Club1872 poll results

Big Buff said:
If a majority of fans make it clear that they oppose Park's re-election, his position becomes considerably weaker regardless of how the ownership votes.

Park has clearly lost the confidence of the support. If he believes the words he says about being merely a custodian of the club, and that it belongs to the supporters, then he should resign on a matter of honour and principle.
Click to expand...
Quite a few assumptions being made there.
 
mdingwall said:
38,000 people bought season tickets from Charles Green.
Click to expand...
Buying a season ticket only confirms that you want to attend the home games.

You can draw inferences from the purchase of a season ticket and many would be correct, but ultimately it only proves that you want to attend the matches - not that you like the shareholders or the chairman.

I've been told repeatedly that when I voted No to independence in 2014 I was actually voting for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Was I %^*&, I'd have voted to abolish it if that was an option.
 
This is the first time Club1872 has voted against any AGM resolution. Just a coincidence Dave King is voting against the same resolutions of course. Dave King isn't even a member of Club1872 but can practically tell them how to vote!
 
Christine1872 said:
No, because you think there are investors just waiting to get involved with Rangers. People who are willing to pay several million pounds buying shares that are not for sale and then just giving us more millions to spend. Get real.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm the crazy one for thinking there are rich people out there willing to spunk money on football clubs.

The football world is changing very, very quickly. The reason we've seen such an influx of American owners (even into the SPFL) is that Americans believe European football clubs are vastly undervalued. And they're right, compared to their own domestic sports leagues.

There are also multi-club ownership groups that would absolutely take a minority stake in a club like ours.

But yeah, sure, the only people interested in owning Rangers, a club that is guaranteed group stage European football and regularly outperforms in it, are the current bowling club committee we currently have installed. What poverty of ambition the Park loyalists have.
 
Big Buff said:
Yeah, I'm the crazy one for thinking there are rich people out there willing to spunk money on football clubs.

The football world is changing very, very quickly. The reason we've seen such an influx of American owners (even into the SPFL) is that Americans believe European football clubs are vastly undervalued. And they're right, compared to their own domestic sports leagues.

There are also multi-club ownership groups that would absolutely take a minority stake in a club like ours.

But yeah, sure, the only people interested in owning Rangers, a club that is guaranteed group stage European football and regularly outperforms in it, are the current bowling club committee we currently have installed. What poverty of ambition the Park loyalists have.
Click to expand...

And yet American owners have put up for sale arguably two of the biggest clubs in the world.

It's not a "poverty of ambition". It's realism.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
And yet American owners have put up for sale arguably two of the biggest clubs in the world.

It's not a "poverty of ambition". It's realism.
Click to expand...
The reasons for Henry and the Glazers getting shot of LFC and MUFC are almost certainly down to what's happened at Juventus completely scuppering the Super League. It's got no bearing whatsoever on the undervaluing of our club and similar clubs to ours.

There are a lot more rich people and organisations out there who want to own a football club than there are clubs available.
 
Big Buff said:
"Put the club up for sale and see who's interested" is a million miles away from "You'd take Ashley". Bizarre.

There are more than two options you know. It doesn't have to be "incompetent Rangers fans" or "complete crooks". There are record sums being invested in football leagues all over Europe, not just Big Five leagues. We'd absolutely be attractive to investors with our infrastructure and European track record. Lets see who's out there.
Click to expand...
If there is anyone "out there" do you really think that they have not tested the water already.

Be careful of what you wish for
 
Big Buff said:
Yeah, I'm the crazy one for thinking there are rich people out there willing to spunk money on football clubs.

The football world is changing very, very quickly. The reason we've seen such an influx of American owners (even into the SPFL) is that Americans believe European football clubs are vastly undervalued. And they're right, compared to their own domestic sports leagues.

There are also multi-club ownership groups that would absolutely take a minority stake in a club like ours.

But yeah, sure, the only people interested in owning Rangers, a club that is guaranteed group stage European football and regularly outperforms in it, are the current bowling club committee we currently have installed. What poverty of ambition the Park loyalists have.
Click to expand...
If such a Group wanted to buy shares they could simply buy Kings shares.
 
Big Buff said:
The reasons for Henry and the Glazers getting shot of LFC and MUFC are almost certainly down to what's happened at Juventus completely scuppering the Super League. It's got no bearing whatsoever on the undervaluing of our club and similar clubs to ours.

There are a lot more rich people and organisations out there who want to own a football club than there are clubs available.
Click to expand...

Not in Scottish football. It's the same reason we don't attract players and managers of a certain level.

Jim Ratcliffe, for example, took over Nice - Glasgow would never be in his consideration. It's fantasy to believe there are a queue of altruistic investors looking at Rangers. There's very little upside for owning Rangers in terms of financial rewards.

