Fury

less than 1000 signatures so far is very poor. i think it needs more publicity. why would the target be only 1000 when we have over 5 million fans allegedly?

Just under 1000 signatures in two days is "very poor"? Right you are.

Fantastic stuff mate. This in blog form anywhere for me to put out on Twitter?

The reason I dislike the timing is that a: it coincides with the announcement of the share offer and b: I don't understand why any of us are talking about museums at this point in time because it signals a mindset of Rangers = History. Now, that's a good mindset given our history, but right now? Is it the best time?

There are reasons for the timing. If what Green says is accurate then a portion of the IPO money will be set aside for stadium improvements and Edminston House. Either/both of these could potentially incorporate a museum but are very unlikely to unless we raise it with the club.

Also I think we felt that with our history still under attack in certain quarters it would make a clear statement that we have been here for 140 years and are not going anywhere. It's something we should have already - the fans, in my opinion, need to start making their voice heard.

For starters, a museum is something I have really wanted for our club for many years now, and have said so on many many occassions.

 

I dont think a petition is the right way forward however, although I accept the explanation given by Frankie in post 5 of this thread. A petition is by its very nature a political campaigning device, which is not the way to go about it in my opinion.

 

The current board have been very receptive and open with the fans to date, so I see no reason why there is the need for a petition on this, or any other subject, at this time.

 

Rangers fans opinion on this matter has always run very highly in favour of a museum in any poll or online discussion I have ever seen on the subject, so again I fail to see the need for this, other than as a PR stunt by TRS, which I am sure was not the intention.

 

For the many good articles and work TRS has done to date, this isn't up there i'm afraid. A rethink is required in my opinion.

Nothing "political" about it. If you want something then you need to show there is an interest. I would be much more comfortable raising the issue with the club if we can show that there is a will amongst the fans to make it happen. As Frankie said we are not demanding anything, just gauging opinion and making sure there is a case to present to the club. We'll be backing it up with some articles exploring the idea and can hopefully present a case to the club for consideration.

The RFFF money should not be needed for legal expenses. The club should be paying those to defend our titles. I would not be against a small donation from the RFFF towards it but something like a museum can provide a lasting legacy and should be considered as a good use of that cash.

For my tuppence worth I can confirm everything Shane said about him not knowing about the first statement. I can't speak for the other guys at TRS but I wouldn't support putting our name to anything the USP come out with. I thought the first statement was ridiculous, inaccurate and divisive. I personally agree with the second, but TRS are a website not a group and I don't see why we would have our name on something like that.

RU have had about 3-4 public digs at me now in their various statements and letters on their website. Some have just been inaccurate and some deliberately misleading. I've generally resisted the temptation to bite back although I've slipped a couple of times. How they can claim to be attempting to unite anything is beyond me. The Assembly are supposed to be the umbrella group for all the supporter organisations - something they have made clear on several occasions. I don't understand why we now have the self elected, corporately structured Rangers Unite making statements on their behalf but perhaps it will all become clear in time.

The Working Group deals with the treatment and behaviour of fans. It doesn't get involved in other issues.

Ah right ok. So are they getting involved in the treatment if the fans in BF1 or the away fans being Section 60 searched? Be interested to hear what progress is being made because I'm doing a couple of articles on it.

I'm not exactly an expert on the various groups but can anyone tell me how this USP differs from the Working Group?

Thank you for posting this. I was fortunate enough to have one or two discussions on the fringes of this project. My advice at the time was not to go public with any scheme that involved supporter contributions until some kind of agreement had been reached with Charles Green and his investors as to what kind of percentage of ownership of the club would they be willing to concede for a given investment. I was of the view that the support need to know exactly what they will be getting for their financial support. I would hope that the discussions alluded to in the statement have moved in this direction.

 

I note the Rangers Unite statement. If they have a concrete scheme to bring to Rangers supporters and a financial and legal structure which would underpin it then I think we would all be very interested in discussing that. If not, then I think it unhelpful to be trying to derail those who do have something substantive to offer.

Happy to confirm that we told Charles Green in the meeting that if the supporters decided to purchase shares in some sort of collective fashion then they would have to be told exactly what the purchase offered and also what level of say it would give the fans over the running of the club.

Not that I am advocating it... but you certainly have the option to defend yourself on here Chris.

 

In fact, if yuo continue to refrain from defending yourself when you believe there to be untruths spoken about you or the situation then I, Sir, commend you on putting the club first before a disagreement is blown up.

 

I am not sure that such restraint will take place elsewhere though

I'm unsure. RU seem to want to pick a fight but frankly there are bigger issues at play than their ego. I have to say I don't like them releasing things full of inaccuracies though.

