Fag packet maths. King shares.

Northampton_Loyalist

Well-Known Member
C1872, or AN other, open up a pledge system whereby 20000 people have the opportunity to buy £750 worth of shares (66 million, divided by 20000 people equals 3300 shares each, at 20p each equals £660. Obviously you would want more to cover fees and set up a slush fund etc), in their own name, with the rights and privileges of those shares being proxied to C1872 for a set length of time (5 years seems reasonable). every member is given 3 years to physically pay the money in the manner they see fit. if, after 2 years, uptake is low, the remaining shares of the 20000 are opened up to the current people who have taken up the offer. A maximum of 3 will be allowed for voting purposes, but potentially no limit would need to be placed on the number of 'C1872 shares' an individual could hold. On the set date, the shares are transferred to the individuals, their proxy to C1872 and the money to David King.

An ongoing membership fee of perhaps £25 a season/year would be levied to allow for ongoing running/operational costs and to allow projects to be carried out (£500k or so).


20000 people all receive their own share certs, their own wee piece of the club and a unique C1872 number that allows them an equal vote on matters to do with the block vote now created on behalf of the support. They are invested in C1872 as a vehicle, have a direct say in the running of the club (up to a point, clearly) and have control over their own investment.

People would not be beholden to C1872 and after their term would be able to remove themselves and their investment if they felt it was not working.

You are FAR more likely to get people to part with their money if they are not literally waving it goodbye at the point of departure and if they are allowed to do things like pass it down directly to their kids.

If the shareholding is diluted, individuals will be able to buy more shares to maintain their personal holding, or not. C1872 would be able to lobby members for funds in order to make loans to the club, would be able to invite other shareholders to join if it made sense in terms of percentage ownership and while they would need to be careful of the 'interested party' issues King himself had, maintaining a legal and significant holding would be possible.



Clearly made up as I have gone along there, but if buying from King is the way forwards, there are probably better ways of getting it to work than announcing it is happening and asking for other peoples millions to buy shares not in their name.
 
20,000 individual shareholders dont have the same voice as a single supporters group with 20,000 members.

I've read your comments with interest today. You're picking holes in C1872. Worryingly easy to do, but the bigger picture would be that as a unified body with a 25% shareholding, C1872 would have a far stronger voice in any discussions with other large shareholders than 20,000 individuals.

We can argue about the way C1872 are doing it. That doesnt get away from the fundamental decision that fans are going to have to make. It didnt matter if it was the RST back in the day, C1872 now or another fans group in the future. Fans either buy into the idea of supporter ownership in a way that gives fans a representation at board level and a strong voice or they don't.

The actual detail can be discussed, picked apart and put back together in a dozen different ways. Its time for people to come to terms with the notion of collective fan action and collective fan representation or forever abandon the notion and take our chances with whatever large investor comes along to buy whatever shares are available in the future.

This is about the concept of fan ownership and fan representation. You either back it or you don't. If you back it then there's scope for constructive conversations and action to improve C1872 and to build something that's fit for purpose. That's fit to represent fans interests with a meaningful shareholding and a seat on the club board.

If you don't back it? Lets not beat about the bush. People oppose fan ownership and fan representation for any number of reasons. That's their right. Those people are honest enough to admit that they simply don't buy into the concept and never will.
 
20,000 individual shareholders dont have the same voice as a single supporters group with 20,000 members.

I've read your comments with interest today. You're picking holes in C1872. Worryingly easy to do, but the bigger picture would be that as a unified body with a 25% shareholding, C1872 would have a far stronger voice in any discussions with other large shareholders than 20,000 individuals.

We can argue about the way C1872 are doing it. That doesnt get away from the fundamental decision that fans are going to have to make. It didnt matter if it was the RST back in the day, C1872 now or another fans group in the future. Fans either buy into the idea of supporter ownership in a way that gives fans a representation at board level and a strong voice or they don't.

The actual detail can be discussed, picked apart and put back together in a dozen different ways. Its time for people to come to terms with the notion of collective fan action and collective fan representation or forever abandon the notion and take our chances with whatever large investor comes along to buy whatever shares are available in the future.

This is about the concept of fan ownership and fan representation. You either back it or you don't. If you back it then there's scope for constructive conversations and action to improve C1872 and to build something that's fit for purpose. That's fit to represent fans interests with a meaningful shareholding and a seat on the club board.

If you don't back it? Lets not beat about the bush. People oppose fan ownership and fan representation for any number of reasons. That's their right. Those people are honest enough to admit that they simply don't buy into the concept and never will.
It would be a unified body. Every person who bought in would do so with a proxy for 5 years signed over.

I absolutely buy into it and have approached C1872 tonight with a request to be considered for the board so I think you are perhaps mistaking someone disappointed with the offer and who thinks it is doomed to fail in it's current form with someone who does not want it to happen at all.
 
