Club 1872 election results

No one on here fancy starting another one, just for Clarity, not me
It would attract thousands of fans if run with openness and transparency
 
Orange County said:
Laura and Joanne wont get jobs as directors or have such a position of power in their day jobs.

They wont give that up.
Click to expand...
And that is why they are the wrong people for the job.

It’s appalling how they’ve behaved and continue to behave.

That last thing that they have at heart is the interest of Rangers.

The bastards should be forced to go.
 
blue genes said:
It may not be legally possible, but is it not an option for the Club to issue a statement (yes, another one - perhaps even a "strongly worded" one...) outlining the non existent relationship with C1872, and why that's the case?

Publicly set out the closed shop situation and make it clear that change is required, perhaps shaming them into making the necessary constitutional changes?

I get the reluctance to criticise your own fan base, and/or make things personal, but am struggling to see what they've got to lose as it's clearly going nowhere.
Click to expand...
I suspect that such conversations are best held in private where they can be more full and frank outside the glare of public scrutiny. Whilst 5% is not a major investment, companies I think would prefer investors not to have question marks about their governance. Also, the relationship between Rangers and Club 1872 might be considered a little bit intertwined given the involvement of James Blair at Rangers and Club 1872. For several years Rangers Family Limited, a dormant company whose sole Director is James Blair, was reported at Companies House as a person of significant control of Club 1872 Limited - also a dormant company, apparently separate from the 2 operational C1872 companies.

We’ve washed a lot of dirty washing in public over the last decade or so, I’m not sure I would want to risk more.
 
What is Chris Graham's official role, if there is one?

And what exactly is he trying to achieve at C1872?
 
Club1872 are a zombie fund - a small but not insignificant holding but no prospect of doing anything.

The unaccountable directors however have acquired 5% of the voting rights at the AGM - basically by removing any route to contributors kicking them out.

Some might call it theft.,
 
In my opinion, King has pretty much walked away from C1872. He used (and abused?) them and their shareholding in his spat with the Rangers Board. He offered to sell them his holding knowing full well they lacked the capacity or ability to raise the necessary funds. I suspect that Irvine was his man on the C1872 Board and he has now gone. Their usefulness over, they've been cast aside like a dirty condom.
 
DarthVader said:
How is that of use to him though?

It's a small and diminishing %.

It doesn't get him a seat at the boardroom table.
Click to expand...
Think there seems to be entitlement in some quarters.

He seems to think he's owed a living and if stories are true was getting one at some point or other.

I can't confirm that but sure I read about it on here.
 
Hillheadbear said:
In my opinion, King has pretty much walked away from C1872. He used (and abused?) them and their shareholding in his spat with the Rangers Board. He offered to sell them his holding knowing full well they lacked the capacity or ability to raise the necessary funds. I suspect that Irvine was his man on the C1872 Board and he has now gone. Their usefulness over, they've been cast aside like a dirty condom.
Click to expand...
Irvine, that guy who said he would meet me anytime then pretended to be the invisible man
 
weedrew said:
Never understood why anyone thought this was a good idea to begin with. Naive to think that fans or fans groups were ever going to have significant meaningful representation at board level or that self interest and blazer chasing wouldn't prevail over the greater good of The Rangers.
Click to expand...
It was well meaning and reasonable idea from the outset.

It has been destroyed from within.

It would have provided the club some funds at share issues and kept a reasonable holding of shares out of harms way ie spiv types.

Not many contribute, they betrayed the club and members and are just a complete pain in the arse now.

Like a cough you can't get rid of. They are the phlegm!
 
Robert Marshall said:
Irvine, that guy who said he would meet me anytime then pretended to be the invisible man
Click to expand...
Yeah! This is the guy.

James Irvine is the Head of Libra’s International Investment Committee. Libra offers funding for commercial claims, whether via court proceedings or arbitration, where the damages claimed exceed US$ 5 million.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Yeah! This is the guy.

James Irvine is the Head of Libra’s International Investment Committee. Libra offers funding for commercial claims, whether via court proceedings or arbitration, where the damages claimed exceed US$ 5 million.
Click to expand...
Commonly known as Parasites, living off of other people's misfortune
 
weedrew said:
Never understood why anyone thought this was a good idea to begin with. Naive to think that fans or fans groups were ever going to have significant meaningful representation at board level or that self interest and blazer chasing wouldn't prevail over the greater good of The Rangers.
Click to expand...