Of course they can expel Trusts from membership. They have received complaints about the Celtic one, and did nothing apart from ask for meaningless assurances which were then ignored anyway. However I take your point in respect of point 4. As for the Board members in Scotland there is definitely an anti-Rangers feeling there.

 

If SD are not holding cash as was previously suggested and it is held independently then that is fine.

I'm honestly not sure what the board does. SD only have about 4 employees in Scotland. We have no contact with their board but if that is the case then fair enough.

RangersUnite – Statement 29/08/2012

 

Posted by andy Posted on Aug - 29 - 2012 So far 0 CommentCategories Statement

A Statement of Events

 

RangersUnite was formed in February 2012 by a number of international Rangers Supporters. Our purpose was to create and implement a Business Plan that would permit a successful emergence from administration with a majority supporter’s ownership in place. However due to the failure of the administrators to gain a successful CVA with the Company’s creditors, we proceeded with the creation of a business plan and Model that would permit a majority ownership in RFC.

The following are the events that led to a closed meeting between Chris Graham, The Rangers Supporters Trust and RangersUnite, held in Glasgow at 6.30 pm on the 28th August 2012.

The following is a record of events and meetings held in private between all parties:

JUNE 2012

RangersUnite was approached by Mr Chris Graham, a concerned supporter. Mr Graham’s approach was due to concerns that RST and RU were proposing a supporters led acquisition of RFC, In his opinion this was problematic and efforts should be made to align and synergise both parties and proposals.

A number of conversations took place with minimal discussions on the proposals taking place. It was agreed towards the end of June that all parties would convene their first meeting in early July.

JULY 2012

A meeting was convened in early July 2012 with 3 members of RST and 4 members of RU in attendance, with Mr Graham attending as an observer.

The discussions commenced with no real agenda or structure. The discussions mainly focussed around RangersUnite’s Vision and RST existing membership vehicle and banking system. Gordon Stewart, the Rangers Supporters Trust Secretary suggested and both parties agreed to “suspend” launching any proposals to permit both parties to carry out more diligence to be discussed at a meeting to be convened within two weeks. This was agreed by all parties.

A further meeting took place in Mid July at the offices of Supporters Direct in Glasgow, with 5 members of RST, 5 members of RU, 1 member of Rangers Supporters Assembly, Mr Chris Graham and Mr Paul Goodwin of Supporters Direct being present, All parties were issued with the Rangers Ownership Fund Presentation, which took RU by surprise as this was not what was agreed at the previous meeting. RangersUnite informed all present that they were opposed to changes to agreements without consultation.

The meeting progressed contrary to RU objections and upon conclusion of the meeting Mr Paul Goodwin of Supporters Direct insisted that all parties refrain from discussing matters with external parties, Which was agreed.

The follow up meeting held at the end of July became contentious when it was revealed that the vehicle would be titled “Buy Rangers”, which was opposed by RU due to no consultation and for the first time a proposal that all supporters would have to become members of Rangers Supporters Trust to enable participation. RU opposed these proposals and the meeting was adjourned, with an agreement being reached for all parties to meet again in August.

AUGUST 2012

A meeting has been arranged for the 28th August 2012 in Glasgow, between all parties.

However, there has been no meaningful dialogue between the parties since the adjournment of the last meeting in July. Subsequently it has been discovered that Mr Ian Davidson MP has been requested to become involved in the meetings, again with no consultation or explanation to RU.

It was announced last week that Chris Graham, Ian Davidson MP and Paul Goodwin of Supporters Direct had approached and met with Charles Green to discuss proposals, proposals that have not been created nor have RU approved any items discussed.

Due to the meeting with Charles Green, RU have been requested to attend a meeting on 28th August 2012.

Due to the lack of transparency, democracy and approval of all parties appointment RU shall decide upon any further commitment to such a vehicle and proposal.

I'm not sure how many of these I can allow to slide before I start hitting back. Is this really what Rangers Unite want?

We are to give money to Supporters Direct? Seriously?

 

1. The Scottish Council contains Morag McHaffie who called for Partick Thistle fans to boycott Rangers games if we ended up in the 1st Division.

2. The Scottish Council Chairman's own Trust were against us being admitted to the 1st division, threatening boycotts.

3. They allow the IRA supporting, Jeanette Findlay led Celtic Trust to retain their membership despite all of their pro-IRA statements.

4. The ArabTrust are one of their leading members who have reported our fans to the police.

5. Supporters Direct did not offer any support to the Rangers fans generally over the past year when we had all of our problems.

