5 hours ago, compo said:

When will there be a share issue so we can all purchase some shares 

I would imagine very soon. They can do as they please currently and once this placement is done and the percentages in place, it is highly unlikely resolution 11 will be an issue ever again****

Probably sensible to offer the rank and file their rights moving forward.  Keeps us feeling important and it will be free capital for the club.

****unless the mega shareholders have a monumental split in the future and internally explode like us with previous fans groups   

5 hours ago, buster. said:

Good post Frankie, I think that pretty much sums it up.

It is a good post and absolutely sums it up. They even make a democracy look like the old communist USSR.

Anyway, more cash to Rangers and 100% controlled. All good in the end.

3 hours ago, buster. said:

Fans group history has shown us that it becomes more difficult and complicated to fully focus on working toward delivering their mission, when there are others within the fanbase hellbent on discrediting individuals/groups for their own ends. 

 

That isn't a catch all excuse because no-one has been perfect but none the less it is a fact.

During the spiv years, some were prepared to colude with what was effectively 'the enemy' in their attempts to make sure groups didn't prosper towards their goals.

Is that more dangerous than people inside fans groups hellbent on discrediting individuals/groups for their own ends?

5 hours ago, colinstein said:

a lot of people are as much against fan ownership, as they were against the RST, Rangers First, and now Club 1872. Who knows what their motivation is but they've got a whole forum to spout their shite

The only motivation that is in question here is the desire of Club1872 to destroy their own credibility and deny their members the rights they signed up for. Basically going against their own terms and conditions.

I am very realistic about the possibility and possible success of fan ownership. The RST, RF and now Club1872 you mention are trailblazers in showing why. I refer back to the spectacular internal combustion, virtually the only consistent in each version.

I am a life member and still contribute.

7 hours ago, Frankie said:

I'll be honest and say I don't pay much attention to Club1872 but I think the option has always been there to have buying shares as a project.

 

I can understand that some won't agree with that but the majority decide I suppose.

Really? So why the vote now.

From the Club1872 website today:

Sign Up Now

Club 1872 is the first united fan group of its type and it presents a win-win for both supporters and Rangers Football Club.

For the first time, a genuine say in the distribution of supporter-contributed funds is possible. Club 1872 has already achieved its short term goal of holding more than 10% of the shares in RIFC. 25% is now a realistic minimum goal with all Rangers supporters uniting behind this concept.

Donate now and be part of the generation that safeguards our great Club for all the future generations still to come.

How is my donation used?

When you donate to Club 1872 you can choose whether your donations are used to support projects or to acquire shares in Rangers International Football Club PLC (the parent company of the company that owns Rangers Football Club).

You will do so when creating your profile. If you don’t specify a choice, your donation will be split evenly between projects and shares. Donations are collected by Club 1872 Shares Community Interest Company and will then be distributed as follows:

• 5% will be paid to Club 1872 Limited to meet administrative and marketing expenses,
• All amounts allocated to shares will be retained by Club 1872 Shares Community Interest Company and all amounts allocated to projects will be paid to Club 1872 Projects CIC.
• Payments will be distributed monthly.

In respect of payments to Club 1872 Limited and the Projects CIC, Club 1872 Shares Community Interest Company is acting as collection agent only. All future donations from persons signing up from Rangers First and the Rangers Supporters Trust will, after deduction of the expenses to be paid to Club 1872 Limited, be split 50:50 between shares and projects unless the person signing up indicates a contrary preference when completing their profile.

7 hours ago, buster. said:

The old 'blazer chasing' line almost reminds me of certain governments and the citing of 'WMDs'.

Personally, I have thought for a longtime that Club1872 should have a seat at the main table given the % shareholding and find it strange that this becomes a stick to beat them. IIRC Forlansister said there was little chance of this happening, I'm not sure why but FS knows more about these type of things than I do. 

 

I think it relevant to state that both RIFC and Club1872 have at base, the same motivations and it isn't wildly outrageous that they co-incide and work together on many issues. 

 

The known consequences of how certain individuals have funded the ongoing financial shortfall shouldn't be a surprise regards dilution. But when 10M was being spent last summer, not many complained.

 

 

The issue is who wears the blazer. And there we have the internal sniping followed by the spectacular self combust.  More than once. Ergo, harmony may occur if the blazer is not chased.

It is relevant that Club1872 has never been independent from RIFC and that the claims that it was were wildly outrageous. 

I agree regarding the shortfall funding, of course. That is why Club1872 will be diluted. So why pretend otherwise.

1 hour ago, buster. said:

I think you only help illustrate the toxicity that remains.

 

I don't think anyone will try and claim that Club1872 have been perfect but the tendency would seem to be one of improvement on a number of issues whilst dealing with ongoing challenges. 

 

Now they are forced down a road which in different circumstances they probably wouldn't have went down, but the situation is what it is. 

 

 

It is worth noting C1872 have not been forced down any road, it is of their choosing to go back on their word and use the majority to try and force change. It smacks of a lost cause blazer trail, which we have seen before of course. 

