The letter from Rev Stuart MacQuarrie which prompted me to stand for Club 1872

[mdingwall]

A FEW OBSERVATIONS ON THE CLUB 1872 CONSTITUTION

Firstly, the document I am working from is the one posted on the Companies House website entry for Club 1872 Shares Community Interest Company dated 28 January 2020. This is rather different from the one put up or discussion on the Club 1872 website on 11th June 2017 - https://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-constitution-consultation/ - and also from what appears to be the original Constitution listed here - https://club1872.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Constitution-1872.pdf

Secondly, I have no legal training and some of the wording is a little obscure and difficult to follow so bear with me if I have misunderstood anything.


NUMBER OF DIRECTORS

Originally these were 7 in number and has now been cut to 5. The result of the 2016 election was listed here - https://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-election-result/ - from memory I think the original rules meant you were in an absolutely constant stream of election and re-election.


ELECTIONS AND AFFIRMATIONS

The rules allow for Board members to be affirmed as well as elected. This is a slightly unusual concept for me as most organisations allow for co-options of members but normally these have to be confirmed at the next AGM by election.

Two of the current directors appear to have been affirmed - Laura and Euan - rather than elected - although Laura was elected in 2016. It’s a peculiar system which allows people put their names forward to continue as directors and unless anyone objects they are deemed elected. You can’t be affirmed twice in a row.

From memory - I think in 2017 there were 6 nominees for 7 seats so no election was held.

So, as the only directors elected for the period under consideration were Laura, Stuart MacQuarrie and Alan Fraser - the fact that two of those resigned may be cause for concern. Joanne and Euan were confirmed last February. Although not ideal they did not break any rules.


ANNUAL MEETING

Item 31.1 says “The Directors may call a meeting of the Contributors at ay time and will hold an annual meeting of the Contributors.” So there is a duty to call an annual meeting but there is no specification for when or what the business to be brought before it may be.

The 2017 prosed Rules had stated “The Directors shall procure that meetings of the Donating Members are held on at least four occasions per annum”.

Also, whilst there can be a vote on a resolution on the night all votes will be conducted by way of a poll on the website. This is a change from the proposed change to the rules which stipulated a show of hands at a meeting.

Calling an EGM is virtually impossible - it can be called by resolution of “5% of the Donating Members or (b) 250 of the Donating Members” - such is the technical difficulty in obtaining and verifying the 250 signatures that it’s impossible without the co-operation of the current directors.

Likewise, the Rules allow for members to call a Poll on any matter but that too requires “5% of the Donating Members or (b) 250 of the Donating Members”.

 

[LJ50]

Not what I expected. I’ll drop them an email asking for a copy of the constitution (unless someone can find it online?)

The articles are published on the website. https://club1872.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Club-1872-Articles-December-2019.pdf

This is the same document that Mark is referring to, it has been filed with Companies House.

 

[Paisley Ger]

Reading that you get the impression that c1872 is 3 board members and theirs alone and they make the decisions.

Absolutely. Laura, Euan and Joanne appear to have decided that they are Club1872 and that they can dictate what happens within, and in the name of, the Board without recourse to anyone else or the articles of association or accountability for their actions. I trust the Rev MacQuarrie and, as a result of this post, I will not invest any more money with Club 1872 while the existing Directors are in place.

 

[LJ50]

This has been bugging me as I remember looking it to it at the time to make sure it wasn't just going to be the same people in jobs for life. I've just looked through old emails and stuff but can't see any vote to suggest this has changed.

Found an old copy of the constitution online and it says


I'm guessing they have voted through a change to not have to have a re-election every year, did the thing about no director being permitted to be affirmed as a director on more than one occasion change as well as I think some of the board have been in place since 2016?

Has anyone got an up to date copy of the constitution?

The language in the current articles are slightly different. Very slightly, but critically.

It says a term is now 3 years and they may not be affirmed (re-elected) more than once. Suggesting a maximum term of 6 years, rather than the previous two year limit.

 

[mdingwall]

The language in the current articles are slightly different. Very slightly, but critically.

It says a term is now 3 years and they may not be affirmed (re-elected) more than once. Suggesting a maximum term of 6 years, rather than the previous two year limit.

