boracay ranger
Well-Known Member
I think the number making regular contributions will be a fraction of that.
I think that number includes life members from RF and RST who are not required to continue making contributions to retain their membership.
Club 1872 AGM - 7 people attended?
- Thread starter Beansie
- Start date
I think that number includes life members from RF and RST who are not required to continue making contributions to retain their membership.
It is but even if it’s true that’s still a country mile away from where they need to be. If all contributors contribute £10 per month, the minimum now allowed, the annual income would be £720k. A bit more probably since some will contribute more. So let’s say it’s £1m a year. That’s 4m shares worth at the current 25p a share. 4m shares is less than 1% of the total shares. So if the contributors stay at 6,000 and no new shares are issued and the price stays the same, it will take at least 20 years to get to the 25% needed to make sure the fans can block all special resolutions. I’m 75 and reckon I won’t see the day. Jeez even if it’s £2M a year, I still may not see it.
And if the price goes up from 25p a share lots of you won’t see it either.No matter how well or badly C1872 is run, it’s actually f*rting against thunder. It has absolutely no chance as things stand of making any real difference. It’s only chance is not it’s shareholding, mathematically that won’t work, but building a relationship with the board as fans of the club. That ship seems to have sailed. So they can’t buy enough shares to make a difference and have alienated the board and many of the fans. So why have them? How can they help? What are they for? And why contribute through them?
Hillheadbear
Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll
It is but even if it’s true that’s still a country mile away from where they need to be. If all contributors contribute £10 per month, the minimum now allowed, the annual income would be £720k. A bit more probably since some will contribute more. So let’s say it’s £1m a year. That’s 4m shares worth at the current 25p a share. 4m shares is less than 1% of the total shares. So if the contributors stay at 6,000 and no new shares are issued and the price stays the same, it will take at least 20 years to get to the 25% needed to make sure the fans can block all special resolutions. I’m 75 and reckon I won’t see the day. Jeez even if it’s £2M a year, I still may not see it.
No matter how well or badly C1872 is run, it’s actually f*rting against thunder. It has absolutely no chance as things stand of making any real difference. It’s only chance is not it’s shareholding, mathematically that won’t work, but building a relationship with the board as fans of the club. That ship seems to have sailed. So they can’t buy enough shares to make a difference and have alienated the board and many of the fans. So why have them? How can they help? What are they for? And why contribute through them? Do it yourself?
Amongst other things building relationships takes a certain skillset, involves implicit trust between the parties and a level of credibility that you can add value to the relationship.
I would suggest that these criteria are in somewhat short supply amongst the C1872 Board.
Agreed and it doesn’t look likely to change anytime soon. Another reason for asking if they have any relevance.
stillAlwaysblue
Well-Known Member
Been shot down for years saying this type of club rarely survives. For the two years I spent in London with an investment bank then the Stock exchange I have seen these clubs fall many times. Problem comes with share holdings and who owns them. In my view what this club should do is pass the holding to Rangers which if the shares can be sold the cash can be ring fenced to be used for the benefit of the fans which can be decided by a committee which will have at least 50% of fans sitting on that committee.
I appreciate that the shares could be used to block or attempt to block any takeover but even then I expect that would fail. Thankfully all other major shareholders are 100% Rangers people.
I appreciate that the shares could be used to block or attempt to block any takeover but even then I expect that would fail. Thankfully all other major shareholders are 100% Rangers people.
Just logged into my account and it say my last donation was in 2017, which was £5
yet I’m still counted as a member and vote every time they get sent out
yet I’m still counted as a member and vote every time they get sent out
Gift the shares to the club and we can own the pitch in return.
Such a shame that a handful of individuals have ruined any chance of a Rangers fans group owning a significant share in the club.
A missed opportunity and Graham, Fawkes, King, etc should hang their heads in shame.
A missed opportunity and Graham, Fawkes, King, etc should hang their heads in shame.
New York Bear
Well-Known Member
In the video (about the 1hr 5m mark) they said income is around 400k to 500k per year.It is but even if it’s true that’s still a country mile away from where they need to be. If all contributors contribute £10 per month, the minimum now allowed, the annual income would be £720k. A bit more probably since some will contribute more. So let’s say it’s £1m a year. That’s 4m shares worth at the current 25p a share. 4m shares is less than 1% of the total shares. So if the contributors stay at 6,000 and no new shares are issued and the price stays the same, it will take at least 20 years to get to the 25% needed to make sure the fans can block all special resolutions. I’m 75 and reckon I won’t see the day. Jeez even if it’s £2M a year, I still may not see it.
No matter how well or badly C1872 is run, it’s actually f*rting against thunder. It has absolutely no chance as things stand of making any real difference. It’s only chance is not it’s shareholding, mathematically that won’t work, but building a relationship with the board as fans of the club. That ship seems to have sailed. So they can’t buy enough shares to make a difference and have alienated the board and many of the fans. So why have them? How can they help? What are they for? And why contribute through them?
