Zappa

Craig, if the OP doesn't mind, why not just move the whole thread to the lounge? People can't be expected not to comment with their opinions etc, whether the discussion goes a bit OT or not... I guess if you move it to the lounge it wouldn't get as much traffic though...

The link to the petition isn't working mate. Got another?

No Calscot, the Palestinian/Israeli problem isn't about religious oriented violence, it's about the following:- After World War I, the League of Nations approved the British Mandate of Palestine with the intent of creating a "national home for the Jewish people." In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and this was followed by a war with the surrounding Arab states, which refused to accept the plan. The Israelis were subsequently victorious in a series of wars confirming their independence and expanding the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan. Since then, Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, resulting in several major wars and decades of violence that continue to this day. Since its foundation, Israel's boundaries and the State's right to exist have been subject to dispute, especially among its Arab neighbors and their many Palestinian refugees. If you speak to Israeli people, most of them will tell you that they're fighting against an enemy which denies their right to exist, which is actually a twisting of the truth, since it's the right of the 'state' of Israel to exist which is disputed as well as it's defined borders in a reality where it does exist as a state. It's made out as if it's they as people who are deemed to have no right to exist by their neighbors though, which is not the case at all other than some extremists which both sides actually have their share of (look into the subject of Israel's far right opinions)....

oops... I didn't think about that...

+1 there's a lot of con men out there that are only interested in turning a profit on tickets.

Hopefully the fact that Fleck didn't feature speaks volumes as to whether he'll start against the sheep or not... I hope he does!!

You'll maybe want to strangle me mate, but I've thought of another couple of relatively important issues. The main one is - should someone who comes along now, never having bought a season ticket before be entitled to be a 'member' & thus have a vote on certain matters before someone who's been buying season tickets for over 10 years? I mean there's probably supporters who've put a hell of a lot more into the Gers kitty in their lifetime than someone who just happens to come along at the right time & throw in a grand or two. That's possibly a very difficult issue to overcome. Secondly, who's going to initiate the coming together of these big investors to discuss any such proposal? It seems obvious that the only candidates would be either one of the potential big money investors or SDM himself & personally, I can't see SDM doing it. I hope you don't think I'm negative about the idea, because I'm not at all. Just throwing in some thoughts... :cheers:

If I can guess, then you can too!! A guess is just that though & mine was purely based on the type of people that invest that sort of cash. Generally they're looking for a good return on an investment & not just the knowledge that they'll maybe get it back should they sell their shares, but obviously not always, since they make large donations to charity as well. Rangers isn't a charity though & their money would be an investment, not a tax-deductible donation. I really don't believe that anyone who wanted to invest �£5m & be an executive member in the new board would be willing to do so knowing that in 3 or 4 years they could be voted out & may not even be able to sell their shares, never mind get a profitable return on them. As for sharing risk, well the type of people who take risks involving millions of pounds are generally taking an informed punt on the potential to make significant profit, so they might well have to believe that there is significant profit there to be made. As for the chance to be a senior partner who pulls the big strings, I agree that there would be an attraction there, but again, probably not if there's a chance of them being voted out, so I think they would need to be in place until they decided themselves that enough was enough & it was time to take a back seat or sell their shares. These are big 'IFs' imo. There's no guarantee that they'll profit at all & there's no guarantee that their shares will hold there value. It would be a definite gamble. I know what you're saying and I'm sure there's a few such people that might be interested in a non-profit-making investment given some of the benefits they'd receive, but I definitely think their benefits would need to be permanent as well as possibly their executive position. �£5m per investor probably isn't far off the mark btw, but I think 25-30 investors of �£1m would just complicate such a venture. Such a consortium or group would ideally be smaller in number than larger imo. Just some thoughts....

Yeh, definitely! That makes a lot more sense to me now, so thanks for the clarification. One major concern that I have with your proposal is that any small group of investors who were to invest (for example) �£5m each in such a venture would almost certainly want either:- a) Their full �£5m returned within their initial 3/4 year spell as an 'Exec' while they had a major hand in the running of the business. or b) To be indefinitely on the Exec board with a major hand in the running of the business until their investment was returned. There's a small chance that an individual investor might want to be only that & leave the running of the business to the others - in other words, someone might be willing to take a punt on it without the hassle of being directly involved, but such in investor would possibly also be the most unlikely to show interest in such a venture. I'm no business or financial expert though, so I stand corrected if any of these assumptions are wrong. Mark

No wonder they won 4-0!! That's quite a strong team... Was Aaron played on the right then S_A??