I read and re-read but can't see an overall limited. The RST had a maximum span of 12 years.

 

[SE5]

The language in the current articles are slightly different. Very slightly, but critically.

It says a term is now 3 years and they may not be affirmed (re-elected) more than once. Suggesting a maximum term of 6 years, rather than the previous two year limit.

Trying to figure out if that just means they stand for election and then go through the same process again (Elected then affirmed - repeat to fade).

When I looked in to it a few years back it looks like I've wrongly assumed you could serve for a max of 2 years.

 

[SE5]

Original:

24.2. Unless otherwise approved by a Special Resolution of the Donating Members, each member of the Board of the Club 1872 Companies shall have to be annually elected to or affirmed in the office of Director following a vote of the Donating Members. Elections shall take place each September in accordance with the procedures set out in Schedule 3. A minimum of one-half of the Directors serving on the Board of the Company must seek re-election each year and no Director shall be permitted to be affirmed as a Director on more than one occasion. The directors appointed shall be those with the highest number of votes based on one vote for each Donating Member. The number of directors to be appointed and/ or affirmed each year shall be seven

Now:

The Board of the Company shall comprise up to 5 Directors and the term of appointment for a Director shall be 3 years (subject to such term of office being extended for a further 3 years where a Director is Affirmed). Those directors in office at the date of adoption of these Articles shall (subject to the terms of Article 23) remain in office for the remainder of the period of 3 years from the date on which they were appointed or Affirmed. A Director who has served a single term of office may, subject to being Affirmed, serve a second term of office as a Director. A Director may not be Affirmed on more than one consecutive occasion. Where a Director reaches the end of their term of office and is not Affirmed, Director elections shall take place in accordance with the procedures set out in Schedule 3. The Directors elected for appointment shall be those with the highest number of votes based on one vote for each Contributor. Once elected a Director shall be appointed in accordance with Article 22.2. Where a vacancy arises during the course of a term of office as a result of a director resigning or being removed as a Director without
7
fulfilling a full term of office, the Directors shall determine whether to conduct an ad hoc election to fill such vacancy. Where the Directors do not decide to hold an ad hoc election to fill a vacancy, the vacancy will be filled when the next election is held for a Director reaching the end of their term of office.

 

[Grsmith]

I pay my money into club1872 , I was originally paying in to Rangers First. I will be honest I have never taken a real interest in the running of it and have certainly never voted in any elections. So from this point onwards I take it I should continue paying and be more proactive and vote when elections come around ?

What type of person would we be happy with ?

 

[SE5]

Other change that sticks out

1. Candidates to stand as Director shall require one proposer and one seconder. The proposer and seconder must satisfy the eligibility criteria referred to at paragraph 2 of this Schedule.

is now

1. Candidates to stand as Director must be nominated by 15 Contributors. Nominating Contributors must satisfy the eligibility criteria referred to at paragraph 2 of this Schedule.

 

[CoplandKeklord]

Maximum of 5 Directors under current articles/rules then? A convenient number for the incumbents, always assuring a majority (assuming a further 2 directors are ever brought in).

What an absolute stitch up this is.

 

[LJ50]

Trying to figure out if that just means they stand for election and then go through the same process again (Elected then affirmed - repeat to fade).

When I looked in to it a few years back it looks like I've wrongly assumed you could serve for a max of 2 years.

My reading of it is that they can be elected-affirmed-elected-affirmed every three years as infinitum. The maximum term before reelection is six years, but the only distinction is that they have to “compete” in an election…something that’s a lot easier to do when you have such broad powers to disbar candidates based on a subjective judgment of their social media output. Albeit with the support of an “independent adjudicator”.

 

[LJ50]

I read and re-read but can't see an overall limited. The RST had a maximum span of 12 years.

There isn’t one Mark. There is no limit placed in the articles on Directors standing again and again for re-election every 6 years (assuming their are affirmed after each initial 3 year term).

 

[GeckoBear29]

I wasn’t a member but I know a lot of people who’ve cancelled off the back of this

 

[cambridgeblue]

Can’t imagine Dave King is going to get his dosh with this in the mix.