That doesn’t surprise but you would expect more if they had 6,000 active contributors. I used their number and my deliberately optimistic assumptions to demonstrate they had no real chance of getting anytime soon the 25% they have targeted. Income of only £500k pa would take it further into the future. So, they have 22m shares just now and need 109m to get to 25%. If no more new shares are issued (pretty unlikely) and the price stays at 25p (representing relative failure) then it would take over 40 years to reach 25%.
Finally, is 25% really important? This is what C1872 says and I agree -
“Why is a 25% shareholding important?
Holding a 25% shareholding will give Club 1872 members an effective veto over any major decisions about Rangers International Football Club Plc without needing the support of any other shareholders. This will put the Rangers support in a position to ensure that the events of 2012 can never be repeated. It will also provide a platform for the supporters to make further major contributions to the club via future share issues and give supporters a dedicated representative on the RIFC board”
Chances?
Northampton_Loyalist
Well-Known Member
Do we know how many people were moved across by default from other organisations by default and if they are included in that figure? The only important number just now is how many people are paying into the group today and how that number stacks up against previous years.
when there is money and power involed
all groups can fail from within
Was it not said in the meeting that it was 12k or 15k?
stillAlwaysblue
Well-Known Member
Saying that 25% of the holdings is important is not exactly as important as many think. Any shareholder can sell their shares at anytime and these can be bought in the market be anybody. 25% s important if the club was to be sold but that is different to shareholders just selling their own shares in the market.
If the cash going to 72 was going to Rangers then there would be a benefit by way of stadium improvements or new players.
Not being a member does anybody know just who can sell the holding in the market or to anybody. From what I understand contributing members do not have any rights over the shares held but I could be wrong not having the information provided to members.
If the cash going to 72 was going to Rangers then there would be a benefit by way of stadium improvements or new players.
Not being a member does anybody know just who can sell the holding in the market or to anybody. From what I understand contributing members do not have any rights over the shares held but I could be wrong not having the information provided to members.
cambridgeblue
Well-Known Member
Suggests about 2-3k still parting with money.
It is.
Haining84
Well-Known Member
I’m still paying the minimum monthly contribution only because I want to retain my voting rights having paid in about a grand dating back to the RST BuyRangers scheme.
I’ve however been very close to calling it quits as it’s pretty much f**ked.
Orange County
Well-Known Member
Zero
Robert Marshall
Well-Known Member
You have no meaningful vote
Robert Marshall
Well-Known Member
A competent Board would be appointed, well at least they can't be any worse
There would be three vacancies.
WolverineBlues
Well-Known Member
I'm a member of this omibshambles via my lifetime RST membership being transferred over.
Not got a jot of interest in it as its a mess.
Not got a jot of interest in it as its a mess.
LJ50
Well-Known Member
Yes, the 25% holding is an important milestone in allowing fans - as a group - a say in what happens to the company in a way we didn't have in 2012. It isn't a complete protection, but it makes a huge difference.
However, with the direction of travel for C1872 under it's current board; absolutely zero chance of ever getting there. In June 2017, shortly after the first of the incumbents was elected, it held just under 11% of the shares in RIFC. Today, it's a fraction over 5%.
Last edited:
Family bam
Well-Known Member
Got tbh.
I've no side in any camp but I find it utterly pathetic.
I've no side in any camp but I find it utterly pathetic.
Robert Marshall
Well-Known Member
They appointed someone to grow the number of Contributors, I would think it interesting to know if the remuneration he got was more or less of the new Contributors he brought in
More chance of Sturgeon knowing what to call a rapist, him or her
More chance of Sturgeon knowing what to call a rapist, him or her
LJ50
Well-Known Member
25% is important because it can block a special resolution. For example, a majority shareholder could not apply for a voluntary winding up order without a special resolution. It is an important threshold.
Haining84
Well-Known Member
I do at the AGM where they’re forced to attend and vote as the contributors have decided.
Robert Marshall
Well-Known Member
Actually, they don't need to do that, they are the only members and if they like hey can ignore all of the Contributors, when have you seen who votes for what, all you get told is a %, The Board can ignore the Contributors if they like and vote anyway they want to
Why don't you ask them?
New York Bear
Well-Known Member
The Club1872 website seems to have died (it was working yesterday).
club1872.co.uk
Home - Club 1872Club 1872
Club 1872 has one clear and common purpose for all those who hold Rangers dear – to maintain and protect Rangers Football Club.
club1872.co.uk
ibroxbound
Well-Known Member
Really hasn't lacked direction,the problem is that it is the wrong direction by the wrong people.I'm really sorry to say it as I had high hopes that Club1872 would be the perfect vehicle for supporter engagement/partnership with the club and was a member and regular contributor but just couldn't handle the petty infighting that was going on and stopped my membership about a year ago.
