thesins

There were no votes taken on any issues last night when I was in the room and I did not go out for any reason whilst the meeting was in progress.

 

That said I see no reason to distrust any of those involved.

 

I also have little doubt that RF will very quickly overtake the BR in terms of monthly contributors (under 200?) and that whilst everyone is entitled to make their own choice or no choice the whole (BRF?) would be worth far more than the sum of the parts.

 

In any event, as was suggested last night, the RST/BR will soon have to consider whether they shouldn't transfer their holdings to the CIC for the greater good.

As a BuyRangers member I would politely tell those involved with RangersFirst to gtf and leave the actual BuyRangers members to decide what to do with our shares. RangersFirst have no say at all over it and neither to SDS. It is massive arrogance from anyone to assume the BuyRangers members would want to do this.

Why is ownership a stumbling block when I've seen RST people saying elsewhere that the fans collectively have about a 12% shareholding?

 

James Easdale got a seat on the board with under 400k shares to his name at the time of his appointment, so why couldn't a couple of fans representing the wider group of fan shareholders AND one representing a membership scheme both get seats on the club board?

 

The fan representing the membership scheme could obviously only be appointed to the club board, but the fan representing the 12% (or whatever that figure eventually becomes) of fan shareholders could potentially be appointed to both the holding company board and the club board. Am I wrong, or is that theoretically possible?

Easdale owned very little shares but he had the backing of a large portion of the shareholders. Similar to Walter Smith and Malcolm Murray.

Being on the board and owning shares are totally different. But ultimately the shareholders decide who is on the board so shareholding is where the real power is.

There are a number of possibilities:

 

1. An option of subscribing for shares could be offered alongside the membership fee.
   
4. The structure of the Club might be altered
   
7. Members might be offered new shares
   
10. If the membership scheme is successful in giving fans a voice on certain issues then they might be encouraged to have a greater voice by becoming shareholders.
    
12. A benevolent existing shareholder might be inclined to gift shares to a members block rather than sell on the open market
    

 

I am sure there are more.

Or alternatively fans pump millions more into the club to be a member, vote on someone on the board (who is completely ignored) and the current inhabitants continue to pay themselves exorbitant bonuses with even more of the fans money.

Membership works at clubs who have majority, or at least a large minority, level of ownership as then the membership has a proper say. I would back a membership scheme if I knew it was going to help the club but at the current time when we are leaking cash all over it would be the worst time possible to do so.

Two new board members, the treasurer and PLG.

 

Other point noted and should be sorted soon.

Lets hope Paul Le Guen is better at managing finances than he was a football team!

not sure about that when you know who is involved with that organisation.

I can confirm I've received my GerSave money back. Sure others could too. Rumours like that with no basis which can be proven to be a lie do nobody any good. I'd like to see proof of any such allegations.

I have some comments and questions but it's late so I'll start with two:

 

Why use an English firm of solicitors whose furthest north office is in the fair city of Manchester and who have been widely and roundly criticised throughout the Trust movement in Scotland (including members of the current Council and particularly by the current Chair of Supporters Direct Scotland) for their inability to provide Scottish legal advice.

 

Why were Cobbetts not at the meeting today?

 

Of course, I know the answers to both these questions but I'll let you all have some guesses first.

Are laws governing Industrial & Provident Societies not UK wide so not specific to Scotland? Also why would lawyers need to be present at a press launch? I know I wouldn't want to foot the bill for a partner in a law firm to come to Glasgow from, at closest Manchester, for what is really a photo opportunity.

Maybe now someone has attempted an answer you could enlighten us with your own answer?

I think that you can take on board the high level messages, but wouldn't pay too much attention to Pritchett's detail. He obviously didn't fully understand things.

After reading that..kind of glad he didnt take over. Sounds like he was going to not spend much more than Hearts/Hibs and hire an American manager to get away from Western European influence.

What I have been trying to say for a while now.

 

The majority will do as they see fit, and the various groups need to get out there away from the internet.

 

The majority of Rangers people I associate with wouldn't know the RST from the Assembly etc. or FF from RM, or Vanguard Bears.

Agreed 100%. I spend ages online and when the USP was formed it was big news on all sites. Then at my RSC meeting it wasn't even mentioned.