Surprised he teamed up with these amateurs.

 

[Barryhopez]

Could all the people who would like to help Club 1872 to succeed please drop me a PM and we can see what we can do to get this back to a proper one member one vote organisation would like to know what professional people would like to get involved, in confidence of course

Here's your power grab, right here...

 

[Chopper1974]

You would think, that people who love Rangers would pull together for the love of the club. Reading the OP makes me sad that we cant all pull in the same direction. Differences of opinion are fine but realising whats best for the supporters and the club should be the driving force and if you are in it for yourself thats not what we need.

I’d love to be involved with this kinda stuff but have zero experience or knowledge but it would be an absolute privilege to serve the Rangers family in any capacity, just makes me sad all the in fighting really

 

[EH47]

For some reason I have always been wary of fans groups, I don't know why, but I have never felt it desirable to join any, apart from ordinary supporters clubs for travelling to games, that is.
I only read up to the first few posts on page 2 of this thread and then jumped to the final page (page nine) but gave up immediately.
The whole thing is completely sickening, and I am just glad I do not have the "pleasure" of knowing any of the main players in this farce.
This whole fucking mess does absolutely no credit to the board of C1872 and in fact the revelations within this thread are probably classic fodder for those who would wish harm to Rangers FC.
The term "blazer-chaser" was never more apt.
I thought this kind of power grab was limited to small town bowling club committees, not to a group who constitute a major shareholder of Rangers.

And, we have the cheek to have a thread gloating at infighting at the Knew Camp...

 

[Robert Marshall]

Here's your power grab, right here...

Not by me, my proposal would leave me with no vote
If you have a better idea, let's hear it

 

[Raffles]

A FEW OBSERVATIONS ON THE CLUB 1872 CONSTITUTION

Firstly, the document I am working from is the one posted on the Companies House website entry for Club 1872 Shares Community Interest Company dated 28 January 2020. This is rather different from the one put up or discussion on the Club 1872 website on 11th June 2017 - https://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-constitution-consultation/ - and also from what appears to be the original Constitution listed here - https://club1872.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Constitution-1872.pdf

Secondly, I have no legal training and some of the wording is a little obscure and difficult to follow so bear with me if I have misunderstood anything.


NUMBER OF DIRECTORS

Originally these were 7 in number and has now been cut to 5. The result of the 2016 election was listed here - https://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-election-result/ - from memory I think the original rules meant you were in an absolutely constant stream of election and re-election.


ELECTIONS AND AFFIRMATIONS

The rules allow for Board members to be affirmed as well as elected. This is a slightly unusual concept for me as most organisations allow for co-options of members but normally these have to be confirmed at the next AGM by election.

Two of the current directors appear to have been affirmed - Laura and Euan - rather than elected - although Laura was elected in 2016. It’s a peculiar system which allows people put their names forward to continue as directors and unless anyone objects they are deemed elected. You can’t be affirmed twice in a row.

From memory - I think in 2017 there were 6 nominees for 7 seats so no election was held.

So, as the only directors elected for the period under consideration were Laura, Stuart MacQuarrie and Alan Fraser - the fact that two of those resigned may be cause for concern. Joanne and Euan were confirmed last February. Although not ideal they did not break any rules.


ANNUAL MEETING

Item 31.1 says “The Directors may call a meeting of the Contributors at ay time and will hold an annual meeting of the Contributors.” So there is a duty to call an annual meeting but there is no specification for when or what the business to be brought before it may be.

The 2017 prosed Rules had stated “The Directors shall procure that meetings of the Donating Members are held on at least four occasions per annum”.

Also, whilst there can be a vote on a resolution on the night all votes will be conducted by way of a poll on the website. This is a change from the proposed change to the rules which stipulated a show of hands at a meeting.

Calling an EGM is virtually impossible - it can be called by resolution of “5% of the Donating Members or (b) 250 of the Donating Members” - such is the technical difficulty in obtaining and verifying the 250 signatures that it’s impossible without the co-operation of the current directors.

Likewise, the Rules allow for members to call a Poll on any matter but that too requires “5% of the Donating Members or (b) 250 of the Donating Members”.