It would be a unified body. Every person who bought in would do so with a proxy for 5 years signed over.

I absolutely buy into it and have approached C1872 tonight with a request to be considered for the board so I think you are perhaps mistaking someone disappointed with the offer and who thinks it is doomed to fail in it's current form with someone who does not want it to happen at all.
Congratulations on your C1872 board ambitions. I hope you are successful. If it comes to elections you'll get a vote from me.
 
Congratulations on your C1872 board ambitions. I hope you are successful. If it comes to elections you'll get a vote from me.
I have written a list of things I would stand for election on and I have Emailed C1872 asking for direct contact details with appropriate people to speak to.

if you were not being a smartarse, thanks :D
 
It would be a unified body. Every person who bought in would do so with a proxy for 5 years signed over.

I absolutely buy into it and have approached C1872 tonight with a request to be considered for the board so I think you are perhaps mistaking someone disappointed with the offer and who thinks it is doomed to fail in it's current form with someone who does not want it to happen at all.

A single shareholder with 25% of the shares can call an EGM.

I'm not sure that a group controlling separate proxy votes can. Managing 20,000 individual proxy votes would also be an organisation nightmare.
 
A single shareholder with 25% of the shares can call an EGM.

I'm not sure that a group controlling separate proxy votes can. Managing 20,000 individual proxy votes would also be an organisation nightmare.

'A shareholder or group of shareholders representing at least 5% of voting rights can request the directors of the company to call a general meeting'


A group acting in concert is considered to be one entity. Hence the 'concert party' regulations.


Yes, it would be very, very difficult to administer. We are talking multi million pound shareholdings in an institution loved by hundreds of thousands of people. It is not meant to be easy.
 
I have written a list of things I would stand for election on and I have Emailed C1872 asking for direct contact details with appropriate people to speak to.

if you were not being a smartarse, thanks :D
No smartarse comments from me mate. I admire people who are prepared to volunteer their services on the C1872 board. It's far from easy.
The board needs to represent the views of the whole support, so getting directors on board who can put forward alternative options for consideration is very important.
Best of luck.
 
It would be a unified body. Every person who bought in would do so with a proxy for 5 years signed over.

I absolutely buy into it and have approached C1872 tonight with a request to be considered for the board so I think you are perhaps mistaking someone disappointed with the offer and who thinks it is doomed to fail in it's current form with someone who does not want it to happen at all.
I think that's an interesting alternative mate, would that not have the potential to fall apart after 5 years?

I'd like to understand what existing and/or new controls will be in place to make sure every member of C1872 can keep those elected to run it accountable. I'm sure there is info on this already but I need to go look it up again.

I was happy contributing to C1872 already to help with fan ownership so I've already changed to a legacy donation. A bit more than normal for a while and then drops back down to a comfortable amount for my personal budget.
 
It would be a unified body. Every person who bought in would do so with a proxy for 5 years signed over.

I absolutely buy into it and have approached C1872 tonight with a request to be considered for the board so I think you are perhaps mistaking someone disappointed with the offer and who thinks it is doomed to fail in it's current form with someone who does not want it to happen at all.
I've read a few of your posts on this and you make a lot of sense mate.
 
I think that's an interesting alternative mate, would that not have the potential to fall apart after 5 years?

I'd like to understand what existing and/or new controls will be in place to make sure every member of C1872 can keep those elected to run it accountable. I'm sure there is info on this already but I need to go look it up again.

I was happy contributing to C1872 already to help with fan ownership so I've already changed to a legacy donation. A bit more than normal for a while and then drops back down to a comfortable amount for my personal budget.
Absolutely it would have the potential to fall apart. However, it has a few advantages;

It is FAR more likely to attract people on the fence as they will not be handing over money for no return other than a small say in things. The fact it could fall appart means that the board of C1872 would constantly need to be on their game and any laurel resting would potentially be fatal. It would allow for an ebb and flow of membership, meaning that mistakes that caused issues would not be fatal necessarily and it would allow for fresh blood, fresh input with no campaigning for money.
 
Getting 20000 under a 5 year banner is FAR better than failing to get 20000 people together for any length of time.

The proposal is to ensure the longevity of the Club. 5 years doesn't do that.

I'm not really getting your point about "literally waving [money] goodbye" and "no return".

The purpose is to safeguard Rangers. That's the return. To ensure we don't see the likes of Whyte, Green etc.
 
20,000 individual shareholders dont have the same voice as a single supporters group with 20,000 members.

I've read your comments with interest today. You're picking holes in C1872. Worryingly easy to do, but the bigger picture would be that as a unified body with a 25% shareholding, C1872 would have a far stronger voice in any discussions with other large shareholders than 20,000 individuals.

