Follow Rangers Shareholders Limited

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, thebooler said:

Info is all on wesite.

It's not I'm afraid. I've had a look and don't see any info on where and what the membership and joining fees will be used to cover other than an anti-fraud thing that is only used IF a member decides to leave.

Should the company reach a similar membership as C1872 then 7000 of them paying £12 a year in membership fees will generate £84k p/a. In addition to £210k in initial joining fees. That's a lot of money with virtually no explanation of where it is going.

There's no information as to how a member's contribution will be recorded. Shares are held by the company until such a time a member decides to leave. Do they get the shares their contributions paid for at value they were paid for or do they get them at the value on the date they decide to leave. If the latter, what happens with any surplus shares in the event the sales are ultimately sold/the company is wound up?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,508]

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 

Wheres the fun in contacting them when I can just bleat about it on here and demand transparency?

It is now apparently. 

A belated interest in such transparency and accountability but you're absolutely spot on to do so.

Perhaps though the fact a few on here have commented on it or put it into but aren't in any way controlling or influencing it might result in inaccurate responses to your many queries. For factual and accurate responses clearly going direct would be wisest. But you know that already...

 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

It is now apparently. 

A belated interest in such transparency and accountability but you're absolutely spot on to do so.

Perhaps though the fact a few on here have commented on it or put it into but aren't in any way controlling or influencing it might result in inaccurate responses to your many queries. For factual and accurate responses clearly going direct would be wisest. But you know that already...

 

Certainly not a belated interest. As a member in C1872 I had a keen interest in the same from them. In fact, it was a primary reason as to why I ended my individual subscription.

I did know that it would be easier to go direct to the source. However, it's also pretty fair to say it is valid questions I'm asking. I do find it a wee bit entertaining though that some of the posters who spent so much of their time demanding transparency from others are quite happy for pretty big unanswered questions over where money is going.

[thebooler 4,509]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It's not I'm afraid. I've had a look and don't see any info on where and what the membership and joining fees will be used to cover other than an anti-fraud thing that is only used IF a member decides to leave.

Should the company reach a similar membership as C1872 then 7000 of them paying £12 a year in membership fees will generate £84k p/a. In addition to £210k in initial joining fees. That's a lot of money with virtually no explanation of where it is going.

There's no information as to how a member's contribution will be recorded. Shares are held by the company until such a time a member decides to leave. Do they get the shares their contributions paid for at value they were paid for or do they get them at the value on the date they decide to leave. If the latter, what happens with any surplus shares in the event the sales are ultimately sold/the company is wound up?

Ask the right people. Contact details are on the website.

[thebooler 4,509]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Certainly not a belated interest. As a member in C1872 I had a keen interest in the same from them. In fact, it was a primary reason as to why I ended my individual subscription.

I did know that it would be easier to go direct to the source. However, it's also pretty fair to say it is valid questions I'm asking. I do find it a wee bit entertaining though that some of the posters who spent so much of their time demanding transparency from others are quite happy for pretty big unanswered questions over where money is going.

I know exactly where my money's going.

It's you who doesn't know.

Like I said, contact them and ask.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,508]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Certainly not a belated interest. As a member in C1872 I had a keen interest in the same from them. In fact, it was a primary reason as to why I ended my individual subscription.

I did know that it would be easier to go direct to the source. However, it's also pretty fair to say it is valid questions I'm asking. I do find it a wee bit entertaining though that some of the posters who spent so much of their time demanding transparency from others are quite happy for pretty big unanswered questions over where money is going.

Was thinking more about lionbrand and sos but perhaps my memory is failing me.

Your questions are very valid.  But with 1872 did you go to those who put into it or those in charge when seeking those answers?

Has anyone sought to hide anything or prevent transparency? I don't see that. I see folk who are happy to put their own money and are encouraging you to go to source with your relevant and appropriate questions. I mean I can only imagine if you happened to be given an inaccuracy the furore if you thought it was deliberate....

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, thebooler said:

I know exactly where my money's going.

It's you who doesn't know.

Like I said, contact them and ask.

Everybody's normally so keen to talk about these sort of things when it is folk who could be making money off the mythical blue pound

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,508]

Just now, The Dude said:

Everybody's normally so keen to talk about these sort of things when it is folk who could be making money off the mythical blue pound

We're on page 8. Seems to be going well so far. It is only day 2. Perhaps an approach to one of those whose names are behind this could be made to make an appearance on here.

Question for you. Is your interest personal or work related. Are you interested in this or are you doing digging in the name of a transparency crusader?

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Was thinking more about lionbrand and sos but perhaps my memory is failing me.

Your questions are very valid.  But with 1872 did you go to those who put into it or those in charge when seeking those answers?

Has anyone sought to hide anything or prevent transparency? I don't see that. I see folk who are happy to put their own money and are encouraging you to go to source with your relevant and appropriate questions. I mean I can only imagine if you happened to be given an inaccuracy the furore if you thought it was deliberate....

With LB I always said that it was up to people who wanted to buy it  that it was up to them but I wouldn't give them a penny for that reason. If you wanted to give money to the club just go put £40 in an envelope and post it the club if you REALLY need to give them money.