Mark, surely we have at least 250 paying contributors on here?
I’m happy to be a signatory to call an EGM or poll to push for changes to the board structure.
@Northampton_Loyalist @Robert Marshall I think this would be a productive first step toward driving change.
I don’t wish to clutter up the forum with another thread on this, so can we have replies here to see if there is enough support to reach 250 signatories please.

 

[govan_derriere]

Mark, surely we have at least 250 paying contributors on here?
I’m happy to be a signatory to call an EGM or poll to push for changes to the board structure.
@Northampton_Loyalist @Robert Marshall I think this would be a productive first step toward driving change.
I don’t wish to clutter up the forum with another thread on this, so can we have replies here to see if there is enough support to reach 250 signatories please.

As a paying contributor to C1872, I would happily sign up to call for an EGM.

 

[LJ50]

As a paying contributor to C1872, I would happily sign up to call for an EGM.

Likewise. It’s desperately needed.

 

[BigJC]

Let’s just remember that at their core Club 1872 are Rangers fans and got involved as they thought it was the right thing to do.

They are not at it. It may have outgrown the people running it, I don’t know but it is not their intention to harm the Club or the support I believe. It seemed and was a good idea at the time.

Perhaps the need is not as strong and a discussion needs to be about the need and purpose. In all walks of life sometimes the people closest to something just can’t see what’s going on. But, whatever the role is in the future they should have a safe distance from the Board, they should be able to criticise when appropriate. They should certainly not be controlled or overly influenced by a Board.

I did not take up the offer from Club 1872 as my personally view is that for the size (amount of money now involved) it needs to be professionally run, have proper due diligence and governance. That costs money of course, but I do think its time to think about the next stage of development for fan ownership and involvement. Club 1872 could and should lead this.

 

[Robert Marshall]

Let’s just remember that at their core Club 1872 are Rangers fans and got involved as they thought it was the right thing to do.

They are not at it. It may have outgrown the people running it, I don’t know but it is not their intention to harm the Club or the support I believe. It seemed and was a good idea at the time.

Perhaps the need is not as strong and a discussion needs to be about the need and purpose. In all walks of life sometimes the people closest to something just can’t see what’s going on. But, whatever the role is in the future they should have a safe distance from the Board, they should be able to criticise when appropriate. They should certainly not be controlled or overly influenced by a Board.

I did not take up the offer from Club 1872 as my personally view is that for the size (amount of money now involved) it needs to be professionally run, have proper due diligence and governance. That costs money of course, but I do think its time to think about the next stage of development for fan ownership and involvement. Club 1872 could and should lead this.

I have been contacted by various fans including a CA and a Solicitor willing to help
This would be the proper way to rub Club1872

 

[mdingwall]

As a paying contributor to C1872, I would happily sign up to call for an EGM.

I think it's likely that if you make a single error they will simply tell you the application for an EGM failed - then when you ask which proposer has missed a payment they will say they can't tell you for fear of breaking privacy laws and you'll just have to check it yourself and re-submit.

It's theoretically possible to call an EGM but in practical terms its highly unlikely to be successful.

 

[Raffles]

I think it's likely that if you make a single error they will simply tell you the application for an EGM failed - then when you ask which proposer has missed a payment they will say they can't tell you for fear of breaking privacy laws and you'll just have to check it yourself and re-submit.

It's theoretically possible to call an EGM but in practical terms its highly unlikely to be successful.

We have to try though.
There’s too much fans money tied up in it to simply accept the status quo

 

[falkirkbear]

As a paying contributor to C1872, I would happily sign up to call for an EGM.

Count me in, have been contributing from the start for both me and my son, was also a member of both RF and the RST beforehand too, whats going on just now is a complete shambles.

 

[Northampton_Loyalist]

I think that starting to take names is a good idea, get a little momentum running, but ultimately if hostility can be avoided, it should be. If the current board of C1872 were willing to meet with a group of concerned members, on the record, and answer questions that need to be answered, it would be a great start. Further steps could then be looked for, with legal action always remaining the option of last choice.

An EGM would be an intermediate step in the process and if it could be avoided, it should be.


As I said to Robert last night, I am happy to help in whatever way is needed but it is abundantly clear that the status quo cannot remain and that status quo so far includes radio silence from the current board members.