We can argue about the way C1872 are doing it. That doesnt get away from the fundamental decision that fans are going to have to make. It didnt matter if it was the RST back in the day, C1872 now or another fans group in the future. Fans either buy into the idea of supporter ownership in a way that gives fans a representation at board level and a strong voice or they don't.

The actual detail can be discussed, picked apart and put back together in a dozen different ways. Its time for people to come to terms with the notion of collective fan action and collective fan representation or forever abandon the notion and take our chances with whatever large investor comes along to buy whatever shares are available in the future.

This is about the concept of fan ownership and fan representation. You either back it or you don't. If you back it then there's scope for constructive conversations and action to improve C1872 and to build something that's fit for purpose. That's fit to represent fans interests with a meaningful shareholding and a seat on the club board.

If you don't back it? Lets not beat about the bush. People oppose fan ownership and fan representation for any number of reasons. That's their right. Those people are honest enough to admit that they simply don't buy into the concept and never will.
Great post, only thing I'd say is that this is not fan ownership and we will thankfully never have proper fan ownership.
As you say, it's a stronger voice and that's the way forward.
 
Are we effectively giving the monies to Club1872 or does the individual retain the shares (250) less the voting rights?
 
The proposal is to ensure the longevity of the Club. 5 years doesn't do that.

I'm not really getting your point about "literally waving [money] goodbye" and "no return".

The purpose is to safeguard Rangers. That's the return. To ensure we don't see the likes of Whyte, Green etc.
This is where I am uncomfortable with it as it stands on that front; You are saying you are not confident enough in the vehicle as it stands to allow it to work or not on it's own merits, and we have to make it an all or nothing decision NOW to make it work? Where is the confidence in that? Where is the encouragement for skeptics to part with significant sums of money? You are not willing to let it be open in case it fails to maintain the numbers to work? I would answer strongly by saying that if people are feeling it is not working to the point they want to remove their investment, then it does not serve it's purpose anyway and deserves to be put down.


The answer to your concern is simple; Make it something that people want to see work and stay working. it is what should be happening anyway.


If you are not getting the points you say you are not getting, I suggest you spend some time reading through the threads on the topic; People with money and passion are stating clearly that they are waiting to see what is what, that they are not happy just handing over their cash when that same cash could be used to fund the club in other ways etc etc. There are a good number of them, not hard to find (look at the eminent posted HHB's recent postings as a good starting point)
 
The only advantage it has is in giving fans the share in the club rather than those shares being owned by a community interest company. Maintaining 20,000 shareholder proxy votes would be an administrative nightmare. It would be impossible to do on a voluntary basis. You're effectively looking at c1872 having to employ at least a few part time staff to do the very basic of administration work. The logistics of 20,000 individual proxy votes would be almost impossible to maintain.

What happens when a fan moves - does everybody keep the shareholder register updated?

What happens when a shareholder dies?

What happens when individual shareholders fall out with those running c1872? Withdraw their proxy.

Shareholder action groups can and do come together in advance of AGMs on single issue arguments such as director remuneration. Doing so on a regular basis for fixed 5 year periods? It's unworkable.

The only way King's ambition works is if C1872 becomes a registered community interest company, meets all of the legal requirements for such a status and maintains a strong and engaged membership. Anything else is an unworkable fantasy.
 
This is where I am uncomfortable with it as it stands on that front; You are saying you are not confident enough in the vehicle as it stands to allow it to work or not on it's own merits, and we have to make it an all or nothing decision NOW to make it work? Where is the confidence in that? Where is the encouragement for skeptics to part with significant sums of money? You are not willing to let it be open in case it fails to maintain the numbers to work? I would answer strongly by saying that if people are feeling it is not working to the point they want to remove their investment, then it does not serve it's purpose anyway and deserves to be put down.

The answer to your concern is simple; Make it something that people want to see work and stay working. it is what should be happening anyway.

Confidence? Encouragement? "[W]ork on it's own merits"?

The merit is safeguarding the Club. Yet you're classifying the original proposal as throwing money away.

Your intentions are undoubtedly good. But I'm not sure you're understanding the situation.
 
The only advantage it has is in giving fans the share in the club rather than those shares being owned by a community interest company. Maintaining 20,000 shareholder proxy votes would be an administrative nightmare. It would be impossible to do on a voluntary basis. You're effectively looking at c1872 having to employ at least a few part time staff to do the very basic of administration work. The logistics of 20,000 individual proxy votes would be almost impossible to maintain.

What happens when a fan moves - does everybody keep the shareholder register updated?

What happens when a shareholder dies?

What happens when individual shareholders fall out with those running c1872? Withdraw their proxy.

Shareholder action groups can and do come together in advance of AGMs on single issue arguments such as director remuneration. Doing so on a regular basis for fixed 5 year periods? It's unworkable.

