Union City Blue

It's worth checking out but from what I understand the club can't even speak about most things at this stage so not sure if it would be free to promote it's own sale in such a way. It previously didn't want Gersave money so close to the Results for example. One of my colleagues is dealing with this but I dont know what the feedback is yet.

When wondering about the size of the on-line community earlier I was asking about what peoples' own thoughts on this are, but it must have gotten lost in the fog too ..... Regardless of how many people sites claim to have registered, the active number of unique, regular participants across the best-known Rangers sites must be about 1000 - 1500 - 2000 at absolute TOPS (although I personally don't believe it's anywhere near that high). Friendly lurkers are there too, but they're impossible to guage. Any thoughts bears?

I was just saying we are where we are and we're going to carry on, that's all. I've probably said my last on the 'unity' question for now, it's going round in circles.

Hi Craig, I typed out a long response there, but I've deleted it. As things stand, the Trust has set its course and signalled its intentions, in concert with the Assembly and the Association. It is going ahead mate. Now, if people want to stand on the sidelines shouting "resign! disunity!" that's up to them and they (and everyone else) can make their own minds up on whether that helps or hinders Rangers. And on whether it unifies or otherwise. What we have is a broad and growing bunch of Rangers fans who believe in supporter ownership and the need for action. That is the common ground and is what we should build on.

Sorry Spanner, but we'll have to agree to disagree. My bullet points from AJ were not paper-talk - I heard them with my own ears during his phone interview on the BBC website with Chick Young. I say "urgently" because January is only weeks away, and June is not that far behind. And also because we have no offers to buy the club and we know that these things take time. Your belief in SDM is as remarkable as it is astounding and I just don't buy it. If I'm wrong, I will re-appear and apologise but I really don't expect to.

Hi rbr. Yes, I completely agree and mass communication is essential. Being internet users ourselves means we are sometimes drawn to on-line but (and I can't quantify this whatsoever) my guess is that looking around Ibrox and talking to people I know, the majority of Rangers fans are not even members of forums. Regardless of how many people sites claim to have registered, the active number of unique, regular participants across the best-known Rangers sites must be about 1000 - 1500 - 2000 at absolute TOPS (although I personally don't believe it's anywhere near that high). Friendly lurkers are there too, but they're impossible to guage. * I'd like to hear any other estimates on these figs btw, just our of curiosity * This means that (outside of membership of 3 widely-recognised fans' groups) that the bulk of the target audience is somewhere else; reading papers, watching TV, and listening to the radio. Thankfully, the ability to generate positive interest in the tabloid & 'quality' media has never been higher, as evidenced by the broad and very credible coverage of Gerspride - and we have very good personal relationships with an incredible range of fantastic 'friends'. In fact, several unsolicited offers to help from WITHIN the media has been one of the most encouraging things we've seen in the last couple of weeks! The figurehead(s) issue will be important, and I completely take your point on board about the long-haul. Equally important though, is the message, the meaning and the mechanics behind it. Cheers mate, we are making very good progress.

Spanner, The Chairman said the following things last week; 1. he had fought very hard for an independent Board at RFC in the last 2 months 2. RFC is in the position where it relies on acquiescence of the bank to underpin the running of the club 3. the business plan is acceptable to the bank but is not satisfactory to RFC 4. the business plan does not satisfy the ambitions of the club We are hostage to this unsatisfactory arrangement now which is why we urgently need significant fresh capital to come forward. If nothing changes, what direction do you see the club going in, either in January or in June and what are the implications would you say?

crazy!

The message I took yesterday as the threads died out was that people 'get it' i.e. that the concept of fan ownership is a legitimate and mainstream topic so now people want to hear what exactly is being proposed so that they can evaluate things. So the next step is to set out proposals. How that is executed exactly, I don't know yet. I don't know if the RST would back an alternative initiative, like you don't know if you back the RST's. It would depend on what it was I imagine.

made me laugh anyway....

I honestly do appreciate all of these things Frankie and the whole unity issue has been discussed extensively and directly over the last 2-3 days. I do hope we can find ways forward.

We'll agree to differ on what it was then. As I see it was a probably-harmless 'signal', and definitely not a committment to ultimately 'back' so no, the RST membership was not consulted. I guess we'd take each case as it comes.

Frankie, I dip in and out as much as I can and try to keep on top of things on-line as best as my job allows. Only a fool wouldn't know that chucking 40 (arguably "mischievous") questions into a running debate will grind the conversation to a halt. If people are disappointed by that then I apologise for my part in it but I don't feel that I shoulder the blame alone.

Morning Frankie, Sending public, warm signals to a potential overseas bidder (the only bidder) who has not yet appeared does no harm whatsoever - this was definitely not an error and has no negative consequences that I know of. As you know, I have no truck with inter-forum squabbles and it saddens me when I see people indulging. However, I have to accept that it happens on FF and is indirectly aimed at RM and that it also happens on RM and is directed at FF. It also happens here and elsewhere, and is mainly directed at FF. The number of participants is tiny and it is obvious to anyone that there is a barely-hidden undercurrent of emotion influencing what comes out of the keyboard. People can say what the hell they like on the internet because they are generally unaccountable. There is actually so much rubbish and ill-informed hearsay being written that it is not even possible to counter it most of the time. Even justified criticism gets lost in amongst unneccessary tripe. What can I say? More broadly, I think what has changed is the position of Rangers FC. The club is at or close to a real and tangible tipping point and 17-point plans, STS and WDB are what they are. None of them have achieved anything of any note, yet good ideas remain within and can hopefully be resurrected in a more positive climate another day. The bottom line is that what's changed is the position of Rangers FC and I think a lot of people have woken up to the genuine peril. That in itself dictates that people should consider moving into a new place. For some, the conditions may not yet be right or there is too much water under the bridge or a middle ground hasn't been found yet. That is depressing but I assume people will change positions if they are able and when they're ready to (or not). Everybody dragging everyone else backwards when the clock is ticking will be counter-productive to Rangers FC IMHO. We are where we are. It may be of little consequence to some, but at least the unity between the RST, Assembly and Association is a start and hopefully we can build from there. We really need to. I can't possibly get involved in justifying or necessarily explaining past decisions when I wasn't involved - they may have been right, they may have been wrong, they may have been neither or both. Again, what else can I say? Honestly mate, I'm not going back there and if it slows us all down I will be very upset indeed.