 

[Baloo72]

I think that starting to take names is a good idea, get a little momentum running, but ultimately if hostility can be avoided, it should be. If the current board of C1872 were willing to meet with a group of concerned members, on the record, and answer questions that need to be answered, it would be a great start. Further steps could then be looked for, with legal action always remaining the option of last choice.

An EGM would be an intermediate step in the process and if it could be avoided, it should be.


As I said to Robert last night, I am happy to help in whatever way is needed but it is abundantly clear that the status quo cannot remain and that status quo so far includes radio silence from the current board members.

I agree
I've thought that as a first step a letter signed by as many members as wish to sign it.

Two options requesting a meeting with the board to answer questions directly or a letter with a list of questions requesting answers.

I'm only suggesting this as a first step, as I'm unsure of the best approach and regardless of what we have all seen from Mark's post, the board have a right to respond.

 

[Northampton_Loyalist]

I agree
I've thought that as a first step a letter signed by as many members as wish to sign it.

Two options requesting a meeting with the board to answer questions directly or a letter with a list of questions requesting answers.

I'm only suggesting this as a first step, as I'm unsure of the best approach and regardless of what we have all seen from Mark's post, the board have a right to respond.

It is very easy to assume hostility from the current board to any approach for discussion and in fairness, history kind of backs it up. That said, if people with concerns do not at least try and open dialogue and instead go for the nuclear options, they immediately lose a good deal of the high ground over this.

The current board of C1872 absolutely have to be presented with a list of concerns and given an appropriate amount of time to answer them. If the answers are not forthcoming, or if they are not sufficient to allay fears, then further steps can and should be looked at.

I agree fully that a letter should be presented to the membership outlining issues and that signatories should be invited at that point. You would hope the board view that as constructive and an opportunity to address member concerns, rather than as anything sinister. if they failed to address the points raised, the letter and signatories could be used as the basis for looking to call an EGM.



As far as I understand it*, if the requirements are met for an EGM in terms of calling one, there is no requirement for the current board to ratify it and there is nothing they could do to block it. If special resolutions were passed at an EGM legally called and held, the current board would be legally bound to abide with decisions taken. That would mean that if they wanted a chance to represent their interests at any meeting, they would be far better off calling it themselves, rather than throwing up obstacles. As an escalation option, the EGM is a powerful option to have under those conditions, however I stress that I feel it should be the second to last resort, after legal proceedings, should an amicable way forwards not be found.


*I stand to be corrected, however this is my genuine belief as a layman.

 

[Baloo72]

It is very easy to assume hostility from the current board to any approach for discussion and in fairness, history kind of backs it up. That said, if people with concerns do not at least try and open dialogue and instead go for the nuclear options, they immediately lose a good deal of the high ground over this.

The current board of C1872 absolutely have to be presented with a list of concerns and given an appropriate amount of time to answer them. If the answers are not forthcoming, or if they are not sufficient to allay fears, then further steps can and should be looked at.

I agree fully that a letter should be presented to the membership outlining issues and that signatories should be invited at that point. You would hope the board view that as constructive and an opportunity to address member concerns, rather than as anything sinister. if they failed to address the points raised, the letter and signatories could be used as the basis for looking to call an EGM.



As far as I understand it*, if the requirements are met for an EGM in terms of calling one, there is no requirement for the current board to ratify it and there is nothing they could do to block it. If special resolutions were passed at an EGM legally called and held, the current board would be legally bound to abide with decisions taken. That would mean that if they wanted a chance to represent their interests at any meeting, they would be far better off calling it themselves, rather than throwing up obstacles. As an escalation option, the EGM is a powerful option to have under those conditions, however I stress that I feel it should be the second to last resort, after legal proceedings, should an amicable way forwards not be found.


*I stand to be corrected, however this is my genuine belief as a layman.

That is very much my thinking, and you have put it much better than I could have.

I’ve just passed Stuart’s email to a couple of people I know, be interesting to hear their response.

 

[colin stein 9]

There has been negativity surrounding the current board of Club 1872 for some time now stretching at least back to the resignation of Rev. MacQuarrie. Has there been any sort of response from them? I’m not aware of any.

