absolutely fair but in terms of what it offers, its subscription based model and the current perception it has amongst the support its contributors/members will likely only decrease from here on in. 

 

I'm very thankful to Dave King for everything he has done for the club but its time for him to disappear now and let the guys who want to be there run it. No idea what the fall out was between him and Park but don't really care. If King really wanted to be in charge at Rangers i believe he still would be.