“More members, more shares, more power,” Celtic Trust increase shareholding to 15,000 shares – That’s just 0.001%

Celtic Trust held an open forum zoom meeting at the weekend which was attended by around 300 supporters and they have been very active in recent weeks in driving membership and social media levels up amid increasing unrest among the Celtic support as results and performances on the park have gone from bad to worse.

“Share announcement,” Celtic Trust tweeted this morning, adding, “For the second time this week, the flow of subscriptions has been such that more shares have been purchased today (Wednesday 9/12/2020). More members, more shares, more power.”

Their pinned tweet says this: “Just a few things:
1. If you need an answer email us – tweets can be missed.
2. Membership is a two-stage process: registration and then subscription
3. The website is being tweaked in response to feedback from users esp mobile users
Onwards and upwards!”

Celtic Trust now own 15,000 shares in Celtic, which represents a tiny percentage of the shareholding.

We have received numerous messages and emails asking if we recommend that supporters should support Celtic Trust and asking us to explain what it is that they stand for. That though really is something that Celtic Trust themselves should do and should communicate with the support, especially if they are looking to get 50,000 supporters to each give them £10 per month to buy shares in the club, as they tweeted a few days ago.

We are happy to interview anyone from Celtic Trust and to put questions to them on behalf of supporters.

There is no doubt that Celtic Trust is clearly gaining momentum amid the current Celtic crisis. “We now have over 20,000 twitter followers. If half this number become @TheCelticTrust members and subscribed at £10 per month we would have an annual budget of £1.2 million to buy Celtic shares. Ownership = Influence” is another tweet.

Rather than try to explain our own thoughts on Celtic Trust, we reckon that if they want fans to give them this kind of financial commitments in our ten of thousands then they have an obligation to explain in detail their plans and objectives, what this money would be used for and whether the shares bought would be in the individuals’ names or Celtic Trust’s.

In the meantime the following conversation on social media is well worth a read as perhaps it touches on some of these matters, gives some answers and probably raises more questions that supporters might want answered before they get fully on board with this project.

Celtic Trust: “Share purchase announcement: Based on the subscriptions built up in the last two days, the Trust is delighted to announce that we have today increased our shareholding in Celtic PLC . We will make further purchases on a regular basis as funds permit.”

We Won It First: “What percentage of shares do the Trust own in Celtic PLC?”

Celtic Trust: “Very small…for now.”

We’re Glasgow Celtic: “What exactly though. Would be good to know so we can see the improvement in future.”

Celtic Trust: “I will check in the morning but it will be very small.”

MadSweeneyHH: Suggest you put it in context with other shareholders. e.g. Peter Lawwell has 0.38% (yes, less than 1)…

Celtic Trust: “If the total number of shares is 94444014 then we own 0.001% . So the plan would be to buy more but also to mobilise the roughly 25% held by the smaller shareholders. The only measure of this we have at the minute is that we have been able to mobilise 3% at AGMs. Long road.”

Brogan Rogan Trevino: “Why not list the 12 largest shareholders and their percentage holding to let fans/season ticket holders see how concentrated majority ownership actually is. The fan ownership suggested long ago was a totally undeliverable myth. Minority shareholding unity and organisation isn’t.”

Barcabhoy: “The trading value level in Celtic shares are minimal. There have been virtually no sellers for the last 9 months.”

Brogan Rogan Trevino: “Yes I understand that totally. Celtic stock is not a get rich quick stock where money can be made on a volatile share price. Otherwise Nick Train would not invest as that type of holding does not meet his investment criteria.”

Barcabhoy: “My point was that anyone wanting to build a shareholding will face a challenge. Who is going to sell to the Trust? I’d far rather own shares personally than hand voting rights to any organisation.”

Brogan Rogan Trevino: “Yes I can understand that however some will see the trust as a vehicle for a “common” ownership of some shares as opposed to many small private ownerships. Like a Co-operative. No doubt many people will prefer one route or the other.”

Barcabhoy: “Personal preference. I’m highly sceptical of Trusts overall. Club 1872 seems like a recipe for disaster to me, with individuals with no or little personal wealth there using other people’s money to try and get influence. Decision to buy King’s shares crazy in my view.”

Barcabhoy: In general I’d never hand my voting rights over to anyone. Every shareholder can vote in their own name. If their interests align with others then great. No need for proxy. Controlling your own voting removes risk of others with questionable or personal ambitions.

Andy: “Think that’s fine if you got an engaged shareholding. One of the main aims simply to get folk using their vote at all.”

Barcabhoy: “Except the direction of voting would be shaped by a tiny number, as happens at Club 1872. Individual shareholders have voting rights now. Whatever way they vote is down to them/us, not based on someone else’s agenda. I’d encourage all individual shareholders to vote personally.”

Bobby Grant: “So are the Trust suggesting folk in effect give them money for shares to be bought in the trusts name? So no ownership for the people paying the money?”

Barcabhoy: “As I understand it they want the proxy of fans so that the Trust votes for fans, as well as wanting subscription to buy shares. Each to their own, but I don’t need anyone else telling me how to vote or whether to vote or spending my money for me.”

Auldheid: “The old no one speaks for me argument means no one speaks for all and sometimes all or many share the same view on an issue but there is no mechanism to establish what leading concerns are and articulate them. That mechanism needs built and as long as it allows views to be heard.”

Bobby Grant: “Not sure if that’s how the Foundation of Hearts works? Is there a Hibs equivalent as well? But yeah if putting hands in my own pocket, I want any shares to be in my name!”

Brogan Rogan Trevino: “Pretty sure you can be a member of the trust and retain your shares in your own name and at an AGM you can vote with the trust if you want, have the trust vote your shares, if you want, or vote your own way again if you want.”

Celtic Trust: “Almost true – a condition of membership is that you vote your own shares in line with Trust policy as determined by you and everyone else. You can vote them directly or give your proxy to the Trust.”

Just one more thing: “Hmm, whilst I support the current aims of the Trust, agreeing in advance to always voting with the Trust on any issue seems a bit too much.”

Celtic Trust: “You are voting with the majority of your fellow Trust members – not some entity called The Trust. That is a message we seem to have great difficulty in getting across.”

About Author

The Celtic Star founder and editor, who has edited numerous Celtic books over the past decade or so including several from Lisbon Lions, Willie Wallace, Tommy Gemmell and Jim Craig. Earliest Celtic memories include a win over East Fife at Celtic Park and the 4-1 League Cup loss to Partick Thistle as a 6 year old. Best game? Easy 4-2, 1979 when Ten Men Won the League. Email editor@thecelticstar.co.uk

Comments are closed.