Truth of the matter is vast majority of support don't care about groups and see any fighting or divisive statements as ridiculous and puts punters off the idea of groups altogether.

Everyone that posts on forums or on twitter is a loony anyway. Quite right they are ignored!

No, I honestly don't think I would mate. Even at the lowest point in our history we can't genuinely unite as a fanbase and that worries me a lot more than anything else.

A properly structured democratically system being implemented by the club right now could be ideal to bring the fans together as one unit. But it would have to be open to all and not along the lines of the USP statement which was childish. I'd hope also if the club endorsed a 100% democratic yet independent group new people might come forward to get over any of the old nonsense.

Seems a bit strange that two website (Rangers Media & CoplandRoad.org) had their names on the statement yet RM requested to be removed and CRO appear to not even have read it before it came out. Add to this RTID tweeting about wishing to be removed as they hadnt be consulted and its a very strange affair.

How many people did see the USP statement before it was released with all these groups names on it?

So if we draw Celtic at Parkhead no Rangers fans should go and we let them fill it with 60k of their own kind? Bit premature I think.

RangersUnite did not walk out. Asked to leave following statement.

If they read out the statement on their site then they were walking away from the whole process anyway so being asked to leave doesnt seem like a strange course of action to be honest.

If they arent going to be involved in the process, and are actually looking to harm the process, its quite understandable that they were asked to leasve.

Anything involving the RST then I'm out wouldn't trust them with the sugar in my tea.

 

This is the reason we are in the mess we are, a fractured support who can't agree on the time of day it's a bloody disgrace. What is it they say about power and all that?

Surely part of the reason we are in the mess we are in is your first statement above? If the majority of the RST board, a democratic fan group, was to change would you still hold this opinion?

The RST is what we the support make of it. It has the structure to be the one body if the fans decided they actually wanted a genuine 100% democratic fan group.

Rangers Unite should probably change their name to Rangers Dis-Unite after walking out of a meeting consisting of other Rangers fan groups, independent government bodies and one of the few political allies we have.

I am undecided about renewing my season ticket but I can certainly understand calls to hold off renewing for now. After we all cautiously welcomed Whyte last year I am no longer willing to simply back the guy standing at Ibrox with a Rangers tie on and hope for the best. I want security and a certainty that the guys at the top have not ulterior motive. If we wait for players to leave, and possibly our manager to join them, then it will be too late.

I also find it sad that the main focus for some appears to be one person's quotes contained within an article. John Macmillan also said the same as Mark Dingwall yet nobody seems to be mention that.

I think you are jumping the gun ever so slightly here.

 

I was at the meeting that day also, and it was clear to me that we had to wait and see what sanctions we were finally up against and who was gunning against us before making any decisions on boycotts.

 

The CVA gets passed/rejected on Thursday. If it gets passed we then know that we will be playing SPL football next season and we can move the conversation on to what the fans want to do regarding boycotts etc at that stage.

 

If the CVA gets rejected, a newco gets put into effect, and while we will more than liekly still be a SPL club, the SPL's new rules dictate that it will be up to the 11 other members to decide on appropriate punishment for a newco. That being the case, it is not sensible to call for a boycott of some clubs at this time before they have been asked to vote on any sanctions against us. While some club chairmen have been all hot air, none have voted against us yet as there has been no vote.

 

I am a bit down the middle with boycotts. I have a self-imposed boycott of DUFC for the cup abandonment fiasco, and a boycott of the piggery due to rip-off ticket prices, but I go to all the other away matches at home and abroad. However the way our enemies have been lining up to kick us needs to be addressed and the best way to hurt the other teams (aart from 3 points every ime of course) is with a boycott of their grounds and the financial hit that will give them. Unfortunately I see the other side of that in that our team needs and deserves our support to carry them to victory. I dont think we can expect them to turn up for every away match to a gaping hole where we would normally be standing and still perform to their best and get the 3 points. If a team could play without fans why do they always thank the fans for their support that helped them to victory.

 

It is a debate that needs to be aired and properly thought out before any action is taken, but that can only happen after we know what we are dealing with, which will hopefully become much clearer after Thursday.

 

I understand that with the ST renewals out now, the box for away tickets is included, but surely the simplest action would be either not to tick it and apply for games individually as was available almost all of last season, or not to send back the renewal until after we know what is happening.

