Club 1872 AGM - 7 people attended?

Does C1872 even have its own internal forum or members portal where communication is made with its membership let alone anyone else?
 
104Bear said:
This is a busted flush, everyone should get their money back. I’m a member due to my lifetime RST membership, so I would accept that I’d get nothing back, but the guys who have been paying monthly, jeez. All I would say is that I’d be absolutely raging.
Click to expand...
I'm in same position
Like you I wrote off the lifetime membership cost the second I wrote the cheque
Surely they must have sufficient records to split the shares on a pro rat basis based on contributions made?
Though suspect you'd need an independent auditor to review the process
Give each member the shares they are due
Offer to be proxy in any votes but would be up to the individual member
Which is how it should have been set up all along
 
EndOfDays said:
The only way forward is if they current people running c1872 are big enough to stand down and allow a fresh start, anything short of that and nothing will change.
Click to expand...
Not a chance of that happening, they appear to have made their positions watertight, making it nigh on impossible to get rid of them, and they all want to continue with their ego trip.
 
The staggering thing for me is the fact you can get something so incredibly wrong that only 7 rangers fans turn up to something so important. You could arrange a kick about up the park (any park, anywhere in the world) for later on today, call it a rangers related name and you’d get more of us turning up. Rangers fans are super engaged and attentive to the needs of our club, it’s a sin that this has been mismanaged to the point that it even manages to miss the opportunity of this often blind loyalty. Also have to mention that Andy has it bang on here, infact I’m surprised he didn’t go in more.
 
I was a member for a good few years only contributing 20 quid a month but got disillusioned by it all a couple of years ago and cancelled my membership. great idea in principle but you only have to look at this forum to see we will never be in a position where everyone agrees. it really is sad
 
Thommo2006 said:
I was a member for a good few years only contributing 20 quid a month but got disillusioned by it all a couple of years ago and cancelled my membership. great idea in principle but you only have to look at this forum to see we will never be in a position where everyone agrees. it really is sad
Click to expand...
The only problem is the 2 female directors who refuse to let go, Laura Fawkes thinks she owns Club1872.
 
Brookfield Bear said:
I don’t think it was an AGM, more a formal members meeting.
Click to expand...
We were members, and in our time not once was there an AGM, formal meeting yes, however surely as a charity? can they not be dragged over the coals, by the Charities Commission, or has anyone even complained to the Commission?
 
Brookfield Bear said:
I don’t think it was an AGM, more a formal members meeting.
Click to expand...
Ah, what a surprise. Call a not AGM but formal meeting, and not tell anyone it’s on.
Laughable, banana republic, toytown manipulation.
I wonder at their motive for holding it. Perhaps it was some legal requirement they had to meet, or just to say at some future date that they held it.
Imagine a prospective member with money to spend.
Before doing so tries to see Accounts, minutes, names of any shadow directors etc., etc.
Just not possible. You have to join blind, pay up and don’t ask questions. A farcical approach to recruitment.
A properly run organisation would have nothing to hide or be secretive about.
 
I was a member from its inception and contributed just over £20 a month. I stopped my contributions last year as I was disillusioned with all the infighting. I never heard a thing from them. I expected at the least an email to ask why I had stopped but I got nothing. Their engagement with contributors was non existent. Their PR is atrocious. It should have been a vehicle for good but sadly turned out to be a means for blazer chasers to enhance their supposed status.
 
BenVorlich said:
I think he got it wrong when he said nobody cares.
Nobody trusts them I would suggest is the bigger issue.
That they are holding a not insignificant amount of shares / money with no support is an absurd situation to be in.
How it moves on though and is rebranded and reinvigorated is only going to happen when those at the table leave of their own volition.
Click to expand...
I think what Andy means is that the fans don't care about a pissing contest between King and Park.

I've said before that if Dave King doesn't like whats happening, then work with the board to provide a solution, whether that's him returning or he finds somebody credible to buy his shares and he remains in SA and keeps his counsel. The current situation of using the Scottish Media (who hate us) to take potshots at the board isn't acceptable. As Andy says there rightly or wrongly because of the agreement to buy King's shares, C1872 as being viewed as a proxy for what Dave King wants.

What that is remains to be seen but C1872 have their own problems to seek without getting involved in public spats between millionaire businessmen.
 
Great points made except the part of Apathy. He is completely off the track and doesn’t understand the support. It’s down to mistrust. I want fan ownership. But will never contribute a penny to Club1872 whilst those in charge are there.
 
Just some random advice on how to manipulate a meeting.

When you hold a not AGM, make absolutely certain that any report or survey you use to cherry pick results from, is not published until the day after the meeting.
This ensures that none of the Magnificent Seven will have any idea as to its contents and therefore awkward follow up questions can be avoided.
It is imperative that those present have no chance of viewing the information you are quoting from, before hand.
 