That's fair comment.

I don't think that's right. Lloyds are inside Murray's property company, the same as they are Rangers. This means that the bank will have a very detailed & thorough understanding of the whole picture by now and they definitely won't need to wait for published accounts. I was going to elaborate but really, that says it all IMHO.

No offence taken Craig. I agree that we could do with moving to something black and white so that everyone can get their heads round it and see where we can go from there.

I wasn't actually promoting the RST here to be honest, I was asking about key issues (personalities aside, which, as you say, I have already picked up some direct feedback on). The thing is, there are moves underway as you'll have noticed from forums and in the media, and that isn't going to stop. I thought it might be useful to re-open the conversation on the basis of what people might be interested in hearing from a proposal when it arrives.

You are quite right Bluedell, and 17 different investment models is waaaaay to much for most brains (even your's I imagine!) to cope with. I'll see what I can get that is summarised and 'post-able' atm. Don't know when I can turn this around but will keep you u-t-d. For me the key issue is squaring the circle relating to OMOV vs. people wanting proportionate voting rights for proportionate investment. It's important not to disincentivise investors as well as encourage everyone to get involved. Would you agree this is the key issue (in terms of mechanics) or do you have others on your mind?

Personalities aside, the situation we all face together appears to be pretty bleak for Rangers and at the end of the day, that's why we're all here and that's what we all care about. Sometimes on the internet it's hard to recognise that we're all on the same side. The way I see it, the fans could very well be required to put money into the Club in various circumstances and we need to get into a position to do that sooner rather than later. If Dave King rolls into town he might well want some financial input from us. If he doesn't and someone else appears on the scene, they might too. If they turn up late, we might want to put money in during January if players start disappearing. If nobody turns up at all, we might need to help the club sometime in January or in June. There are just so many possible scenarios at the moment that we could be facing - none of them particularly attractive unless the mystery white knight arrives and chucks maybe �£30m-�£40m in. There's no concrete sign of him yet. Seperately, fan representation leading to ownership is not supported by all, but there does seem to be a lot of interest from a lot of people. It would be interesting to hear what people think would be the right models for Rangers and what structures etc people think should be put in place and using which principals etc. These will be the questions if and when this moves on a step or two. I do understand that some people have a reluctance to get on board with the Trust as things stand for a variety of reasons, and for others it is a bridge too far in any circumstances. But as I say, significant supporters' contributions might well be required quite soon and at the moment the RST and partners are (rightly or wrongly) focussed on these eventualities. It would be good to hear more about what the folks on Gersnet would like to see with respect to this.

That's a shocking state of affairs. I wasn't at the original game but I would be raging if I had to pay again tbh.

Boss, Your position is 100% clear and it's obvious that, for your own reasons, you will put obstacles in the way of anything the RST is trying to do here. That is understood. Tannochsidebear, as far as I know, is an organisationally-neutral, well-respected Rangers fan who happens to be a member of just about every organisation going and a friend of all. To ask him (or anybody) nearly 40 questions on a thread like this one and the one on RM is, with the greatest of respect, ridiculous. It's close to pointless trying to have a conversation when it's framed in such a way. One suspects that even if you got nearly 40 satisfactory answers, you'd have another 80 questions within the hour. If he (or any other individual) tried to answer your questions it would be an impossible task which would almost inevitibly result in inaccuracies and lead to ridicule. If your questions are avoided it will make those avoiding them look stupid and leave them open to ridicule. So you win, and this particular conversation is probably over. If your aim is to kill the debate and isolate it to places other than Gersnet and RM, this is definitely the way to go.

I see, I understand where you're coming from. TBH I don't think we'll know the level of support until it becomes real. Any other answer would be dishonest. All I can say is that I'm hopeful that as the club is in difficult waters these days, that more and more people will become involved; enough to make a difference. As the chap in the Sunday Herald said today, sometimes you've got to speculate to accumulate.

Well, that is true ...... Although on a serious note, I was also trying to genuinely understand what gave you the confidence to state that "most" Rangers fans wouldn't get behind it, as you described.

Different strokes for different folks mate. The conference yesterday was - by all accounts - excellent. One of the things it achieved was to open peoples' eyes to the possibilities. Several people I spoke to yesterday, including non-RST members, said that's exactly what happened. Right now is about getting the conversation going while the details are ironed out in the background. Sooner rather than later we intend to be back to you with a proposal for your consideration. We are letting you know that these are our intentions and trying to explain the context as we see it. People are contributing ideas left right and centre as a result of the conversation having started so there's a benefit to that in itself. Telling people to shut up and resign is only one of several suggestions that are coming forward!