The only way King's ambition works is if C1872 becomes a registered community interest company, meets all of the legal requirements for such a status and maintains a strong and engaged membership. Anything else is an unworkable fantasy.
If C 1872 has 25% of Rangers and £13 million or so value, it 100% should have employed administrators. I thought that was a given and did not need to be mentioned? The initial slush fund and the £500k a year more than cover many, many employees if required.

Why would C1872 have to inform anyone of an individual changing address?

If people want to withdraw their proxy at any stage, then absolutely fine. If you are reduced to holding people hostage to keep your power, you are doing it wrong.

it would not be a shareholder action group forced to agree on anything, it would be a proxy on all voting rights handed over for a fixed term. Very easy to manage; All proxies vite the same!




C1872, no matter what way it goes, has a huge amount of work to do and your seeming notion that this could be easy, simple, free to run or involve 20000 people happy to simply hand over money for a vote is fantasy mate. This is a mammoth undertaking however it is approached and it appears to have been underestimated.
 
Can't you have share holders and members that pay in per month or proxy existing shares who every 4 years vote a leader? Like a standard democracy?
 
Last edited:
Confidence? Encouragement? "[W]ork on it's own merits"?

The merit is safeguarding the Club. Yet you're classifying the original proposal as throwing money away.

Your intentions are undoubtedly good. But I'm not sure you're understanding the situation.

I am not classifying it as anything at all. I am repeating what potential members are saying. They are not willing to hand over significant portions of money under the current circumstances.

Yes, the merit is to safeguard the club. That is not the start and end of a £13 million investment and FAR more thinking needs to go into it than that.


You are saying that unless C1872 is a one off buyin at the start, that leaves no way for people to leave, it will fail.

I am saying that if C1872 can be attractive to people and make them stay, it can be FAR more than a check on the board of Rangers.

I understand the situation a good deal better than you appear to do mate.
 
If C 1872 has 25% of Rangers and £13 million or so value, it 100% should have employed administrators. I thought that was a given and did not need to be mentioned? The initial slush fund and the £500k a year more than cover many, many employees if required.

Why would C1872 have to inform anyone of an individual changing address?

If people want to withdraw their proxy at any stage, then absolutely fine. If you are reduced to holding people hostage to keep your power, you are doing it wrong.

it would not be a shareholder action group forced to agree on anything, it would be a proxy on all voting rights handed over for a fixed term. Very easy to manage; All proxies vite the same!




C1872, no matter what way it goes, has a huge amount of work to do and your seeming notion that this could be easy, simple, free to run or involve 20000 people happy to simply hand over money for a vote is fantasy mate. This is a mammoth undertaking however it is approached and it appears to have been underestimated.

If it isn't going to have a legal standing as a community interest company and it is going to be reliant on donations then on what basis does it employ those admin staff? A wee backhander to friends of the board members and if the membership don't like it then tough?

Going down the community interest company route gives a clear means of setting up a share ownership vehicle and then administering it. If fans back the concept of supporter ownership and collective fan representation then it's the means to deliver it and to run it on an ongoing basis. The actual final model? It should have been sorted before c1872 went public. The alternative you're proposing? It would be an unworkable mess. You can't actually proxy votes for future meetings that haven't been called. You proxy on an AGM by AGM basis. You can agree in principal to proxy your votes in perpetuity if you want. You still need those 20,000 individuals to actually take steps to proxy their vote every year. Or as and when the need for an EGM arises. That's not an issue if a community interest company owns those shares and members hold a share in the CIC.

This is where the input of Goodwin, the SFSA, Foundation of Hearts, Well Society, the Hamburg fan membership organisation and other club groups who have been through this process and who now operate fan ownership/representation schemes would help. It's time to separate what works in the real world from what works on the back of a fab packet.
 
I just really hope that FF is not a reflection of the true Rangers’s support it’s black and white to me you either support it and are part of it or not.
 
Sorry I meant proxy shares

There's no such thing. You can proxy a shareholder vote. You cannot proxy share ownership. Those 20,000 fans would need to be accounted for on the shareholder register as individual share holders.
 
If it isn't going to have a legal standing as a community interest company and it is going to be reliant on donations then on what basis does it employ those admin staff? A wee backhander to friends of the board members and if the membership don't like it then tough?

It employs them as admin staff. You have an income of £500k annually, no need for backhanders, which is a rather bizarre comment to make anyway.
Going down the community interest company route gives a clear means of setting up a share ownership vehicle and then administering it. If fans back the concept of supporter ownership and collective fan representation then it's the means to deliver it and to run it on an ongoing basis. The actual final model? It should have been sorted before c1872 went public.

We are in complete agreement.

The alternative you're proposing? It would be an unworkable mess.