If you want to do something that buys shares then do it yourself. Don't do it through Buy Rangers, RF, C1872, FR or any other group that doesn't give you the chance as a shareholder to directly pose the questions you want to pose the board. That's the fucking point in buying shares.

SOS? Never had much time for them although had limited interactions and didn't care for their methods - and again it wasn't something I didn't say. Boycotting was up to each individual but it wasn't something I would argue for - or do since buy pretty much no Rangers merch. Programmes at a game, the odd t-shirt, home shirt and that's about it and even then I've not bought a home shirt in a few years since I'm in my 30s and more often than not now when I'm at a game I'm there in a professional capacity so cant wear it and don't really wear football tops about the house since it's a pretty fucking dear t-shirt for dossing about the house getting stoned.

Tbh, if I'm given an inaccuracy - deliberate or otherwise - it wouldn't be held against FR. They'll be judged on what they do and not what someone on here says. I'm just curious if those who advocate so strongly against blind faith giving my money to one group on the internet with questions over where money goes instead argue to do exactly that for another.

[The Dude 20,026]

6 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

We're on page 8. Seems to be going well so far. It is only day 2. Perhaps an approach to one of those whose names are behind this could be made to make an appearance on here.

Question for you. Is your interest personal or work related. Are you interested in this or are you doing digging in the name of a transparency crusader?

No work-related interest. Just being curious really. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,508]

10 minutes ago, The Dude said:

With LB I always said that it was up to people who wanted to buy it  that it was up to them but I wouldn't give them a penny for that reason. If you wanted to give money to the club just go put £40 in an envelope and post it the club if you REALLY need to give them money.

If you want to do something that buys shares then do it yourself. Don't do it through Buy Rangers, RF, C1872, FR or any other group that doesn't give you the chance as a shareholder to directly pose the questions you want to pose the board. That's the fucking point in buying shares.

SOS? Never had much time for them although had limited interactions and didn't care for their methods - and again it wasn't something I didn't say. Boycotting was up to each individual but it wasn't something I would argue for - or do since buy pretty much no Rangers merch. Programmes at a game, the odd t-shirt, home shirt and that's about it and even then I've not bought a home shirt in a few years since I'm in my 30s and more often than not now when I'm at a game I'm there in a professional capacity so cant wear it and don't really wear football tops about the house since it's a pretty fucking dear t-shirt for dossing about the house getting stoned.

Tbh, if I'm given an inaccuracy - deliberate or otherwise - it wouldn't be held against FR. They'll be judged on what they do and not what someone on here says. I'm just curious if those who advocate so strongly against blind faith giving my money to one group on the internet with questions over where money goes instead argue to do exactly that for another.

I'd suggest that's not the only "fucking point" in buying shares. Investing in the club, legacy, personal gratification, gifts, .... plenty reasons. Probably the reason you've given is a lesser one for rank and file if they're not one of the placemen at the AGM.

Not sure it's blind faith for those who know the integrity of those behind it. I dont personally so am still looking into it and learning more by the hour. I'm liking what I'm seeing but I'm not there yet.

But you crack on with those questions, I'm sincere in that they're good ones. If no answers come from FR directly then do let us all know as that's what we should all be guarded against. I'm not sure you will contact them though, I think your interest is limited to here.

[The Dude 20,026]

11 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

I'd suggest that's not the only "fucking point" in buying shares. Investing in the club, legacy, personal gratification, gifts, .... plenty reasons. Probably the reason you've given is a lesser one for rank and file if they're not one of the placemen at the AGM.

Not sure it's blind faith for those who know the integrity of those behind it. I dont personally so am still looking into it and learning more by the hour. I'm liking what I'm seeing but I'm not there yet.

But you crack on with those questions, I'm sincere in that they're good ones. If no answers come from FR directly then do let us all know as that's what we should all be guarded against. I'm not sure you will contact them though, I think your interest is limited to here.

My interest pretty much is limited to here. I wouldn't be handing them a penny of my money. Fan-spivs or something.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,508]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

My interest pretty much is limited to here. I wouldn't be handing them a penny of my money. Fan-spivs or something.

Not handing them a penny is absolutely your right. Letting yourself down with that final remark but each to their own.

[thebooler 4,509]

52 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Everybody's normally so keen to talk about these sort of things when it is folk who could be making money off the mythical blue pound

I know that nobody is making money from me, other than our club. I'm not buying shares to make money. I'll transfer to my niece when the times right, to keep them in the family.

If I even suspected "blue pound chasers" I wouldn't enrol. It's really that simple.

If you don't feel comfortable with it, that's fine. Don't part with your cash.

As I've already told you, the group are transparent - put your questions to them. I'm sure you'll get an honest reply.

As for lying, don't ever again liken me to our SLO, who knew exactly what was going on. I'm only a supporter joining the group.

Count that as your first and last warning on that matter.