This Blazer chasing stuff gets to me.

If I win the treble, 'octuble' rollover tomorrow night. I'll invest heavily in the club but it will be on MY terms.

I don't want a Blazer.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
First of all, when you're dealing with peoples' money you are putting yourself on the line. You need to be crystal clean/ultra blemish free.

If you're in it for a power rush, you're not getting that anyway (the power). If us schmucks are into this mix, it should be for the good of the club. Not for yourself.
Click to expand...
Common sense.

But with this lot they seem unaccountable and not transparent and unable to remove and once people hand their cash over that's it. They have no power or say.

It's like a donation. Hand over and suck it up

And putting it this way if all sounds fucking immoral.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Common sense.

But with this lot they seem unaccountable and not transparent and unable to remove and once people hand their cash over that's it. They have no power or say.

It's like a donation. Hand over and suck it up

And putting it this way if all sounds fucking immoral.
Click to expand...

I don't have the emotional or financial input into the organisation as others.

But, what I'm getting here, is that the refusal to confront what their punters are complaining about, seems to be, or will be, their undoing.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
I don't have the emotional or financial input into the organisation as others.

But, what I'm getting here, is that the refusal to confront what their punters are complaining about, seems to be, or will be, their undoing.
Click to expand...
They have changed rules to suit themselves and can do.as they please.

No one can get rid of them.

Anyone giving them money is aff their heids
 
Last year’s accounts -
.
For year ended June 2023 so late again!
Total income looks like £327k down over 30% on prior year and Admin costs at £122k are about a third of income.

Previous year was a 12 month period for the shares CIC. It was 10 months for Projects CIC.
Admin costs were £59k last year up to £112k in 2023.

Doesn’t look like any Projects were undertaken.
 
mdingwall said:
Last year’s accounts -
.
For year ended June 2023 so late again!
Total income looks like £327k down over 30% on prior year and Admin costs at £122k are about a third of income.

Previous year was a 12 month period for the shares CIC. It was 10 months for Projects CIC.
Admin costs were £59k last year up to £112k in 2023.

Doesn’t look like any Projects were undertaken.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting to see a breakdown of the admin costs - £122k for an organisation that doesn’t seem to do anything…?
 
blue genes said:
Would be interesting to see a breakdown of the admin costs - £122k for an organisation that doesn’t seem to do anything…?
Click to expand...
I cant say for sure but a while back we contributors approved 2 new posts, project manager (upto £50k) and a social media person (not sure the salary) Craig Houston got the managers role but left after a few months, I don't know if it was filled again after that.

I'm sure contributors approved those posts hoping it would improve activity but if anything it's got worse over the last 12 months.

I had a look back at the income figures to see how far things have fallen since 2020. Income in 2020 was £410k, increase in 2021 to £710k (the Kings shares affect), down to 2023 in £327k. I was expecting the drop from 2020 to 2023 to be more than £80k, especially as a result of the turbulent few years the directors have had. Still needs to be better.

Admin costs definitely need to be reviewed as it's not leading to the growth they hoped it would, they shouldn't be sitting around 35% of income, that's too high for no return.
 
mdingwall said:
Last year’s accounts -
.
For year ended June 2023 so late again!
Total income looks like £327k down over 30% on prior year and Admin costs at £122k are about a third of income.

Previous year was a 12 month period for the shares CIC. It was 10 months for Projects CIC.
Admin costs were £59k last year up to £112k in 2023.

Doesn’t look like any Projects were undertaken.
Click to expand...
Did they not spend £50k on a TIFO
 
Snoopproddiedogg said:
I cant say for sure but a while back we contributors approved 2 new posts, project manager (upto £50k) and a social media person (not sure the salary) Craig Houston got the managers role but left after a few months, I don't know if it was filled again after that.

I'm sure contributors approved those posts hoping it would improve activity but if anything it's got worse over the last 12 months.

I had a look back at the income figures to see how far things have fallen since 2020. Income in 2020 was £410k, increase in 2021 to £710k (the Kings shares affect), down to 2023 in £327k. I was expecting the drop from 2020 to 2023 to be more than £80k, especially as a result of the turbulent few years the directors have had. Still needs to be better.

Admin costs definitely need to be reviewed as it's not leading to the growth they hoped it would, they shouldn't be sitting around 35% of income, that's too high for no return.
Click to expand...
I thought admin costs were to be no more than 5% of income.

Lower income means less admin duties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top