Did You miss the parts in the OP that stated it was clearly just made up and that irt was not a serious proposal, more an indication of other avenues that should be looked at? FFS, if you thought this was me trying to get some idea off the ground, you are barking mad. It is an illustrative post designed to point out some glaring flaws with which you fully agree.
You can't actually proxy votes for future meetings that haven't been called. You proxy on an AGM by AGM basis. You can agree in principal to proxy your votes in perpetuity if you want. You still need those 20,000 individuals to actually take steps to proxy their vote every year. Or as and when the need for an EGM arises. That's not an issue if a community interest company owns those shares and members hold a share in the CIC.

The entire thing is sorted very easily with a once a year letter with a tear off strip. It is not even a fraction as difficult to administer as you are making out.
This is where the input of Goodwin, the SFSA, Foundation of Hearts, Well Society, the Hamburg fan membership organisation and other club groups who have been through this process and who now operate fan ownership/representation schemes would help. It's time to separate what works in the real world from what works on the back of a fab packet.

100% agreed. I have no idea why you seem to be spoiling for a fight, we are in complete and utter agreement over what should have happened, in what order and what should happen next.



I will clarify; The OP is not at all a proposal, something for people to vote on or hang their hat on. It is designed 100% as a means of getting people to look at the entire wide world of possibilities in fan representation, perhaps picking and choosing which bits they think would or would not work.

I could not, at all, come up with a plan to buy 25% of the club involving 20000 people and £13 million that stood up to any kind of scrutiny. At all. Ever. Nobody on here could. It was not intended as such.
 
There's no such thing. You can proxy a shareholder vote. You cannot proxy share ownership. Those 20,000 fans would need to be accounted for on the shareholder register as individual share holders.

Ok thanks for explaining.

Could the new set up not be an independent entity that elects a president each term. So C1872 could set up the share ownership model, then after their first term they would have to win the vote and another body or individual could take the lead?
 
It employs them as admin staff. You have an income of £500k annually, no need for backhanders, which is a rather bizarre comment to make anyway.


We are in complete agreement.



Did You miss the parts in the OP that stated it was clearly just made up and that irt was not a serious proposal, more an indication of other avenues that should be looked at? FFS, if you thought this was me trying to get some idea off the ground, you are barking mad. It is an illustrative post designed to point out some glaring flaws with which you fully agree.


The entire thing is sorted very easily with a once a year letter with a tear off strip. It is not even a fraction as difficult to administer as you are making out.


100% agreed. I have no idea why you seem to be spoiling for a fight, we are in complete and utter agreement over what should have happened, in what order and what should happen next.



I will clarify; The OP is not at all a proposal, something for people to vote on or hang their hat on. It is designed 100% as a means of getting people to look at the entire wide world of possibilities in fan representation, perhaps picking and choosing which bits they think would or would not work.

I could not, at all, come up with a plan to buy 25% of the club involving 20000 people and £13 million that stood up to any kind of scrutiny. At all. Ever. Nobody on here could. It was not intended as such.

The bit in bold is the only bit of your post that matters. We need practical solutions, not fag packet fantasies. Kite flying is unhelpful at the best of times. In an environment where Rangers fans are already sceptical? It's muddying the waters and is counter productive.

You might as well propose an alternative based on a lottery win or somebody finding out they're the long lost heir to a family fortune.

We don't need unworkable fag packet options for the sake of discussion. We need a viable model that can be scrutinized and ultimately put to the support to either accept or reject.
 
The bit in bold is the only bit of your post that matters. We need practical solutions, not fat packet fantasies. Kite flying is unhelpful at the best of times. In an environment where Rangers fans are already sceptical? It's muddying the waters and is counter productive.

You might well propose an alternative based on a lottery win or somebody finding out they're the long lost heir to a family fortune.

We don't need unworkable day packet options for the sake of discussion. We need a viable model that can be scrutinized and ultimately put to the support to either accept or reject.
What are you doing towards that end? I have started to put myself forward to help C1872. Have you? If not, why not? You have done an equal amount of sniping towards them as me yet you called me out as someone who simply did not want it to happen in your first post on this thread, you are trying to dictate what people talk about and tell us what is useful and what is not. I sure hope you are putting yourself forward to help after all of that?


You are clearly a passionate, erudite and intelligent supporter who has knowledge and experience of the subject at hand. I am certain you would add huge value to any supporter project.
 
Ok thanks for explaining.

Could the new set up not be an independent entity that elects a president each term. So C1872 could set up the share ownership model, then after their first term they would have to win the vote and another body or individual could take the lead?

No. It would be an impractical mess.

The most obvious solution that actually works in the real world is for c1872 to become a community interest company and to own the Rangers shares. Individual fans would then become shareholders in the CIC. The CIC would have a board of directors answerable to the member shareholders. The board operate the CIC on behalf of fans with full legal transparency and adherence to the legal requirements for community interest companies.
 
Whatever way you cut it this is a great opportunity to take a large element of control over our own club.