But it is easy to see how a Whyte or a Green could take hold of the Club again.
 
kai-Johansen59 said:
If such a Group wanted to buy shares they could simply buy Kings shares.
Click to expand...
They're not going to just buy Kings shares when those shares don't come with any control of the club. Would you put serious money into the Club just to watch Douglas Park manage that investment? Of course you wouldn't.

If you get to the stage where 25%+ of shares are available (in other words, both King and Parks shareholding available) then bidders will appear. I have zero doubt about that.
 
AC_55 said:
Some should be careful what they wish for when it comes to Park and co.

Yes huge questions over performance particularly in the last 18 months. But overall the club is financially stable, get recruitment right over the next 2 windows and the picture will be much rosier.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Plenty of people shouting for Park and other directors to go. No suggestions on viable alternatives of course and recent history tells us investors aren't exactly queueing round the block to step in. Those who think just anyone, anyone at all, would be an improvement on the current board have very short memories indeed. If there are people out there with deeper pockets, better business acumen and who will put the well-being of the club to the forefront at all times, then bring them on. Until then, I'll be happy to stick with what we've got.
 
This thread scares the shit out of me. People buy into clubs to make money, not to be a benefactor. They will make money anyway they can, while Park has his faults and for example the pricing of CL tickets was wrong, that is small fry to what these *groups* could do.

Its as if the last 10 years never happened.

Park doesnt need to go, Park needs to employ someone better to run the club. Any problems we have stem from the football executive team.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
Not in Scottish football. It's the same reason we don't attract players and managers of a certain level.

Jim Ratcliffe, for example, took over Nice - Glasgow would never be in his consideration. It's fantasy to believe there are a queue of altruistic investors looking at Rangers. There's very little upside for owning Rangers in terms of financial rewards.

But it is easy to see how a Whyte or a Green could take hold of the Club again.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. We don't attract managers and players because we don't pay them enough in salary. That's got nothing to do with potential ownership, who are not looking to draw a salary but to get a return on an investment.

Jim Ratcliffe is a serious contender for ownership of Manchester United in the upcoming auction. We don't need someone with his wealth for an owner - obviously, because none of our current owners are in that realm.
 
Big Buff said:
They're not going to just buy Kings shares when those shares don't come with any control of the club. Would you put serious money into the Club just to watch Douglas Park manage that investment? Of course you wouldn't.

If you get to the stage where 25%+ of shares are available (in other words, both King and Parks shareholding available) then bidders will appear. I have zero doubt about that.
Click to expand...

Buy Kings share and you are straight away the biggest investor. With %-ages of shareholding you get certain rights, IIRC you can call an EGM, so the new person could have a vote on chairman, or to place someone on the board. Once on the board they could then build their shareholding from there, they dont need to go straight in and get majority control.
 
Big Buff said:
No it isn't. We don't attract managers and players because we don't pay them enough in salary. That's got nothing to do with potential ownership, who are not looking to draw a salary but to get a return on an investment.

Jim Ratcliffe is a serious contender for ownership of Manchester United in the upcoming auction. We don't need someone with his wealth for an owner - obviously, because none of our current owners are in that realm.
Click to expand...

Ah, now it's clear. It's not investors but a 'sugar daddy' you want. Of course we can't pay enough in salary - because there is little money to made in Scottish football, thus why there is no queue of investors.
 
insanicdrunk said:
Buy Kings share and you are straight away the biggest investor. With %-ages of shareholding you get certain rights, IIRC you can call an EGM, so the new person could have a vote on chairman, or to place someone on the board. Once on the board they could then build their shareholding from there, they dont need to go straight in and get majority control.
Click to expand...
15% gets you virtually nothing, which is what King currently has. Especially when the club is currently controlled through Park's much larger voting bloc.

insanicdrunk said:
This thread scares the shit out of me. People buy into clubs to make money, not to be a benefactor. They will make money anyway they can, while Park has his faults and for example the pricing of CL tickets was wrong, that is small fry to what these *groups* could do.

Its as if the last 10 years never happened.

Park doesnt need to go, Park needs to employ someone better to run the club. Any problems we have stem from the football executive team.
Click to expand...
People can also make money from the football club being run well. We are a profitable club when we are run well and aren't stumbling from court case to court case, picking fights with sponsors and being run like Mosspark Bowling Club.

If we keep Park, we're just going to end up playing second fiddle to Celtic for a long, long time. The guy does not have the ability to run a club. How many more disasters do you need to see that?
 