 

For what its worth, the RFFF has been doing a fantastic job, meeting every week and coming up with fundraising ideas, asking all the right questions of the administrators and Green, and of course were entirely responsible for hiring and working with the QC that fought our case successfully against the SFA in court. Without them we would be without signing capabilities for 2012-13. So yes, they really are the organisation we should be backing to lead the fight.

Fair enough with the work behind the scenes which goes un-noticed. I know many fans put in the time for these things and get no credit. Maybe they need to blow their own trumpet a bit more with updates on their website about what they have been doing.

However I still think its poor that there isnt an option to choose individual away games on the form when we were told at the meeting that option would be available.

As far as I was concerned, the RFFF were elected to be in charge of the funds raised for the Fighting Fund and that is it. How can they have a mandate to do anything else? There may be a conflict of interest in respect of their main responsibilities.

 

Surely it would fall under the Assembly's jurisdiction to do this? Are the Assembly abdicating some of their responsibility?

I'd agree but at the meeting at Ibrox, minutes above, of RSC secretaries the RFFF proposed they'd be the one group to lead on sanctions and nobody from the floor disagreed.

It does seem to move away from what it was formed to do.

Is anyone else extremely disappointed with the RFFF and their lack of leadership on away game applications for next year?

At the meeting at Ibrox on 28th April the Fighting Fund were unanimously elected by all present (mostly RSC secretaries) to decide sanctions next year for away clubs. Minutes of that meeting are below.

4.4 It was proposed to the meeting and unanimously accepted, and seconded, that the RFFF committee consider each of the proposed actions by the fans of Rangers FC and decide on which of these should be pursued and against which Clubs and/or their sponsors. This group comprised all the main fans groups and would ensure consistent and full communication to all their respective members.

Also it was mentioned that on the season ticket form there wouldnâ??t be an option for all away games as then no boycott could be completed. Now the forms are out we can see that this is not true and we will find ourselves having to apply for ALL away games or none as we have in previous years.

Has anyone heard anything from the RFFF direct in recent weeks? It was also stated in the minutes of the above meeting that:

5.3 Sandy Jardine thanked all for their attendance and confirmed he would ensure ongoing communication with representatives of Supportersâ?? Clubs over the coming months..

As far as I can see from the pretty poor RFFF website there is no way to contact the committee direct and their twitter is non existent.

Should the RFFF really be the organisation we expect to lead the fight against the enemies of our club?

Popped into the Sauchiehall Street store today when I saw Broxi outside. Had a good wee chat to Alex MacDonald. Legend!

Written by Richard Wilson who is well respected and definitely not one for stirring controversy. He has been accurate and informative in all of this so far.

As Chilled Bear says we should know not to always shoot the messenger by now.

One small advantage of the uncertainty around our club is the massive uncertainty it is causing our rivals.

Without the season ticket money in the summer Celtic will surely struggle to budget for the year ahead and limit their investment in the squad. Their average crowd post our administration, in real terms, must have been around 45k or less.

Duff & Phelps were all set to go with the Blue Knights bid until was decimated when Ticketus pulled out due to the ridiculous SFA sanctions.

We could have gone with the Blue Knights as preferred bidder 2-3 weeks ago and exit from administration could be only 1-2 weeks away and we could trust the owners to have the best interest of the club at heart.

Instead we are no further forward and all sitting here just hoping D&P get a move on and make the correct choice.

We should never forget it was the SFA who tried to kill us off with their draconian sanctions. Do we even have a date for the appeal to be heard?

Also, has it been cleared up yet how many of the bidders want a CVA? The administrators/media keep talking about the UK bid being the only one, but unless Ng has changed tact I thought that's what he wanted as well?

Dont even think D&P know how many bidders there are! Differing claims.

We have to be out of administration by 4th August (start of the new season) or we will be given a 10 point penalty.

Biggest thing I would like of a new owner is to split the ownership amongst high investors (rich guys) and low investors (punters) to ensure that no lunatic like Craig Whyte can ever own the club in future.

Make things transparent and accountable.

Ng also baulked at paying £500k with no assurances.

All 3 of the main bidders have been put off proceeding by Duff & Phelps. The delays are causing untold harm to our club.

They are incompetent but we are stuck with them now.