If we turn our collective backs on the opportunity we will have no room for complaint if we don't like decisions made in the future.
 
No. It would be an impractical mess.

The most obvious solution that actually works in the real world is for c1872 to become a community interest company and to own the Rangers shares. Individual fans would then become shareholders in the CIC. The CIC would have a board of directors answerable to the member shareholders. The board operate the CIC on behalf of fans with full legal transparency and adherence to the legal requirements for community interest companies.

When you say 'answerable' you mean in charge of as opposed to elected?
 
C1872, or AN other, open up a pledge system whereby 20000 people have the opportunity to buy £750 worth of shares (66 million, divided by 20000 people equals 3300 shares each, at 20p each equals £660. Obviously you would want more to cover fees and set up a slush fund etc), in their own name, with the rights and privileges of those shares being proxied to C1872 for a set length of time (5 years seems reasonable). every member is given 3 years to physically pay the money in the manner they see fit. if, after 2 years, uptake is low, the remaining shares of the 20000 are opened up to the current people who have taken up the offer. A maximum of 3 will be allowed for voting purposes, but potentially no limit would need to be placed on the number of 'C1872 shares' an individual could hold. On the set date, the shares are transferred to the individuals, their proxy to C1872 and the money to David King.

An ongoing membership fee of perhaps £25 a season/year would be levied to allow for ongoing running/operational costs and to allow projects to be carried out (£500k or so).


20000 people all receive their own share certs, their own wee piece of the club and a unique C1872 number that allows them an equal vote on matters to do with the block vote now created on behalf of the support. They are invested in C1872 as a vehicle, have a direct say in the running of the club (up to a point, clearly) and have control over their own investment.

People would not be beholden to C1872 and after their term would be able to remove themselves and their investment if they felt it was not working.

You are FAR more likely to get people to part with their money if they are not literally waving it goodbye at the point of departure and if they are allowed to do things like pass it down directly to their kids.

If the shareholding is diluted, individuals will be able to buy more shares to maintain their personal holding, or not. C1872 would be able to lobby members for funds in order to make loans to the club, would be able to invite other shareholders to join if it made sense in terms of percentage ownership and while they would need to be careful of the 'interested party' issues King himself had, maintaining a legal and significant holding would be possible.



Clearly made up as I have gone along there, but if buying from King is the way forwards, there are probably better ways of getting it to work than announcing it is happening and asking for other peoples millions to buy shares not in their name.
I like that idea and would part with £750.00 on that basis.
 
What are you doing towards that end? I have started to put myself forward to help C1872. Have you? If not, why not? You have done an equal amount of sniping towards them as me yet you called me out as someone who simply did not want it to happen in your first post on this thread, you are trying to dictate what people talk about and tell us what is useful and what is not. I sure hope you are putting yourself forward to help after all of that?


You are clearly a passionate, erudite and intelligent supporter who has knowledge and experience of the subject at hand. I am certain you would add huge value to any supporter project.

I already devote time to a supporters trust. I'm not a C1872 member and at this current time I have no desire to stand for election as a c1872 board members. But I do have practical hands on experience of how supporter trusts operate and what is practical for such groups to achieve. They have to be grounded in reality and practicality. Unworkable options aren't options. It's of no value investing time and energy into something that's just unworkable in the real world.

What I can try and do is provide a first hand insight on how supporter representation can work and try and keep a realistic discussion going. You can come up with whatever crazy concept that you want. If fans won't buy into it then it's a problem. If fans buy into it but you can't deliver it then there's no point in fans buying into it. You can't sell the fans a concept that you can't deliver.
 
When you say 'answerable' you mean in charge of as opposed to elected?

Same way any company works. The fan CIC would have a board answerable to shareholders at an AGM. The CIC would legally own the shares. The CIC board would be answerable to the CIC shareholders. The CIC shareholders would be the Club 1872 members on a 1 member 1 vote basis.
 
I know it's been done to death, but fan ownership gives me the fear. We will have a board representing the block of supporters from c1872 and the minute we're not putting out statements every 2 mins about Nicola Sturgeon or some 2nd rate journalist's hatchet job, then they'll be revolts.
I love the idea, but the reality is that these movements just have too many egos. Hope I'm wrong though.
 
I already devote time to a supporters trust. I'm not a C1872 member and at this current time I have no desire to stand for election as a c1872 board members. But I do have practical hands on experience of how supporter trusts operate and what is practical for such groups to achieve. They have to be grounded in reality and practicality. Unworkable options aren't options. It's of no value investing time and energy into something that's just unworkable in the real world.

What I can try and do is provide a first hand insight on how supporter representation can work and try and keep a realistic discussion going. You can come up with whatever crazy concept that you want. If fans won't buy into it then it's a problem. If fans buy into it but you can't deliver it then there's no point in fans buying into it. You can't sell the fans a concept that you can't deliver.