Hi der ranger & welcome to hell. :devil: Just kidding, welcome to gersnet mate.... :cheers:

Hi again Big Spliff, you've made some excellent points & you might well have the fundamental structure of a workable plan/proposition, but there's some points that need clarifying as well because they're somewhat confusing. I'll try to highlight them via a few quotes.... Ok, that reads as though these 'Execs' are actually the 'consortium', the 'group' of investors who will buy the club & essentially run it, otherwise there would be no necessity for them to have the financial motivation to run the business as a profitable one, which any individual investing say �£5m most certainly would. This makes perfect sense, although I'm pretty sure that quality management could be attracted with slightly lower salaries than that, which would definitely help the new venture's chances of success financially. This is where you've lost me altogether. If the 'Execs' are the main group of investors with the financial motivation to run the club as a profitable business, why would they 'stand for confirmation/election, and agree to be re-elected on a 3 or 4 year cycle'? What am I missing here? Some of your ideas & suggestions for increasing the revenue at Ibrox are excellent & if even a few of them were seriously planned & implemented there could be a serious increase in income. The one thing to remember though, is that any development of new or upgrading of old facilities, costs money & obviously the scale of the cost is in line with the scale of the development. Mark

Adding which of those were starts would also have been interesting. :devil:

I know you're a betting man Gribz, so put your money on ManU to win the title. You should get 11 quid back for a tenner. :devil:

I'm not taking sides at all S_A, just really saddened by needless death & destruction. The news networks were reporting today that at least 4000 homes in Gaza had been flattened & 10's of thousands of people had been made homeless. It's all very sad indeed for both sides, since you can be sure that Israeli people don't feel any safer than they did before Xmas.

It's an interesting idea John & I don't want to pi55 on your parade, but how on earth are the fans going to be able (never mind willing for the sake of discussion) to generate a fund substantial enough to help with buying players? The numbers just don't add up. Assuming you could somehow get a one off �£10 donation each from 50 thousand fans, that's only going to be 500 grand, which is essentially peanuts in the transfer market if the whole point of a 'player procurement fund' is to facilitate bringing in some more quality. A monthly �£10 donation X 50,000 would generate 6 million a year, but I seriously doubt that's remotely attainable by an organized fund independent of the Club. That leads me to think that the only reasonable & attainable solution to generating the income for bringing in some more quality would be to raise ticket prices & that's a move that most fans wouldn't be happy about unless there were defined guarantees that the price increase would be specifically for the generation of a fund/kitty solely for buying in players. Even then, I think that many fans would be disgruntled & feel that they're already paying enough for their tickets.

I'm assuming that by 'large injection from a group/groups', you mean from corporate business? In what form though? The buying of significant shares or purely in the form of sponsorship deals? TBO, in the current climate, I can't see there being much chance of serious investors or potential sponsors banging on the door with offerings of substantial cash injection. I could be wrong though...

Your 1st point is a complete show-stopper. No way a club like rangers can survive without serous financial security, which is something I doubt the fans can ever provide & without a huge overdraft facility the club would be into administration & cease to exist within 3 years TOPS. Your 2nd point is also a real worry in any concept of fans running the club & probably a show-stopper as well IMO. In-fighting & power struggling amongst the people with more clout would undoubtedly be a major major issue as there's a lot of seriously inflated egos floating around. The supporters rarely agree on issues which they don't have any control of & I see no reason why the divisions of opinion wouldn't widen even further if the support were to have any measurable control. Obviously there would need to be some kind of democratic system put in place for decision making, but ultimately I see it as being riddled with problems over & above the inevitable bickering & unrest. I'm absolutely convinced that no matter how well thought out & set up, fans somehow having complete control of the club rather than a wealthy businessman or financial investor, would spell THE END for Rangers, the complete downfall of the club. You think this transfer window's been a 'fire-sale'??? Well you better think long & hard about what it could be like.

Exactly.... That's indeed how it is. Both sides to blame, both probably as bad as each other, neither side necessarily 'EVIL' as some would have you believe, yet there is a balance issue, as one side has little real military might/power, while the other does... Big Time. I'm sure they definitely were. I've got tell you though... that's not the 'word' in Israel. I know 2 guys in Israel, one lives in Tel Aviv & the other in Jaffa. One of them told me a few days ago when we were talking about all this, that he & others had been hearing that Hamas were throwing children in front of them to use as 'sand bags'. When I told him I didn't believe it possible unless it was dead bodies he quickly came back saying ... 'Oh, I guess it was just a metaphor'. That's what you're dealing with over there - News spins, stories, rumors & a word on the street that's completely awash with utter bullshit - ON BOTH SIDES. What a mess...

I don't agree with this at all. MB is SDM's right hand man & the one who conducts much of the transfer dealings. WS obviously points out who he would like, but I doubt very much that he has the final say in how much IS or IS NOT spent & that's an important factor to consider when slagging off WS for his bad signings. Likewise with his good signings. I doubt very much that WS had the final say on the financial side of those, be they coming or going... Sorry Craig, yes I think SDM & MB are more responsible & culpable for financial matters including incoming & outgoing transfers. WS doesn't get a phone call to ask if he'll accept X amount for a player. Ok, maybe occasionally, but not always!!!

It sure is nice to have optimism rewarded.... :devil: :cheers:

That's not correct calscot.

4-2.... ya fuckin belter !!!! woooooo hooooooo,,,

3-2 to the sheep..... GIFRUY !!!!! :devil:

It's not over if we don't get the full 9 points, but realistically we really do need to continue winning 3 points in every game. We simply MUST take the full 3 points from Celtic.