maineflyer

Sorry, couldn't resist. Having a very boring day. Anyway, if you're going to deliberately discriminate against us Bramble users who, let's face it, should have been prioritised, then it's bound to lead to trouble.

What's this all about again?

Well in that case you either hunt down the 1% and shoot them like dogs or you continue to take your chances and accept the penalties when they come along. I'm not sure I see the point of a football club that takes steps to prevent its followers from attending games, especially when it knows the only ones who won't go will be the well-behaved ones and the hoodlums will be there anyway. It' about as pointless as gun control. The fact is you either exclude the trouble makers (and that's extremely difficult to do without police intervention, passport withdrawal, etc) or you do what you can to educate and take the punishment when it comes. There's no magic bullet and self-denial might pander to some but it won't cure the problem. What the club and UEFA might want to do is take seriously the conditions at certain stadia and the conduct of police and security stewards. Maybe Rangers might want to be the ones who refuse to take the field if agreed facilities and arrangements aren't delivered. Like everyone else, I really don't know the answer.

Intellect like this is wasted on the masses.

It's a severe culture change right enough. When investing six figures wouldn't get you any more voting rights than the guy who invested two or three hundred in his annual membership. That seems hard to fathom when you've spent the last twenty years watching share ownership dictate influence at the club. But, really, what's so strange or impractical about it? Once you adjust your mindset it's not so difficult. Very few indeed were rushing to invest significant sums in the club under the old regime and those who did have got pretty much squat in return. They didn't even get the influence they might have been after, only the majority shareholder had that privilege. Generally speaking, investments of tens of millions by the likes of Dave King gained neither return nor control, more or less the same as they would have achieved under a club membership scheme. The club was poorly run, disunited and has been in decline for over a decade. When you really think about it, any damn structure other than the present one would be preferable - and I mean that for both the club and the supporters.

If I had tickets and the time to go, I would bloody well go. I'm confident I wouldn't get drunk and I would try hard not to annoy or offend anyone, so why would I be afraid of harming the club. Decent fans have no reason to be put off in any way. And the vast majority of Rangers fans are decent people.

Resht assured one of thoshe negativesh wash a shimple mishtake old boy.

I honestly think Mr Zappa summed it up perfectly in an earlier post. This is not about what the RST or the RSA or the RSanything want to do. It will only happen if it is fostered by the club itself and in that case, there really is no role remaining for these supporters organisations. We need to change the way we look at this problem, we can't have individual supporter membership and still want supporters organisations representing us. That just makes no sense at all. Neither can there be any special status because someone has a season ticket, that's just a way some people choose to pay for their seat. Think club, think individual membership. Think of the board as a committee elected by and operating for the members. Forget shareholders, forget supporters trusts.

Dreadful but just serves as a reminder that no one should never trust the BBC.

I believe, although I've not seen it, that Traynor slaughtered them in the Record today. As for the Sun, it should never be read .... by anyone .... ever.

I think it should be as simple as this - one member, one vote.

I'm wading in your pond here and I have to say I don't really know in this sort of setup. It seems unlikely a football club could provide much of a return in any form and yet plenty seem to want to make the investment for emotional or other reasons. Dividend would be easiest to operate but who amongst the membership would really be too interested in approving a dividend to investors? I'm not sure how you determine the value of 'investment units' other than by finding an acquirer who is willing to pay you a certain price. I'd go for a dividend but I'm sure I haven't thought this through fully.

Who said they would get most voting rights - I thought I said the exact opposite.

It's amazing what you find to read these days. This from the Spectator where the worthy Rod Liddle spreads the thruth as always.........who's in the spotlight now bhoys? To you Celtic Football Club, I say: Never! Rod LiddleTuesday, 10th November 2009 Celtic supporters sung Irish ââ?¬Å?rebelââ?¬Â songs during the one minuteââ?¬â?¢s Remembrance Day silence before the kick off of their game at Falkirk. Even more Celtic fans waited outside the turnstiles so that they would not have to take part in the commemoration. What an unspeakably foul club it is, bigoted and filled with sectarian hatred. And yet the only Glasgow club which ever gets punished for fuelling sectarian hatred is its rival, Rangers. It is not so long ago that FIFA decided that Rangers supporters were racist bigots for singing their fatuous, hate-filled tales about the Battle of the Boyne etc, while Celticââ?¬â?¢s supporters were merely reveling in a noble folk song tradition while singing their fatuous hate filled tales about how good the IRA are. Celtic wish to join the Premier League ââ?¬â?? ie the league of the historic Bruddush uppressor. Thatââ?¬â?¢s because theyââ?¬â?¢d make a lot more money from finishing fourteenth (at best) in the Premier League than finishing first or second in Scotland. We should never let them do so. Let them have the courage of their convictions and join the League of Ireland where, in their exciting games against Sligo Rovers and Shelbourne, they will never be asked to observe a minuteââ?¬â?¢s silence to commemorate those who fought against totalitarianism. Incidentally, Celtic could only draw with the bottom club, Falkirk. Mr De Valera, your bhoys are useless.