[thehost 11,061]

On ‎18‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 21:49, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Not handing them a penny is absolutely your right. Letting yourself down with that final remark but each to their own.

he has a personal agenda against one of the current board members, no idea why he isn't up front about that?

[rbr 364]

I don't see how this group can be taken seriously , if they get a decent shareholding and that's a massive if , the very fact that any member can remove their shares at any time must undermine the whole concept IMHO . I also don't agree with having no say , you basically pay our money , proxy your shares , shut up and have to let them decide what they want , club1872 may have plenty of flaws but it doesn't have those basic 2 , again it's only my opinion .

[FlippinEck 3,758]

Another group

[Blue Avenger 22,568]

Firstly I am all for a single united fans group that is truly independpent and representative of the ordinary fan. I am however against fan ownership as a principle. As we witness in the C1872 model, with independence being lost, along with holding a board accountable, as fan shareholding will be minimal and the group just brushed aside when they are at odds with board policy. 

They simply just fail to recognise that the biggest influence over any board to be harvested, is from the paying customer in it's buying power and not in shareholders, as with minimal shareholding that can be diluted and worse in being rendered worthless in an admin event, as the power of the paying customer never dies.

I don't doubt the good intentions of the current formation of this new scheme but why the fuck make it another shareholding vehicle. Apart from the minmal shareholder power not making any difference to board policy, it misses the point in where the true influence really lies, in the fan base at large, where the power of the paying customer is omnipotent. Organise them without all this share holding pish and you have a group in whom the board will listen to in  having the buying power of around 18 million a year in ST's alone that would rock the foundation of King's bunker in Jo'burg

Also where large sums of money are involved in being administered by what is no more than ordinary fans , there will always be suspicions, particularly when things are not going so well and scapegoating then follows, some valid, others no so valid. Just look at the fucking state of 1872!

As in all businesses, the power of the paying customer is what is important, not the the power of the shareholder. Customers decide wether a business lives or dies. Customer  loyalty will only stretch so far and continually fail to meet their expectations, they will spend their hard earned cash elsewhere and the business will die. None know this more than a company's board and in our case and in all that 1872 can provide, they are guilding the lilly and mistaking loyalty for weakness and they were right, up until the calamities of this week. In that if nothing changes soon in a new manager, further investment and so on, we will start to see what is called "strategic drift" in the trade, where the business and customer are no longer aligned and the chasm widens to the tipping point where the business does not have the income to survive.

So I say, yes to a united fan fan group, but keep it simple and keep it a mile away from vested interests in shareholding. Champion the cause of the ordinary fan by harnessing the power  of their buying buying power in ST's and retail.

Have the founders made up of honourable people and any subsequent leadership voted from the ordinary fan base, with none of the usual suspects involved and NO connections to them.

Have simple and clear objectives and make joining a simple process, not a bureaucratic vetting process, as that simply puts off the ordinary fan and weaken uptake. Make the joining and annual membership fees minimal, in being equitable to support the services to be provided. Openness, honesty, integrity and good governance the order of the day, led by good and honourable people. 

It needs to be a foundation of good and worthy causes, but the main thrust to hold the stewards of this great institution to account. 

All about keeping the fans informed and listening to them in turn. Taking forward their concerns and worries and confronting the board with them to get answers and resolution. Gettting the board to improve the match day experience, but more importantly, getting a title winning side on the park within a business model of sustainability.

To add further value and credibility, such a group could also include some charitable interests and provide support in help and advice  to supporters who have a need. Set up initiatives to support the club, or the local community or whatever the members deem appropriate in those areas.

In conclusion, yes to a united fan group, but no to one that involves shareholding, as that only leads to vested interests, colusion and conflict as we see demonstrated in C1872.

Having a group of say 20,000 ST holders, the paying customers, as opposed to shareholders, would send shivers down the spine of any board , knowing if that group ever made a threat to cut off the money supply. You better believe they are fucking listening, all the way back to the Jo'burg bunker.

 

 

 

 

 

[Virtuoso 27,180]

I read on FF that certain people have issues with DG being sole director yet a look on companies house shows that James Blair is still the sole director of Rangers First:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08904536/officers

With Club1872 only having significant control - which means nothing in the bigger scheme of things if you look at the nature of their control:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08904536/persons-with-significant-control:

Yet we are continually told that James Blair no longer has any involvement with Club1872 and that there's no conflict of interest - yet he's the sole director of Rangers First which is still an active company?

Why hasn't it been wound up or JB removed / replaced at least?

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

3 hours ago, Virtuoso said:

I read on FF that certain people have issues with DG being sole director yet a look on companies house shows that James Blair is still the sole director of Rangers First:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08904536/officers

With Club1872 only having significant control - which means nothing in the bigger scheme of things if you look at the nature of their control:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08904536/persons-with-significant-control:

Yet we are continually told that James Blair no longer has any involvement with Club1872 and that there's no conflict of interest - yet he's the sole director of Rangers First which is still an active company?

Why hasn't it been wound up or JB removed / replaced at least?

There’s a clause in the articles of club 1872 that removes all rights attached to him being the shareholder (not director as you say) and gives all the rights to the board of directors & paying members.