General Meeting: Club 1872

Gold_son said:
Strange comment to make about a guy who basically gifted Rangers 20M back in the 90s for nothing more than a seat in the directors box.
DK did not get involved with Rangers to make money.
Click to expand...

He didn't gift that money to the club. He tried to recoup it via a CVA.
 
Gold_son said:
I actually think you could double those numbers, with the right people and message in place, and the money going into the club.
C1872 is currently failing miserably, due to the current board, and their efforts to cling on to power. Hopefully they will see reason and step aside.
Click to expand...
The idea will to eventually get to 50000 contributors but it will be a lot of work and frankly the current incumbents are just not up to it, everytime the excuse is 'we are Volunteers ' well when you took the gig you knew the conditions
 
I’m not what you would call an expert on AGMs, having only been to the Rangers AGMs and the RST AGMs. Both followed the same format, elections to the Board, resolutions and the presentation of the accounts is normally the formal part of any AGM then the shareholders/ members have the opportunity to put questions to the Board. Club 1872 have never done this at any time. Their accounts remain unaudited which, while legally allowed by the Companies Act, I think morally their accounts should be independently audited as it’s supporters money that has been paid.
 
Christine1872 said:
I’m not what you would call an expert on AGMs, having only been to the Rangers AGMs and the RST AGMs. Both followed the same format, elections to the Board, resolutions and the presentation of the accounts is normally the formal part of any AGM then the shareholders/ members have the opportunity to put questions to the Board. Club 1872 have never done this at any time. Their accounts remain unaudited which, while legally allowed by the Companies Act, I think morally their accounts should be independently audited as it’s supporters money that has been paid.
Click to expand...
Christine, this news is unbelievable. In what dimension would such an organisation not have audited accounts? If I was on the board I would insist on it for my own protection !
 
@Christine1872 I had no idea the accounts were not audited.
So no AGM and no audited accounts.
I have worked as a professional board secretary and boards I worked with would be in serious trouble with oversight bodies/regulators if they acted in that manner.
 
Methlickblue said:
Christine, this news is unbelievable. In what dimension would such an organisation not have audited accounts? If I was on the board I would insist on it for my own protection !
Click to expand...
Apparently Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 states they don’t need to be audited as they are treated as a small company.
 
Th complaints and adverse comments towards the board of Club 1872 have been going on for some time now. I have to admit that I detest this whole situation. I really hope it is sorted out quickly but I can see it dragging on for some time. Has the board made any comments or has it been radio silence?
 
IrvineLoyal said:
You get a new board in place Rab and sort the corperare governance out then i will 100% join club 1872
Click to expand...
I think there are a lot of us who are in that boat. Club 1872 needs a game changer and then to capitalise and really get momentum. The getting momentum isn't necessarily going to be easy and I think it is going to be incumbent on those of us who have been passive as regards Club 1872 to step up and become members. When you look at the Foundation of Hearts (who in aggregate have raised nearly £12m since being established 2010) it is really disappointing that as a support we haven't been able to do what FoH have done but on many multiples of what FoH have done. We have done many other things to support our club but just haven't been able to make the most of Club 1872.
 
Robert Marshall said:
I have correspondence that shows one member asked when he could have the opportunity to question the Candidates
They replied saying that they were the only one out of 8000 members to request this.
As there wasn't enough demand they saw no need to hold any hustings or similar question process as part of the Election.
Their arrogance is off the scale
Some would argue as no hustings were held the two new Directors have not been legally voted on too the Board under the Electoral rules
It is not up to them to decide if we should have hustings, it's part of the rules
Click to expand...
That absolutely stinks.
 
Christine1872 said:
How could you divvy up shares? What about those that paid into the RST and RF for shares, or those who have contributed but no longer do? It would be impossible to do this.
Click to expand...
Anyone who no longer contributes would not be a member so wouldn't qualify. X number of shares divided by Y number of members = Z number of shares. Or, sell all the shares and divvy up the money. Where it would get complicated is if the majority of current members voted for such a scheme but wanted a sliding scale of the proceeds depending on length of membership and/or level of contributions.
Kowloon72 said:
Wouldn't be the best thing at all.

Unless you have the best intersts of something other than Rangers at heart. Then it would be class.

The micks would shed blood to have 5% of their club controlled by a fan group. The best thing is to sort out the fan group, not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...

Dishonourable Fifth columnists killed the Trust by laying the foundation for what eventually became Rangers First. Rangers First were beset with self interest squabbles. Rangers took the bull by the horns and between the Trust and RF, Club 1872 was born. However many years down the line we are now, what do we have, a supposed fans group beset with self interest squabbles. Sound familiar? Wind up Club 1872 and stop going round in circles. It serves no purpose and is neither a benefit to Rangers nor the vast majority of fans.
 