So, to be clear;

You and I have agreed 100% on every single thing to do with C1872's scheme so far. We both say it has a long way to go to attract the level of support it needs, we both agree that it has gone about things back to front although we both agree that there may be legitimate reasons behind that. We both agree that as it stands, it will not gain the required backing. We both agree that the aims are good and that it is something that needs to happen if at all possible for the benefit of the club and the support.

You also accuse me of agreeing with you through wanting it to fail despite that fact that of the 2 of us, I am the only one actually looking at trying to help in some small way?


This thread has highlighted, exactly as planned, one very significant point that people involved would do well to note; There is a great reluctance amongst the wider support to buy into something that totally removes their personal stake. Lacking trust, which C1872 certainly does right now, people in generally are reluctant to hand over money that does not see them directly own shares. That is a demonstrable fact and is something that absolutely has to be discussed.





If you changed your mind I would absolutely vote for you ahead of myself. Despite the fact you have spent all night trying to fight a fight that is not there. That is because of the most apparent difference between you and I is I am not playing the man rather than the ball.
 
Last edited:
I think that's an interesting alternative mate, would that not have the potential to fall apart after 5 years?

I'd like to understand what existing and/or new controls will be in place to make sure every member of C1872 can keep those elected to run it accountable. I'm sure there is info on this already but I need to go look it up again.

I was happy contributing to C1872 already to help with fan ownership so I've already changed to a legacy donation. A bit more than normal for a while and then drops back down to a comfortable amount for my personal budget.
If after 5 years you weren't happy with c1872 you could take it back or give it over again for another 5. It would allow you to do what you want witn your investment, whereas if we arent happy with c1872 direction you cannot cash out your shares as such. That's my understanding.
 
C1872, or AN other, open up a pledge system whereby 20000 people have the opportunity to buy £750 worth of shares (66 million, divided by 20000 people equals 3300 shares each, at 20p each equals £660. Obviously you would want more to cover fees and set up a slush fund etc), in their own name, with the rights and privileges of those shares being proxied to C1872 for a set length of time (5 years seems reasonable). every member is given 3 years to physically pay the money in the manner they see fit. if, after 2 years, uptake is low, the remaining shares of the 20000 are opened up to the current people who have taken up the offer. A maximum of 3 will be allowed for voting purposes, but potentially no limit would need to be placed on the number of 'C1872 shares' an individual could hold. On the set date, the shares are transferred to the individuals, their proxy to C1872 and the money to David King.

An ongoing membership fee of perhaps £25 a season/year would be levied to allow for ongoing running/operational costs and to allow projects to be carried out (£500k or so).


20000 people all receive their own share certs, their own wee piece of the club and a unique C1872 number that allows them an equal vote on matters to do with the block vote now created on behalf of the support. They are invested in C1872 as a vehicle, have a direct say in the running of the club (up to a point, clearly) and have control over their own investment.

People would not be beholden to C1872 and after their term would be able to remove themselves and their investment if they felt it was not working.

You are FAR more likely to get people to part with their money if they are not literally waving it goodbye at the point of departure and if they are allowed to do things like pass it down directly to their kids.

If the shareholding is diluted, individuals will be able to buy more shares to maintain their personal holding, or not. C1872 would be able to lobby members for funds in order to make loans to the club, would be able to invite other shareholders to join if it made sense in terms of percentage ownership and while they would need to be careful of the 'interested party' issues King himself had, maintaining a legal and significant holding would be possible.



Clearly made up as I have gone along there, but if buying from King is the way forwards, there are probably better ways of getting it to work than announcing it is happening and asking for other peoples millions to buy shares not in their name.
This is a very good idea imo.
 
So, to be clear;

You and I have agreed 100% on every single thing to do with C1872's scheme so far. We both say it has a long way to go to attract the level of support it needs, we both agree that it has gone about things back to front although we both agree that there may be legitimate reasons behind that. We both agree that as it stands, it will not gain the required backing. We both agree that the aims are good and that it is something that needs to happen if at all possible for the benefit of the club and the support.

You also accuse me of agreeing with you through wanting it to fail despite that fact that of the 2 of us, I am the only one actually looking at trying to help in some small way?


This thread has highlighted, exactly as planned, one very significant point that people involved would do well to note; There is a great reluctance amongst the wider support to buy into something that totally removes their personal stake. Lacking trust, which C1872 certainly does right now, people in generally are reluctant to hand over money that does not see them directly own shares. That is a demonstrable fact and is something that absolutely has to be discussed.





If you changed your mind I would absolutely vote for you ahead of myself. Despite the fact you have spent all night trying to fight a fight that is not there. That is because of the most apparent difference between you and I am not playing the man rather than the ball.