Herman said:
thinks thats Andy McGowan from H&H speaking and he’s absolutely bang on, how Club1872 has arrived at this point is mental and depressing
it should be reset completely if possible
Click to expand...
This is it in a nutshell. The current board has alienated so many subscribers who have just completely disengaged and there is also a total disconnect with the RFC board. They need to be replaced by people who can reconnect with both members and the club, but that seems unlikely, as the current incumbents will cling to control like grim death. It appears the current apathy and stagnation will continue.
 
This is so far from rangers first it’s unbelievable. I remember the support and backing that fans were putting in via rangers first and the other group who merged to become club 1872. This needs ripped up and started again. Look at how hearts have got their house in order putting in hundreds of thousands a month we should be way way in front of that with our fan base.
 
Exactly right, I’m not downplaying the effectiveness of various protests but only buying shares caused regime change.
Agreed shares made a big difference but C1872 is withering so quickly its days of influencing the future have gone. Not only has is shareholding shrunk as a share of the whole it has no communication links with the board. I want C1872 to be able to heat the board’s feet when necessary but C1872 hasn’t even got a match never mind a fire.

In its present situation it is a total irrelevance to the future of Rangers and those responsible should be ashamed.
 
Ok a little confused, not difficult, if you join c1872 are you a contributor or member, people on this thread have interchanged both terms? Does make a difference I believe, depending on how they are incorporated. From memory full members 'own' the club and all the assets, whereas contributors have no real rights except to vote for a director.

So winding up a club would potentially see shares/assets returned to members but not contributors. Again would depend on the wording of the rules that were put in place.

Vaguely remember this coming up for the local golf club and working mens club when I was younger, but again easily confused.
 
basiltherat said:
I'm in same position
Like you I wrote off the lifetime membership cost the second I wrote the cheque
Surely they must have sufficient records to split the shares on a pro rat basis based on contributions made?
Though suspect you'd need an independent auditor to review the process
Give each member the shares they are due
Offer to be proxy in any votes but would be up to the individual member
Which is how it should have been set up all along
Click to expand...
I don't think that would be allowed under the constitution of the company.
 
ibroxbound said:
I don't think that would be allowed under the constitution of the company.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't and there is no chance of contributors getting their money back.

But the board should admit that fan contributions are cratering and it would be better to do a one off "event" - like buying the pitch (or part of it) - in lieu of the shareholding as it is not doing anything productive.
 
Snoopproddiedogg said:
How can we change things at board level when no one is willing to put themselves forward for election anymore? Look at the stick everyone involved has got since Stewart Robertson and his puppets tried to make a change. Who'd want to volunteer for that shit.

Elections the proper way should have been the correct course of action, always.
Click to expand...
Sorry, meant to reply earlier but the thread was locked.

There have been double figures of people looking to get involved. Some have made it only to fall out, some have made only to be kicked out. Some have found it impossible to work with the current board and walked away. Many have tried and had road blocks put up, some have been barred from standing.

Elections are always the way forwards, I agree, but they need to be robustly monitored, held fairly and once held, the new board members need to be allowed to function.


All of the above is being blocked by the current board who have continually changed the literal fabric of the CIC in order to maintain total control.



I wanted to run but it was very clear that a single voice against 3 and perhaps 4 people, with a record of obfuscation, would be pissing in the wind and that far better qualified candidates had tried and failed to make a dent in the problems.


It is a circular argument that always, always circles back to the one unarguable point; the current board, for literally whatever reason you put on it, have overseen a significant and obvious decline in funds, membership and ability to even talk with the club. The only way C1872 gets back on track is for the current board to step down and to allow open and free elections.
 
Robert Marshall said:
No offered our group 2 places on the C1872 Board and said he would get the 2 females to resign by Christmas. Refusing me a meeting with Laura as she was
' too emotional '
We have a lot to be grateful to DK, but he has tarnished his Legacy, sadly
Click to expand...
Why didn't you take up the offer Robert?

I would have counselled your group on the pro's of taking up the offer. It's simply politics. In politics all or nothing rarely works out in the favour of the ALL's and is generally referred to as a revolt.

By getting two of your group on the board then there would be two on the inside privy to all of its machinations. The next stage in the project is the dissemination of that information to the members/contributors. There would be no rock to hide under if there were discrepancies.

I understand the integrity in play making that decision but I think good is as much a result as an all out victory would be. I'll reiterate that good is not the enemy of perfect.

FYI, if you chose to respond to my question I'm leaving plenty of space for you to fill in any doubts you had about the validity of the offer.
 