Their website doesn’t list the number of ordinary members but it does list the numbers making a legacy donation (to purchase Dave King’s shares).

Home - Club 1872Club 1872

Club 1872 has one clear and common purpose for all those who hold Rangers dear – to maintain and protect Rangers Football Club.

club1872.co.uk

They have a target of 20,000 and as of this morning the number signed up stands at 1,565. When this thread started it was 1,571. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the revelations in Rev. MacQuarrie’s email have led to 6 people withdrawing and if that is the case it is also reasonable to assume that there will have been a similar effect on the number of ordinary members. That alone should lead to some sort of response from the board of Club 1872.

 

[RoyalBlue1]

I don't personally know any if these individuals. I've just read the post in its entirety and it appears the three amigos are attempting to form a wee cabal which will ensure control of Club1872 and power over the members.

2 years should be the length of anyones tenure on that board, 3 years absolute maximum for continuity in extreme circumstances.

They don't speak for me as I'm no longer a member but this is of serious concern for every Bear if the shareholding significantly increases.

 

[scottbear75]

As a paying contributor to C1872, I would happily sign up to call for an EGM.

Me too.

 

[TruBluStu23]

Me too.

As a paying contributor to C1872, I would happily sign up to call for an EGM.

Same goes for me.

 

[Porto Loyal]

From memory, the number of directors was reduced as they had difficulty getting people to fill the positions. I think (hope) that the fact it gives the incumbents a built in majority is just co-incidence

 

[thevietnambear]

Count me in, a Life Member of Club1872

 

[Roscoblue]

Chris Graham will never get over having his club privileges taken off him when King resigned from the board. Club 1872 will never progress with the current board members in charge and many won’t sign back up with them at the table. I’d love to know the last time the org was audited.

Let’s not call them ‘Club privelages’. He was getting 70 GRAND a year for doing fûck all.

 

[Hillheadbear]

From memory, the number of directors was reduced as they had difficulty getting people to fill the positions. I think (hope) that the fact it gives the incumbents a built in majority is just co-incidence

That is typical of membership organisations. Our Home Owners Association always had great difficulty getting anyone to serve on the Board. We also reduced the size of the Board from 7 to 5 and, even then, a lot of the elections went uncontested.

In my experience, members love to complain but don't actually want to do any of the work.

In the case of C1872 and given the difficulty in getting candidates, the eligibility conditions do seem overly onerous and that gives rise to the perception that it has become a closed shop. The allegations made in the letter just add to that perception. It could well be that the current Board members have done no wrong but perception matters and mud sticks.

I'm a believer in the strategic aim of C1872 in acquiring a blocking vote. I think that is a good and necessary objective. However, I haven't seen anything which suggests that they know how to achieve this. I appreciate that I'm open to the accusation of just being another complainer. But I do have money to invest and it is their job - and not mine - to create a structure that I'm happy with.

 

[mdingwall]

From memory, the number of directors was reduced as they had difficulty getting people to fill the positions. I think (hope) that the fact it gives the incumbents a built in majority is just co-incidence

The Trust had positions for 20 directors.

 

[LJ50]

That is typical of membership organisations. Our Home Owners Association always had great difficulty getting anyone to serve on the Board. We also reduced the size of the Board from 7 to 5 and, even then, a lot of the elections went uncontested.

In my experience, members love to complain but don't actually want to do any of the work.

In the case of C1872 and given the difficulty in getting candidates, the eligibility conditions do seem overly onerous and that gives rise to the perception that it has become a closed shop. The allegations made in the letter just add to that perception. It could well be that the current Board members have done no wrong but perception matters and mud sticks.

I'm a believer in the strategic aim of C1872 in acquiring a blocking vote. I think that is a good and necessary objective. However, I haven't seen anything which suggests that they know how to achieve this. I appreciate that I'm open to the accusation of just being another complainer. But I do have money to invest and it is their job - and not mine - to create a structure that I'm happy with.

The thing that makes me very cynical about the change in the number of Directors in December 2019 is that is didn't reduce the minimum number of Directors - which would have made sense for the reasons you outline, frequently such bodies end up without quorum - but it stipulated a maximum number of Directors... "up to 5".