I want a honest well run fans group to hold a substantial shareholding in the club on behalf of the supporters.
However, any such organization must comply with strict corporate governance rules.
It’s actions must be honest and transparent and operate to a code of value/ethics on a day-to-day basis.
There are bodies that I am a member of that if I don’t receive a response within seven days, I am invited to make a complaint or escalate my inquiry.
Good CRM tech systems exist these days that improve customer experience and that is the type of thing that would need to be introduced to ensure that key objectives are met on an ongoing basis.
I am currently involved in developing a compliant handling system in conjunction with a household name consultancy.
If you’ve got the will to drive the objective of providing an informative and compelling customer experience in terms of giving out honest and knowledgeable answers in all circumstances, it is easily achievable.
 
weedrew said:
Anyone who no longer contributes would not be a member so wouldn't qualify. X number of shares divided by Y number of members = Z number of shares. Or, sell all the shares and divvy up the money. Where it would get complicated is if the majority of current members voted for such a scheme but wanted a sliding scale of the proceeds depending on length of membership and/or level of contributions.


Dishonourable Fifth columnists killed the Trust by laying the foundation for what eventually became Rangers First. Rangers First were beset with self interest squabbles. Rangers took the bull by the horns and between the Trust and RF, Club 1872 was born. However many years down the line we are now, what do we have, a supposed fans group beset with self interest squabbles. Sound familiar? Wind up Club 1872 and stop going round in circles. It serves no purpose and is neither a benefit to Rangers nor the vast majority of fans.
Click to expand...
It benefits Rangers as they continuously put a small fortune into the Club it otherwise wouldn't receive. It benefits fans as the members control a block vote. It's worth fighting for.
 
The more i read this thread the more it looks very dodgy how these people have acted

have they got anything to hide??

they need to be gone asap
 
Christine1872 said:
Apparently Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 states they don’t need to be audited as they are treated as a small company.
Click to expand...
Christine , I get the rules, but this is not “earned” money it is fans donations and it should all be completely above board and unimpeachable. As I say if I was on that board I would be very much pro audit as so many questions could be raised against you! I mean now people may decide the reason others want to cling on to power! Not because there is any evidence of wrong doing, but just because they can! Seems crazy to me.
 
Another issue that could be highlighted at an EGM is how much money is being brought in from partnerships with Club1872, can't remember the partner but if you buy something then a small percent goes to C1872.

Anyone remember the company..............................
 
thevietnambear said:
Another issue that could be highlighted at an EGM is how much money is being brought in from partnerships with Club1872, can't remember the partner but if you buy something then a small percent goes to C1872.

Anyone remember the company..............................
Click to expand...
When the date is announced for the GM, I will ask everyone what question they would like asked plus everyone could also ask them
Let's make them accountable
 
steven allen said:
Fantastic Fanatics
Click to expand...
I signed up for that.
Money goes to the club? Not Club1872?


“Great news, you’ve chosen to support Rangers F.C. through the Ready To Shop platform powered by Fantastic Fanatics

As a fan of Rangers F.C. you can generate funds for the club whilst being rewarded along the way.”
 
Unaudited accounts with funds available of about £4m of supporters money.

I’m guessing there are some skeletons in the closet.
 
cgc said:
Robert, I contacted you early after you posted this thread but haven't read all 15 pages. Any update on the number of members and ex-members of C1872 who have contacted you?
Click to expand...
We have been contacted by about 250 so far, but about 50 of them have stopped contributing because of the Board ( their words )
It's ridiculous that I would even need any numbers at all as they have a duty to hold one every year, although with their typical arrogance have just ignored that for four years
Hopefully, the Solicitor will have the wording complete within the next few days and we can send them an email
They are finished and they know it, they will be asked to resign to halt any further negativity towards our fans,
They are there to represent the members and grow the organisation, spectacularly failed at both
It is incredible the silence from them
 
It defies belief that the current board members have not responded in any way over recent weeks. They must know that their continued presence is detrimental to any prospect of Club 1872 growing to where it should be given the size of the fanbase.

As a small example of the effect their continued presence is having, when the letter from Rev. MacQuarrie was released their own website stated that they had 1,571 legacy donors, today that figure is 1,501. It seems reasonable that the number of ordinary contributors has headed in the same direction.
 
Christine1872 said:
Apparently Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 states they don’t need to be audited as they are treated as a small company.
Click to expand...