The real winners in this are RIFC, who have had C1872 where they want them from the beginning. Never independent, compromised and controlled from day 1 and soon to have even less influence if that is possible.  Another circa £1m in to the club yet C1872's holding will be drastically diluted at the same time. 

But as long as the club prospers all will be well.

1 hour ago, BEARGER said:

There will always be people in any group, be it fans group, trade union, Bowling club who will do nothing and use any old story to snipe from the sides. 

Shares or projects?  Or is buying shares a project? I am quite sure C1872 made the distinction at sign up to get peoples cash. Desperate times now indeed.

The really laughable part is your sniping from the sides comment. Virtually all the sniping involving C1872 comes from within. 

1 hour ago, pete said:

A bit of money juggling there.

All resources should be used for shares when needed as that was the reason for setting up the organisation.

That being the case, why did they specify the RIFC shares and projects options? Money juggling you say, I think it is anything but. Was the projects option just to get even more cash into the organisation then?

Maybe it was and it has achieved it's goal. So  "we don't want your opinion, forget the agreement we had at sign up, and we will use your money as we see fit"....perhaps.

Club1872 subscribers had the choice at sign up to donate their money to RIFC share purchases or other projects. The vast majority give to share purchase, no surprise given it is the whole raison d'etre of the organisation, whilst others were happy to donate to Rangers projects in the name of Club1872.

But it seems that for the forthcoming share placement in RIFC, in which Club1872 have rightly been invited to take part, Club1872 now want to call share buying in RIFC a 'project'.  Every member will get a vote, obviously, with the aim to circumvent Club1872's own rules, usurp the minority and say that their money will be used for a project - ie buying shares in RIFC with all funds.

A bit of a strange one that.

Edit:   Fwiw,  I voted against the proposal.

10 hours ago, der Berliner said:

Well, that was the point of the whole debate ... and you obviously missed it.

I never missed it, I seriously wanted to know when you thought he season became interesting again after Murty's mob lost to the likes of Hamilton & St J at Ibrox on top of the away capitulations. I do not think the seemingly pivotal half dozen games made any difference.

Interesting, fwiw, is if we do indeed finish 4th in a 2 horse race. Results do not lie. Last comment in this thread from me because no doubt I am boring everyone now, cheers for the debate though.

50 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

 

Nah, mate. What I said was:

Well, he won enough games on the trott to make the whole season interesting again, had he won that game. That is, given the players and circumstances, admirably.

 

You jumped in with disputing that, which is plain rubbish based apparently on your dislike of Murty. At the time, no-one was going tonto about him like they did after the cup semi-final or the OF drubbing at the Scumhut. Simple because he did admirably at the time by getting results which made the title race interesting again. No-one will now say that he did a good job at Ibrox, for obvious reasons. Which does not mean that he did in spells.

 

How many games did he win and when was the season interesting again?  He lost a stack against dross and made an arse of it, but you shout about his 6 wins all you want.

I stand by what I said, results do not lie.  We are minnows looking like 4th place in a 2 horse race. Interesting to some maybe.

But I am glad somebody believed Murty last friday when he said he was the mutt's nuts and had done a good job. I just checked the league table btw.

2 hours ago, der Berliner said:

 

Well, your opinion. Doesn't mean that he did not do admirably enough after a stuttering start and to the build up of OF game at Ibrox though. Unless you find a manager bar the Yahoo boss who did better over such a spell in the season. League seasons usually have such runs, one way or another. He f@cked it up in 2 OF games (as were the players he selected) and that's that. A disaster as a manager. Well, that is not only unreasonable, but rather simplistic a view too.

 

Eh? He f@cked it up in 2 OF games (as were the players he selected) and that's that. 

I am talking about long before that. Did you miss getting thrashed at Ibrox by St J & Hamilton or decimated at Dens by Dundee? A disaster from day 1, again.  But hey, you stick with JFK-1 and only count a wee spell from the turn of the year.

It really is very simplistic.  It is a results driven business and the results don't lie. 

7 hours ago, der Berliner said:

The Old Firm game at Ibrox, when the Scum brought on a 4.5m rated player who showed all his  class to sink us with their third goal. Winning that game, when we were relatively high on confidence, would have brought us within 6 points or the like. That said, you seem to have a rather reserved opinion on that anyway, so probably no need to get into that any further. It's history now ...

And for what it is worth, we lost that game because Murty froze and changed nothing when they went to 10 men. The tranny poker then reacted to our negligence as Murty chewed his zip.

If my granny had baws, we may have won that game as well.

5 hours ago, der Berliner said:

 

You have a curious way to spin your arguments. All that was said that Murty had a steady run ahead of the OF game. No-one is actually saying he's THE man for the job. No-one could have predicted the fallout after the Ibrox OF game though.

 

No spin. I am saying Murty was useless from the get go, a disaster as a manager. I think results, all of them collectively, prove that beyond discussion and any doubt whatsoever, never mind reasonable. 

Maybe, like JFK-1, I should extrapolate a scenario based on a run of 9 games. We would be relegated.