Big Buff said:
You aren’t seriously going to pretend that fans are in favour of Douglas Park continuing? Did you sleep through the last few months?
Click to expand...
What has Douglas Park being chairman got to do with, presumably you are referring to, the performance on the park since the second leg against PSV?

The chairman is exactly that, the chair of the board of directors. The board must direct the company in a manner that is to the benefit of the shareholders. In many instances the chair may disagree with the collective opinion of the board of directors but must follow the will of the majority. Unless you know what the minutes of the RIFC board contain you have no knowledge whatsoever of the business conducted nor any director’s view on any matter.

The board have taken action by initiating a change of manager. What exactly is it you think should have been done?
 
There’s nothing wrong with having a critical eye and demanding the best you can get.

However some people need to be aware the grass isn’t always greener. Let’s just be careful.
 
Big Buff said:
They're not going to just buy Kings shares when those shares don't come with any control of the club. Would you put serious money into the Club just to watch Douglas Park manage that investment? Of course you wouldn't.

If you get to the stage where 25%+ of shares are available (in other words, both King and Parks shareholding available) then bidders will appear. I have zero doubt about that.
Click to expand...
Big Buff said:
They're not going to just buy Kings shares when those shares don't come with any control of the club. Would you put serious money into the Club just to watch Douglas Park manage that investment? Of course you wouldn't.

If you get to the stage where 25%+ of shares are available (in other words, both King and Parks shareholding available) then bidders will appear. I have zero doubt about that.
Click to expand...
Would you support an arrangement where an investor buys 25% of New Shares so that the funds go into the Club as opposed to going to King and Park?
 
Blueknows said:
What has Douglas Park being chairman got to do with, presumably you are referring to, the performance on the park since the second leg against PSV?

The chairman is exactly that, the chair of the board of directors. The board must direct the company in a manner that is to the benefit of the shareholders. In many instances the chair may disagree with the collective opinion of the board of directors but must follow the will of the majority. Unless you know what the minutes of the RIFC board contain you have no knowledge whatsoever of the business conducted nor any director’s view on any matter.

The board have taken action by initiating a change of manager. What exactly is it you think should have been done?
Click to expand...
A partial list of failings:

1) Constant inaction on disabled fans facilities. Disabled fans have not just been ignored, they've been actively lied to for years by the board. Every year, improvements or plans are promised and every year they amount to nothing but a pile of lies. It's shameful and embarrassing.

2) The Sydney Super Cup, which we're now getting sued for.

3) The neverending kit fiasco, which we're now getting sued for.

4) The memorial garden, which we're now getting sued for.

5) The hiring of incompetent executives, which we'll no doubt get sued for at some point down the line.

6) The NEH fiasco, which has resulted in the project going well past it's deadline and is currently FIVE TIMES the original capital expenditure. It's also being funded entirely out of club revenues because the board managed to %^*& up the sale of the Albion Car Park. We're never going to see a return on that money.

7) Charging the supporters an absolute fortune for a CL campaign that we never had any intention of competing in.

8) Retaining most of the Seville tickets for corporate at the expense of loyal and deserving supporters. This also happened at Anfield.

You may be so afraid of the unknown that you're willing to put up with such incompetence. I cannot possibly imagine living life that way.
 
Big Buff said:
A partial list of failings:

1) Constant inaction on disabled fans facilities. Disabled fans have not just been ignored, they've been actively lied to for years by the board. Every year, improvements or plans are promised and every year they amount to nothing but a pile of lies. It's shameful and embarrassing.

2) The Sydney Super Cup, which we're now getting sued for.

3) The neverending kit fiasco, which we're now getting sued for.

4) The memorial garden, which we're now getting sued for.

5) The hiring of incompetent executives, which we'll no doubt get sued for at some point down the line.

6) The NEH fiasco, which has resulted in the project going well past it's deadline and is currently FIVE TIMES the original capital expenditure. It's also being funded entirely out of club revenues because the board managed to %^*& up the sale of the Albion Car Park. We're never going to see a return on that money.

7) Charging the supporters an absolute fortune for a CL campaign that we never had any intention of competing in.

8) Retaining most of the Seville tickets for corporate at the expense of loyal and deserving supporters. This also happened at Anfield.

You may be so afraid of the unknown that you're willing to put up with such incompetence. I cannot possibly imagine living life that way.
Click to expand...
1/ I believe this will be addressed at the AGM.

2/ Correct - but we need to remember that the Sainted Dave was on the Board when it was mooted and never said nuffink.

3/ Thought Dave has sorted all that.

4/ Put that down to Scott Steedman. To be fair at least they pulled the plug on the lunacy.

5/ Name the execs and what they have done.