There is no c1872 scheme right now. They have an ambition. They haven't put forward a viable proposal on how they believe that they can achieve it. That's what we need - a proper proposal form them. A business case if you will. An investment prospectus. A proper, researched document that fans can read, understand and then use to make an informed decision. They're not at the stage of doing that because structurally they look to be an absolute basket case. More wooly suggestions won't help with that.

You have a completely impractical and unworkable suggestion for a loose collective relying on proxy votes every AGM and you're falling into the same pit as c1872 have. You're really weak on details and practicalities. You're doing the exact same thing as c1872 are but with a different overall ambition.

Fans need detail. You can't just argue the what if you can't provide a realistic how.
 
I don’t see how the numbers stack up?

It’s not just the initial £13 million that is required as more would be needed to prevent the 25% from being diluted in the future by Directors converting their loans to equity.

When I joined C 1872 just over 2 years ago I think the holding was almost 10% but I believe this has been diluted to maybe something nearer half this figure.

If my recollection is broadly correct and further dilution occurs (at even a reduced rate) much more than £13 million is required.

Stranger things have happened but I reckon it will be a struggle to raise the funds since fundamentally the money is not going into the Club.

I foresee a situation where this is only partially successful with the 25% threshold not being achieved and DK is still left with a substantial holding at the end of this.

For the record myself and my son contribute £18.72 each per month but haven’t decided what to do as yet.

Suffice to say Club 1872 would have to up their game considerably and at least bring in a name to front this.
 
I know it's been done to death, but fan ownership gives me the fear. We will have a board representing the block of supporters from c1872 and the minute we're not putting out statements every 2 mins about Nicola Sturgeon or some 2nd rate journalist's hatchet job, then they'll be revolts.
I love the idea, but the reality is that these movements just have too many egos. Hope I'm wrong though.

The short answer is that football clubs work on pragmatic decision making. Fans need to realise that the fantasy views of supporters just don't work in the real world of boardrooms.
 
I don’t see how the numbers stack up?

It’s not just the initial £13 million that is required as more would be needed to prevent the 25% from being diluted in the future by Directors converting their loans to equity.

When I joined C 1872 just over 2 years ago I think the holding was almost 10% but I believe this has been diluted to maybe something nearer half this figure.

If my recollection is broadly correct and further dilution occurs (at even a reduced rate) much more than £13 million is required.

Stranger things have happened but I reckon it will be a struggle to raise the funds since fundamentally the money is not going into the Club.

I foresee a situation where this is only partially successful with the 25% threshold not being achieved and DK is still left with a substantial holding at the end of this.

For the record myself and my son contribute £18.72 each per month but haven’t decided what to do as yet.

Suffice to say Club 1872 would have to up their game considerably and at least bring in a name to front this.

Real world concerns that would need to be addressed.

On the issue of share percentage, the current reliance on a few big investors underwriting losses by converting loans to equity can't continue. It has to stop because there comes a point in time where even the richest of investors will stop throwing money at the club. I've seen it happen first hand. I've had the discussion with a majority shareholder who flat out stated that he would oppose any corporate fundraising or investment scheme that would dilute his shareholding.

Ultimately Rangers can't continue to rely on a few rich fans underwriting an unsustainable business model.
 
There is no c1872 scheme right now. They have an ambition. They haven't put forward a viable proposal on how they believe that they can achieve it. That's what we need - a proper proposal form them. A business case if you will. An investment prospectus. A proper, researched document that fans can read, understand and then use to make an informed decision. They're not at the stage of doing that because structurally they look to be an absolute basket case. More wooly suggestions won't help with that.

You have a completely impractical and unworkable suggestion for a loose collective relying on proxy votes every AGM and you're falling into the same pit as c1872 have. You're really weak on details and practicalities. You're doing the exact same thing as c1872 are but with a different overall ambition.

Fans need detail. You can't just argue the what if you can't provide a realistic how.
700 People have already paid into it. There is a scheme, or at least the bare bones of one. We agree on absolutely everything to do with their 'scheme'. Why is that so hard just to say? Man not ball, that is why.

Yet again, I have no suggestion at all. I called a brief idea 'fag packet maths' and stated clearly at the end that I made it up as I went along. Further, I have twice explained to you that it is not a suggestion at all, it is a simple vehicle for expanding debate and getting people talking about the subject in terms of what they want and what they envisage. How about you read what is actually written for a change and accept what is said instead of trying to imprint your own perceptions onto it? How about not pontificating to others what they can and cannot do while contributing the sum total of absolutely zero yourself?


I have indulged you long enough to be honest. You have looked for a fight over multiple threads and you are simply not going to get it from me Pies. I have bent over backwards to be polite to you, to compliment you, to emphasize the points we clearly agree on (all of them, even though you refuse to accept that) I have tried to encourage you to get involved, to share your experience and knowledge and still, the best you can manage, is the above tripe.
 
Back
Top