That organisation need to bite the bullet and start looking solely at their exit strategy to best manage the share holding and money they do have. It didn’t work, it’s over.
 
I'm So Bored With The MSM said:
Why didn't you take up the offer Robert?

I would have counselled your group on the pro's of taking up the offer. It's simply politics. In politics all or nothing rarely works out in the favour of the ALL's and is generally referred to as a revolt.

By getting two of your group on the board then there would be two on the inside privy to all of its machinations. The next stage in the project is the dissemination of that information to the members/contributors. There would be no rock to hide under if there were discrepancies.

I understand the integrity in play making that decision but I think good is as much a result as an all out victory would be. I'll reiterate that good is not the enemy of perfect.

FYI, if you chose to respond to my question I'm leaving plenty of space for you to fill in any doubts you had about the validity of the offer.
Click to expand...
He (Dk ) wanted us to sign an NDA, quite ironic as C1872's argument with the Club is that they wouldn't sign an NDA
We would be in a minority and silenced by the NDA and I was and still am big on transparency where possible, ( Tell the truth and shame the Devil )
One of the other sticking points was that we wanted everyone reinstated as Members, for an OMOV Organisation it was set up to be
Instead, we have a wee cartel who can't be voted off unless they say so, who have no one's interest at heart other than their own.
So rather than have a direct line to the board where any relevant questions could be asked, our fans group is out in the cold, where their % will be diminished as time goes on
Our group were some of the cleverest people I have met, they knew what they were doing
 
HillsBill said:
But only as trustees for the members. Only members can effect change.
Click to expand...
Maybe you haven't noticed but Club 1872 Board Members changed the rules so that they are the only Members, everyone else is a Contributor
Put it to an online vote, which most people didn't vote for and has steadfastly refused to say how many vote on things but just give % of those that even bother to vote
They have destroyed the Org
 
Robert Marshall said:
He (Dk ) wanted us to sign an NDA, quite ironic as C1872's argument with the Club is that they wouldn't sign an NDA
We would be in a minority and silenced by the NDA and I was and still am big on transparency where possible, ( Tell the truth and shame the Devil )
One of the other sticking points was that we wanted everyone reinstated as Members, for an OMOV Organisation it was set up to be
Instead, we have a wee cartel who can't be voted off unless they say so, who have no one's interest at heart other than their own.
So rather than have a direct line to the board where any relevant questions could be asked, our fans group is out in the cold, where their % will be diminished as time goes on
Our group were some of the cleverest people I have met, they knew what they were doing
Click to expand...
I did suspect that the detail in the offer might contain a poison chalice. I would also have cautioned that the two members would effectively be neutered as far as action/repair of the CIC is concerned because of the opposition within the board however that type of action would not have been their purpose. In this situation with the way things are information is the commodity and in particular discrepancy if you follow the direction I would have suggested.

EDIT: You can't leak a lie.
 
I'm So Bored With The MSM said:
I did suspect that the detail in the offer might contain a poison chalice. I would also have cautioned that the two members would effectively be neutered as far as action/repair of the CIC is concerned because of the opposition within the board however that type of action would not have been their purpose. In this situation with the way things are information is the commodity and in particular discrepancy if you follow the direction I would have suggested.
Click to expand...
If I had followed your suggestion, I would not have even been allowed to post here
 
Robert Marshall said:
If I had followed your suggestion, I would not have even been allowed to post here
Click to expand...
I fully understand the repercussions of taking that offer. I am saying that an NDA does not protect against criminality under 'protected disclosure' especially if it is in the public interest which it would be if any criminality were in existence (legal obligation).
 
I'm So Bored With The MSM said:
I fully understand the repercussions of taking that offer. I am saying that an NDA does not protect against criminality under 'protected disclosure' especially if it is in the public interest which it would be if any criminality were in existence (legal obligation).
Click to expand...
We know that,but it doesn't protect about exposing Clowns
 
Robert Marshall said:
We know that,but it doesn't protect about exposing Clowns
Click to expand...
It does if you take time and think about how, the objective, can be achieved. One step at a time is IMO the steadiest route.

One poster will say I got an email another will say they didn't. Votes tend to consistently favour the current board. To date I don't think there is any proposal that they have made that hasn't been carried. That doesn't appear reasonable given the level of complaint displayed openly here. My first instinct when I read folks accounts on these message boards about messaging/meetings/votes etc is one of is it intentional. If it is then the question leads one to consider whether tailored balloting, or other manipulations, has been in play? When a body has hands on the levers in such a fashion the argument cant simply be won on personality. Information on the competence of those with the levers needs to be gathered... ALL of them!

You cant do that standing outside the gates shouting in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top