8 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

27th December Rangers 2 - Motherwell 0
30th December Celtic 0 - Rangers 0

WINTER BREAK

24th January Rangers 2 - Aberdeen 0
28th January Ross county 1 - Rangers 2
3rd February Rangers 1 - Hibs 2
6th February Partick 0 - rangers 2
18th February Hamilton 3 - Rangers 5
24th February Rangers 2 - Hearts 0
27th February St Johnstone 1 - Rangers 4

 

Nine consecutive matches in which we played everyone in the league aside from Kilmarnock and Dundee. In those 9 matches 7 wins 1 draw 1 defeat taking 22 from a possible 27 points for an average of 2.44 points per game. 

 

Extrapolate that 2.44 points per game over the current 35 games played and we would be on 85 points and be champions if we take 3 points on Saturday.  That's the best run we have had since returning to the SPL and as pointed out is title winning form if maintained over a season.

 

 

Okay, so a hand picked, massive, 9 game run in a season - aside from Killie and Dundee - and we are virtual, extrpolated league winners with Murty as the man.  Good we avoided the mighty Killie in that pre-extrapolation 9 games btw.  

Unfortunately, we have to play a 38 game season, no hand picking or extrapolation allowed, and the buggers count the score in all of them all.   

Title winning form from Murty indeed, hilarious if it was not so sad. 

40 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Well, he won enough games on the trott to make the whole season interesting again, had he won that game. That is, given the players and circumstances, admirably.

Fair enough, all about opinions. Imo, he blew it in the 6 weeks and it was never interesting. Next you will say if he had beaten the mighty Hamilton & St J at Ibrox we may have prevailed. Or would the early Dundee debacle have been the key to de-railing him?

Out of interest, which game do you refer to 'had he won that game'? Every thrashing at the hands of his bhoyhood favourites?

8 hours ago, craig said:

Welcome back DT.

 

Since you have been away Rangers have won.... nothing.  Your return can only be a good omen

Thanks. I am not sure re any omens, I had the pleasure of Pete's company for a few games during the interim period.  I think we lost them all  

1 hour ago, der Berliner said:

 

Ahem ... I am under the impression that McInnes chose Aberdeen over us after some late talk with Milne (or whomever it was)? And if the board deemed the DoF's choices to weak for the job - which we can't verify - so be it. There is no reason to believ that any of the DoF's choices would have saved the season. Likewise, up to the Ibrox OF game Murty did admirably ... and who could have forseen what followed?

 

Hi Guys, been away for a bit but delighted to be back. Had a severe case of being terrified of men in comfortable shoes, but I appear to be over it now.

But I see things are still going as normal. Likewise, up to the Ibrox OF game Murty did admirably......wow

nothing like FF

hunners get banned on there

I was referring to the agendas, post deletion when it suits and what is let go. What has not been taken out of this thread is way more relevant that what has been deleted. I referred to the post deletion a while ago on here and was shot down in flames, it rarely happens.

Nowt to do with hunners getting banned or not, as the case may be.

Fair enough, although what you have left in is way more telling than what you deleted. But like Mark on FF, it is your ball so you pick who plays.

I won't go into any great detail either despite the provocation but I am going to correct you on two points and assure you on another:

 

1. I never attacked John Bennett. For reasons that are well known and well rehearsed I could not support this appointment to the Board of Rangers FC in 2012 but I have made it clear that I now support his appointment to the Board of Rangers International FC. He is a high calibre investment manager.
   
2. 
   
3. I have been a fanatical supporter of Rangers FC for 58 years.
   

 

 

Thank you for your concern for my well-being; but I can assure you that I wouldn't harm a flea never mind myself.

I am not provoking you, merely referring to your own words posted inthis forum. What you did to Mr Bennett and his intentions towards Rangers FC at the time was despicable - as you have further proven with your continual diatribe against any other hnw Rangers man who has tried to help the club. It was certainly well rehearsed and premeditated, of that there is no doubt.

You absolutely supported the regime that damn near killed off our club - right until the bitter end. Regardless of all the evidence of wrong doing. That is not the work of a Rangers supporter, voting to kill off our club. Did you want our club dead? Because it looks like it.

Fanatical supporter of Rangers for 58 years? Actions speak louder than words.

[inappropriate stuff removed - Frankie]

I've read alot about this Jack Irvine character over the past several months but aside from apparently being the Easdales' spokesperson I really know nothing about him, nor am I interested in him quite frankly.

 

Interesting that you regard me as "dangerous" to whom or what if I might enquire?

 

Oh and your right about one thing; my opinions are not for hire.

Save me the bother of typing such a long list, just go and read through all your posts attacking Messrs Bennett, King & Murray on here. Add your fanatical and totally mis-guided support of the previous regime, your desire to keep the lamb and the leech in power and you are simply dangerous to the institution that is The Rangers Football Club.

[inappropriate stuff removed - Frankie]

Looks like wee Jack has a new pal...

New, whatever do you mean by that? Way more dangerous than Jack and at least Jack got paid for his support of those who set out to destroy us.

My worry is that we have the whole of Rangers Media going tonto calling King everything under the sun.

No different from any other day then!

You mean this is not RM? I need to log off and on again, just to check.