I believe this only works if the supporters form a majority of the voting membership and are thereby collectively empowered to elect, judge and remove the majority of directors based upon the financial health and performance of the club. There would also be investing shareholders who could choose to invest in and gain a return from that investment but who could not control the club by sole virtue of the size of their investment. The directors would be running the club on behalf of and in the best interests of the stakeholders, which in large part would comprise the member supporters. Members control voting rights and therefor the running of the club. Investors must also be members but cannot accumulate voting rights. We need to be able to accommodate investors but to make a fundamental distinction between investors and voting members, who might be expected to pay the equivalent of an golf club membership annually for their voting rights and other privileges. Membership of the club should be different from and should not be limited to ownership of season tickets. You want a say in how your club is run, become a member - you want a guaranteed seat, buy a season ticket - if one is to be discounted because of the other then discount the season ticket for members but all members should pay the same amount and have the same voting entitlement. No memberships or voting rights should accrue to any groups or organisations. Every membership of the club must be on an individual basis. This is the only way for the interests of the supporter and the club to coalesce.

You have to be right. There's no other way. But this will only be possible if the shareholders and directors want to do it for the good of all. We must get to a point where there is no more us and them and where those in power see the benefits of diluting that power, not collecting it all to themselves.

Any arrangement for supporter investment would need to be be both practical and incentivised. However, accepting that, the mechanism interests me less right now than the means of achieving it. I've always believed this was the direction to take and agree wholeheartedly with the points made by BigGordy and TB above, that this represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I would certainly participate in principle and would be happy to do so in practice if it were well thought out and the necessary structures put in place to sustain it. What I always come back to however is a feeling of profound doubt that the people currently involved in our supporter organisations have anything like the skills or experience to design and implement a scheme that would genuinely benefit the club and support alike. It's not a matter of having a go at anyone, simply a recognition that these things don't fall ready-made from the sky, that this is a complex proposition that will require extensive resources to be deployed for proper planning and execution. I don't believe this could be achieved without the dedicated services of some experienced professionals. We definitely have these people amongst us but right now they mainly seem to me to be quite far from the action. The implementation of a plan for supporter investment and participation in the shaping of this club cannot, in my opinion, be achieved unless the existing supporter structures are utterly swept away and replaced with something of a profoundly more democratic and capable nature. The supporter organisations we have at present are exactly appropriate for what we are today, a product of how we've been run and how little has been expected as a contribution from supporters. Unless we elevate our expectations, we have no real right to aspire to greater supporter participation. If we want change then we (collectively) need to change our perceptions of who is best placed to represent us and what we expect from them. Sadly, I'm at a complete loss as to how we get from where we are to where we need to be. No one is going to dictate how we change or even what we change into. We have to make these initial changes all by ourselves and I think it's a longer and more painful road than many believe. Seeing where we need to be is a whole lot easier than the journey involved. I'm torn between excitement at the prospect and pessimism at our ability or even willingness to change.

One goal short of the perfect game then.:devil:

Better and better, just saw the score. :D:D Never crossed my mind to look before, just assumed they must have won it.

But surely no one is going to confuse the Rule Book with the Rules-for-Rangers Book.

Passionate about Scotland, damn right, always have been. Care about the Scottish football team, certainly used to but now ...... not a jot. Wouldn't go to a Scotland game now if they laid on a limo to the helicopter pad and paid me handsomely for the use of my time. I keep hearing that Scottish football is dead or dying. Unfortunately, these comments are usually directed at the quality of players when it's clearly the cretins running the game who need to be surgically removed before they've finally administered the last rites.

Thanks Frankie. I didn't think even those bastards would be that bad.

No chain pulling, I've been living on aircraft in daft places for days, this is my first (and intermittent) log on for a while. How did it go.

Chaps, I'm a long way from home and haven't heard how went the minutes silence at Falkirk yesterday - what news?

That'll do nicely - they seem to have been regular semi opponents these last few years. Mon the Rangers