But, presumably the accounts would be reviewed by an ‘independent examiner’ who while not undertaking an audit would provide an assurance as to systems processes and that the accounts provide a true reflection.
 
Grant K said:
But, presumably the accounts would be reviewed by an ‘independent examiner’ who while not undertaking an audit would provide an assurance as to systems processes and that the accounts provide a true reflection.
Click to expand...
I am more than confident there will be no financial irregularities in their operations. This is about poor governance and a disregard/disconnect with fans and not criminality in my opinion.
 
mully10 said:
I am more than confident there will be no financial irregularities in their operations. This is about poor governance and a disregard/disconnect with fans and not criminality in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I responded to the comment that there were no audited accounts suggesting that a review rather than an audit will have been undertaken. Such a review should obtain satisfaction regarding processes and adherence to them. I don’t think anyone suggested financial irregularities, I certainly didn’t.
 
Northampton Lodger said:
Sad to hear this. I have become disillusioned with club 1872 recently and got close to cancelling my direct debit earlier this week. I always thought Chris Grahm represented the fans well and was very professional on any interviews. Certainly put Spiers in his place.

Whoever puts their head above the parpet next will face the same treatmwnt.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and is proof positive that fan owner ship in the style of Club1872 would never work.
I'm on the verge of cancelling my DD.
 
Alex Venters said:
Exactly, and is proof positive that fan owner ship in the style of Club1872 would never work.
I'm on the verge of cancelling my DD.
Click to expand...
I did cancel mine the following day. I like the concept of fan ownership however at a club like Rangers I am happier with money people with the club in their blood.
 
DejaVoodoo said:
Has anyone asked him on social media (politely) about this? If so, did he ignore or block you?
Click to expand...
Be surprised if Chris gets Involved in a public debate. He would need to answer questions he probably wants to avoid.
I would also be shocked if there was anything other than poor governance by the people on the current board
 
IrvineLoyal said:
Has club1872 responded at all?
Click to expand...
They are probably hoping this is just a follow follow issue and will die a death. The number of cancelled legacy memberships since this thread began was quoted at around 70 earlier in the thread. Half the posts on here are from people stating they are not members but would love to be. I reckon they'll be hoping to ride this out.

I'm a member not too fussed about kicking them out but would like some sort of statement on why they contacted Castore. If it was to do with them not being happy with the quality of the Castore products I might even have understood it.
 
Last edited:
Snoopproddiedogg said:
They are probably hoping this is just a follow follow issue and will die a death. The number of cancelled legacy memberships since this thread began was quoted at around 70 earlier in the thread. Half the posts on here are from people stating they are not members but would love to be. I reckon they'll be hoping to ride this out.

I'm a member not too fussed about kicking them out but would like some sort of statement on why they contacted Castore. If it was to do with them not being happy with the quality of the Castore products I might even have understood it.
Click to expand...
Reading the Reverend’s letter though, it doesn’t appear they were contacting Castore simply to express the views of members on quality and service. If that was the case then there would have been no purpose to them asking questions of a commercial nature, essentially cross-checking what the club had told them (in confidence).

You are right to say though that the silence from C1872 smacks of nothing more that hoping it all blows over and trying not to draw attention to themselves. This disregard for members and the unwillingness to face scrutiny is why these are not suitable people to represent the members IMO.
 
LJ50 said:
Reading the Reverend’s letter though, it doesn’t appear they were contacting Castore simply to express the views of members on quality and service. If that was the case then there would have been no purpose to them asking questions of a commercial nature, essentially cross-checking what the club had told them (in confidence).

You are right to say though that the silence from C1872 smacks of nothing more that hoping it all blows over and trying not to draw attention to themselves. This disregard for members and the unwillingness to face scrutiny is why these are not suitable people to represent the members IMO.
Click to expand...

I didnt quite say "smacks" I was suggesting that maybe not enough people are bothered so that's why they are not commenting on it.

How many agms were there when the reverend was on the board?
 
Just my 2 bobs worth.
Why didn't members call for an AGM ?
It is their money that is invested after all.
Seems all a bit off to me.
Surely the constitution calls for an AGM.
 
Snoopproddiedogg said:
I didnt quite say "smacks" I was suggesting that maybe not enough people are bothered so that's why they are not commenting on it.

How many agms were there when the reverend was on the board?
Click to expand...
I was just reading your ”hoping to ride this out” suggestion, if I editorialised incorrectly then my apologies.

As to your second point, I believe there was 1 general meeting during the Reverend‘s time on the board. There is a legitimate question to ask him as to why nearly three years passed before he says he “became concerned with the governance”, but as he is no longer on the board then this is isn't a question that advances C1872.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top