I hope it is coincidence and not intentional that the maximum number of Directors left the three incumbents with a majority, but given the questionable governance and allegations raised, I fear that may have been deliberate.

If they were struggling to get the required 7 directors then there was no need to make 5 the maximum.

 

[BSOI]

My tuppence worth as I read this thread.

I would rather contribute towards the Union Bears and what they do for the promotion of our great club than put a penny towards Another fan based organisation filled with self promotion and self interest.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I seem to recall one of the last emails from c1872 thanking the recipient for their unwavering support.

I wavered a long time ago.

The treatment of Christine certainly didn't make me want to give them cash let alone look after shares on my behalf.

Hopefully some other vehicle comes along or individuals can buy shares and hold in my name rather than theirs.

 

[Bluebearjim]

Count me in, a Life Member of Club1872

Count me in, I'm also a life member of Club 1872
Been following this thread and it's quite disturbing to read how those on the board have such power.

 

[Southsideblueblood]

Let's hope the club keep them at arms length. Run like a corrupt wee bowling club.

 

[Christine1872]

It is very difficult for an individual to find 15 members, as Mark will tell you. I struggled and if it hadn’t been for contacts I knew from the RST, I don’t think I could have got there.

 

[Baloo72]

It is very difficult for an individual to find 15 members, as Mark will tell you. I struggled and if it hadn’t been for contacts I knew from the RST, I don’t think I could have got there.

Definitely something that should be changed, not sure why you would need more than one or two, restricts people who are not big social media users

Other thing is the term in office, 12 months was too short with never ending elections, but clearly its gone too far the other way

 

[cambridgeblue]

Anyone wants a member to nominate them then I’m game. This can’t go on.

 

[LJ50]

Definitely something that should be changed, not sure why you would need more than one or two, restricts people who are not big social media users

Other thing is the term in office, 12 months was too short with never ending elections, but clearly its gone too far the other way

A number of us suggested that at the outset; a two year term would be the ideal balance.

Agree with you and @Christine1872 regarding the ridiculous number of proposers needed. I genuinely don’t think I could muster that many, for example. Granted I haven’t lived in Glasgow for +20 years, but between friends, family and my RSC I doubt I’d be able to get to double figures. There will be loads of qualified professionals in a similar position, but it wouldn’t make their background any less impressive to members if they were given the chance to be put forward to them. 6-8 proposers would be more than sufficient, there is no justification for the requirement to be as high as 15.

 

[Baloo72]

A number of us suggested that at the outset; a two year term would be the ideal balance.

Agree with you and @Christine1872 regarding the ridiculous number of proposers needed. I genuinely don’t think I could muster that many, for example. Granted I haven’t lived in Glasgow for +20 years, but between friends, family and my RSC I doubt I’d be able to get to double figures. There will be loads of qualified professionals in a similar position, but it wouldn’t make their background any less impressive to members if they were given the chance to be put forward to them. 6-8 proposers would be more than sufficient, there is no justification for the requirement to be as high as 15.

Agree completely on the term, there also should be a maximum 4 or 6 years I would suggest, with a least a 2/4 year gap.

I don't know 15 other members and that's me including people that I know in passing, from the pub etc.
Anything I've ever been a member of, you need a proposer and a second, genuinely cant think of why you should need more than that, it's not as if we have qualified candidates queued round the block.

 

[LJ50]

Agree completely on the term, there also should be a maximum 4 or 6 years I would suggest, with a least a 2/4 year gap.

I don't know 15 other members and that's me including people that I know in passing, from the pub etc.
Anything I've ever been a member of, you need a proposer and a second, genuinely cant think of why you should need more than that, it's not as if we have qualified candidates queued round the block.

Correct. Two year term, and no more than two consecutive terms. Remove the affirmation, unless they are standing unopposed in which case it’s a de facto affirmation.

I appreciate the current directors will say they’ve extended the term because others aren’t willing to stand. But all the evidence suggests these three have made it extremely difficult to work with them, so it’s no surprise there is a lack of will from outside particularly now they've limited the size of the Board to five, because two new directors will never be able to carry anything against them.