 

I can't see me entrusting any of my cash to an organisation riddled with such anti-Rangers feeling. I want nothing to do with supporters of other clubs and would not be in favour of giving them any cash from Rangers fans to hold.

One of the things about RU's petulant, toys out the pram, action last night is that it leads to speculation about something which isn't yet ready to be launched. SD are an advisory group who assist with fan ownership/investment in clubs. They don't hold money. Any money collected would be placed in an escrow account, administered by lawyers. It is 100% regulated by the FSA and 100% safe and fans can ask for it to be returned to them under the conditions of the scheme which they will know in advance.

Also on some of your points above - SD have no say over the actions of individual trusts. It is not like a forum where a naughty member can be expelled so you're being a bit harsh to suggest they should police the behaviour of the odious individuals in other trusts.

They actually have offered support for months but for varying reasons nothing has got off the ground. Also they have only recently started to receive the funding and political backing that they get in England. Hence why the majority of their successes have been down there. They are only now starting to become the same sort of organisation here that exists in England. Indeed even now a lot of the support that is being received is coming from England.

I'm not going to get into a slanging match with RU. I know they have people involved who are genuine in their wish to see things progress but I'm afraid that statement, apart from being badly written, is full of inaccuracies. The only group of people who have not been "transparent" through this process is RU and I'm afraid repeated requests for information have been met with silence. They had some good guys involved but several have stepped back or moved on and the guys who attended the meeting last night behaved in a disgraceful manner.

I was going to pick through the statement piece by piece but since almost all of it is untrue and since the main motivation behind it seems to be to gain publicity I'm not going to bother at the moment. However, if they continue to bad mouth the process and make thinly veiled digs at people involved, including myself, then that might have to change.

It's unfortunate that they could not be accommodated but it is also worth remembering that they have no members and represent nobody but themselves. The main fans groups are continuing to speak in an attempt to get something that can be presented to the main fanbase. It is not about secrecy it is about proper presentation of a workable plan. If people choose not to participate for whatever reason that is entirely up to them.

I've got an article in the Scotland on Sunday today on current situation with Regan and the SFA. Comments are unbelievable from the demented ones.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/rangers-newco-regan-s-success-is-to-unite-fans-in-calling-for-his-resignation-1-2399613

We're discussing this in the other thread.

 

The general consensus appears to be no but that's not 100% certain it seems.

Don't think that would be the case. Sending out the renewals before any if this was known is just another sign of Green's desperation I think.

Thanks Frankie - just popped on to do that!

Sadly no payment. Free beer at STV and the chance to hob nob with Archie MacPherson are payment enough!

Cheers chaps and I appreciate the support but I'm just speaking as a fan who hopefully some other fans agree with. I don't have a position in any supporters groups and I'm not planning on changing that any time soon. As others have said I don't think it's possible to speak for the whole support and I'm not sure why anyone would try! ;-)

The points about the wording and tone of the SFA document being very sound-bite friendly is spot on. It's easy to see that it was written with the sole intention of diverting attention from the parts which deal in supposition and theory. The over complicated legalese is also I believe a tactic designed to prevent your average Bear from unpicking the flimsy fabric of the document.

 

It seems the SFA are indulging in some clever public relations....I wonder where (or who) they picked that idea up from?

It certainly has Peter's stench all over it. The line about match fixing was so obviously for the media as to be laughable.

New blog is up looking at reasons behind SFA sanctions.

http://chrisgraham76.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/sfa-decision-examined/

Also I'd like to add that I think Frankie should definitely have a shot at it! ;-)

Have to say Chris you did not look nervous at all. As if you'd been doing it your whole life.

I was before it but the STV people were really nice and it's not that bad if you block out the fact people are watching on TV! Only about 10 people in the room.

Cheers guys. There was literally nothing that I thought I could have pulled Spiers up on apart from his attempt to liken Miller to Whyte. Miller does have a business track record at least. As others have mentioned, I've rarely heard him say anything controversial on TV.

Neil Patey was really interesting. He is quite clear that Miller's plan could work but he's not sure it will with regard to CVA hurdles. At least it is heartening to know that it's possible.

It was a bit nerve racking but actually not as bad as a best man's speech I once had to do!

Exactly what Celtic did in 1994.

It's actually nothing like what Celtic did but it is identical to what Leeds did. I don't hear anyone saying they are not the same team. The only place this would happen is Scotland and it's mainly because there are a lot of people who are desperate to find any way to bring the club down.

New blog up: http://chrisgraham76.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/ticketus-and-the-blue-knights/