6/ How do you know it won't make money - Glasgow is crying out for a modern venue of that capacity. I'm glad the sale of portion of the Albion appears to have failed. It was like selling off family silver.

7/ We entered a completion with no intention of competing in it? Madness on stilts.

8/ Life is unfair and so are ticket allocations. Do you have accurate figures?
 
mdingwall said:
1/ I believe this will be addressed at the AGM.

2/ Correct - but we need to remember that the Sainted Dave was on the Board when it was mooted and never said nuffink.

3/ Thought Dave has sorted all that.

4/ Put that down to Scott Steedman. To be fair at least they pulled the plug on the lunacy.

5/ Name the execs and what they have done.

6/ How do you know it won't make money - Glasgow is crying out for a modern venue of that capacity. I'm glad the sale of portion of the Albion appears to have failed. It was like selling off family silver.

7/ We entered a completion with no intention of competing in it? Madness on stilts.

8/ Life is unfair and so are ticket allocations. Do you have accurate figures?
Click to expand...
Do you think the club is heading in the right direction under Park and the current board?
 
Big Buff said:
There are people falling over themselves all over the world to invest in football clubs at the minute. If Park has the clubs best interests at heart, then he should resign and put his shareholding up for sale as per the demands of the supporters. Lets see who else is interested.
Click to expand...
After what this club has gone through, I can't believe I'm reading this.
 
mdingwall said:
Financially yes, operationally no.
Click to expand...
We are only financially stable because the results on the pitch in the last 12 months.

Numerous board f**k ups leading us to getting sued left right and centre, racking up into the 10’s of millions is only just about buried because we went to the Europa league final. That’s not sustainable.
 
Shota said:
We are only financially stable because the results on the pitch in the last 12 months.

Numerous board f**k ups leading us to getting sued left right and centre, racking up into the 10’s of millions is only just about buried because we went to the Europa league final. That’s not sustainable.
Click to expand...
Don't think we made a huge amount from the Europa League Final. The major %^*& ups tend to lead back to one thing - the deal the Spivs signed with Ashley. You know, the one Dave was supposed to have solved.
 
Big Buff said:
He's lost the confidence of every fan that attends Ibrox. You'd have to be blind or willfully ignorant not to see it.

His time is up. We, the fans, are the people who keep this club in business, not the investors. If we want him gone, then he has to go.
Click to expand...
What an utter load of nonsense. If the Investors leave tomorrow, our club is dead as a major player in Scotland, nevermind anywhere else. Comments like that are just full of emotion with no understanding of business realities.
 
GlasgowSud said:
Given that finances are heavily reliant on operations, and vice versa, then people are absolutely right to be concerned at Park's running of the club.
Click to expand...
They are not the same thing. DK said to myself and then Trust Chairman Gordon Dinnie it would take around £50m to put the club to right - in fact it's taken around £85m. The investment of millions of pounds in unencumbered capital is not the same as actually running the club day to day.
 
EndOfDays said:
So Resolution 8 will have 20% voting against with King and c.1872 so only gives the board a very small amount of wriggle room to get this passed at 75%.
Click to expand...
Interesting- regarding this resolution

Out of interest do all the other resolutions require a 75% threshold to be passed?
 
ShieldhallBear said:
Why are 650 people from C1872 being attributed to the entire support by some? They don’t speak for me in any way whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure they are? But they own 5% of the club so that given them a bigger voice than 650 individual shareholders (which is the point)
 
Big Buff said:
Yeah, I'm the crazy one for thinking there are rich people out there willing to spunk money on football clubs.

The football world is changing very, very quickly. The reason we've seen such an influx of American owners (even into the SPFL) is that Americans believe European football clubs are vastly undervalued. And they're right, compared to their own domestic sports leagues.

There are also multi-club ownership groups that would absolutely take a minority stake in a club like ours.

But yeah, sure, the only people interested in owning Rangers, a club that is guaranteed group stage European football and regularly outperforms in it, are the current bowling club committee we currently have installed. What poverty of ambition the Park loyalists have.
Click to expand...
So you would sell us to anyone so we can end up with another Mike Ashley situation?
 
Club 1872 stinks now to be honest but at the same time if the club refuses to engage with them they cant then be surprised when this happens.
 
The majority vote amongst contributors is to not re-elect Douglas Park. Whether that be a protest vote or conviction held belief, who do those casting such a vote see as the "saviour" to deliver us from the current Board? Surely it cannot be now you see him/ now you hear him Dave King?
 
This is a now a significant issue.

With C1872 and King voting against this, I expect that the special resolution will be defeated. Which that means the PLC will have to offer any new shares it wants to issue shares gain new investment (or to do debt to equity) issued to existing shareholders. A costly and time-consuming process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top