What a shame that such a great idea and initiative ate itself from the inside out due to over inflated egos, petty squabbles and a lack of direction.
ibroxbound
Well-Known Member
Certainly doesn't help with the trust issue when someone working behind the scene at C1872 has been removed,by the board,from two positions previously held at Rangers
Last edited:
Haining84
Well-Known Member
Nonsense,they have to carry forward the results the contributors vote for on to the actually club AGM.
Bristol_bnose3
Well-Known Member
Could just be someone forgot to pay the bill, but interesting timing all the same.The Club1872 website seems to have died (it was working yesterday).
Home - Club 1872Club 1872
Club 1872 has one clear and common purpose for all those who hold Rangers dear – to maintain and protect Rangers Football Club.
C1872 is a busted flush run by some suspicious blazer chasers and Dave King.
I feel sorry for the bears who put their hard earned in.
I feel sorry for the bears who put their hard earned in.
cambridgeblue
Well-Known Member
Could contributors past and present put in a complaint to the regulator ?
I'd be happy to be a part of that.
hms
Well-Known Member
Yeah I’m in agreement with you here, it seems they’ve fell into this and are quite happy sitting there taking flak for whatever reason
Robert Marshall
Well-Known Member
They actually don't
Skylon Niagara
Well-Known Member
A celebration amongst fans at the possibility of Club1872 actually functioning the way it should, rather than benefitting their wee egos?
stillAlwaysblue
Well-Known Member
As said I am aware of that. Any or all directors can sell their shares in the market and these can be purchased by anybody thus giving them control of the club.
At any point the club can have a rights issue thus reducing the holding of 72 unless they have the cash available. Having been retired for a while I am not sure about a placing and if this and other motions only require 51%.
As for winding the club up thankfully we have people who will not reach that stage but if it did it is the creditors who would force the matter.
Not being a member of Club1872 I am not aware of how it is constructed but going by the posts on our forum many appear to be unhappy.
I presume annual accounts are available to all members.
LJ50
Well-Known Member
You are correct that we have people who would not voluntarily wind up the company… today. We have had though, in the very recent past, and could do again in future. Being able to block that is just one way that the 25% threshold would offer greater protection to the Club.
LJ50
Well-Known Member
In point of fact, @Haining84 is correct by the letter of the Articles. Under Article 8.1 and Schedule Two, the Directors are obliged to give effect to the vote of the majority of Contributors who cast votes with respect to resolutions put forward at the Rangers AGM (or an EGM).
Now, given the lack of transparency on how those votes are conducted, and the admission from Supporters Direct that they don’t exercise any effective oversight, along with the lack of trust in the incumbent board, you could understand why people may voice doubts as to whether that obligation is honoured in practice.
However, on the more substantive point I think you are getting at, there are only 6 decisions (7 are listed but the final one is vague and subjective) on which Contributors are to be given a vote. All other decisions are taken by the Members, which legally only the Directors are.
Again, without wishing to make the picture even more complicated, the incumbent board have arguably disregarded one of those ‘Key Decisions’ on which Contributors are supposed to have a vote. Many people noted that the lowest tier of donation (£5 per month IIRC) was quietly removed. Schedule 2 lists one of the Key Decisions as: “Any decision to change the basis on which persons can become Contributors”. I am not aware that any such vote took place when that basis of Contributorship was removed. I am sure the Directors would argue they didn’t change the basis, only the value, which some could try to argue follows the letter of the Articles but couldn’t seriously argue that it follows the clear intent and spirit.
The Directors also showed scant regard for the Articles when they did not host the required meetings for Contributors to meet candidates for elections.
jimbo 08
Well-Known Member
Where does the money go?Perhaps the solution is staring us in the face. C1872 should sell their shares to Dave King since he’s better equipped to use their shares than they are his. What do you think? Ah perhaps not, he’s fallen out with the board too.
King Billy's Chosen Cat
Well-Known Member
Can you explain why (I am genuinely interested) this won't work whereas it does in the likes of Germany?
I confess that I am considering giving Club 1872 some money because I see that there is no alternative. I can't say that I am a fan of the current board in terms of where the Europa League and Champions League money has gone and I very much doubt that the signings of 2 players for undisclosed sums in the most recent transfer window is going to move things in the right direction. Gerrard apparently was pissed off because there was no money for investment available, GvB kept his mouth shut (good employee...) and carried the can for not being able to compete at a higher level /move on after a fantastic run in Europe last season (made the club a lot of money...) and I fear we are sleep-walking into a similar situation with Beale as the money simply isn't there. I honestly think that all of these guys were/are good managers but they are not magicians.
And if Club 1872 isn't well run, then the alternative surely is to go along to the meetings and try to change it?
It was a joke. Will never happen!
