Mountain Bear

I really do hope that's the case because the Rangers men calling another EGM and losing their resolutions at the vote will not advance their cause one iota.

Indeed. They would lose all credibility with the fans and the city.

A credible financial advisor would tell you not to put your money into either scheme to be honest , as neither are investments

Hildy's point is that with Buy Rangers you can get your money back, which isn't the case with Rangers First.

The flip side is that Rangers First have more flexibility in terms of what they can do with the money and support the Club.

As GS says, both schemes have merit and I support both, partly as it gives me twice the say!

King has waited too long to call egm loan will happen should've been done when he bought shares

Better to wait and know that you're going to win than go off half cocked and lose (again).

What's more, the RST's use of legal advice resulted in a level of media coverage which would have cost a fortune to generate through advertising.

They've probably done the cause of fan ownership / influence a massive favour through their actions in recent days.

when i get home tonight and off the phone onto laptop will have a read of each groups intentions.

 

my worry is that they allow groups to vote as a collective. always ends up with power plays and this group via that group using their membership to swing votes and muddy waters to get what they think is best with the worry that best is in reference to what they get out of it rather than the club. also marginalises the single fan vote if one person or organisation can sway 10 20 or 30% of any vote.

 

just want an umbrella group that collects individual fans with one vote placed by that person without the usual culprits holding sway.

To use the AGM as an example, both groups invited individual members to vote on each resolution in order to arrive at a collective decision.

Just to prove my point , the just announced press release on legal action being shelved just backs up my point , it makes them look stupid , they should have taken legal advice then made statements not the other way round , all its done is shown the board has acted correctly , whether you agree or disagree ( and we all disagree) , it makes the RST look amateurish

Disagree on that rbr. They said they were going to take legal advice, they did it and then they told us what that advice was.

KIV that they've been given potential grounds to pursue individual Directors on should they actually grant the security, so it's better to apply the pressure now.

BuyRangers scheme can only be used to buy shares in the club , that is the entire reason for it , the Rangersfirst scheme is different in that once 5% is achieved the RF can then engage with the club to finance whatever the RF members want/vote on ie youth development , scouting etc ( just my own personal opinion ) .

 

Rf is entirely non political , what ever your views are on various things , politics , religion , the way the club is run , the Easdales etc thats your personal opinion , Rf doesnt get involved its all about Rangers first and foremost, the RST are highly political and imho there is a place for both .

 

As said earlier with RF if you stop you lose your voting rights unless you take out the £500 , 1872club life membership ,( that was my option ) , with buyrangers you buy into a "community share" and you can after a period of time get your money back when the RST hace funds available.

 

Many fans like myself are members of both schemes , but its entirely up to you , I would urge all fans to join one , both can be joined from as little as £5 a month or the price of a pint

Spot on rbr.

I'd add that by backing both, you get double the say in decisions affecting the Club.

Heaven's sake, one guy grabs a barrier while another stands at the doors shouting 'sack the board'. The storming of the Winter Palace it wasn't.

What went on at the Argyle House entrance was bang out of order. Pensioners and women working in the building getting pushed about.

it might be an idea to announce those asap. For some reason Paul Murray attracts a degree of venom from some sections of our support based, seemingly on the fact that every grouping he has been involved with has failed to oust the ****s. (No, me neither). If the 3 Bears can nominate a couple of quality, universally accepted candidates it might go some way to silencing the anti-PM brigade.

 

What we really don't need just now are any petty, nonsensical divisions.

I doubt they could announce that now without it being very obvious that they were working in concert.

The grief PM gets is entirely unjustified IMO, but I understand your point.

Only 3 replacement directors named, so one assumes Parkco will get at least 2 appointed post the EGM.

take it back. dozens of police stoping thousands of fans now.

Few hundred now I'd say. Starting to clear.

Nightmare of a drive. Any Gersnetters still manning the barricades?

Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome

Grammatical (or grammar) pedantry syndrome is an illness or a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder where someone has a compulsive desire to correct any grammatical errors one has made and is obsessed with taking this peculiar, constant, and vexatious (from the target's perspective) action.

"Me and mark ate cookies!"

"You mean, 'Mark and I ate cookies!'"

"Stop it!"

"Sorry, I have Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome."

 

We suffer in syllables

Er, the proper noun mark should have a capital "M"...

Thanks.

#IamAndySteel

I simply signed up for the direct debit scheme through RST. I am a lifetime member of RST but became disillusioned after BD and Frankie resigned - but this is neither the time nor place for that discussion.... the ONLY thing that matters to me right now is to assist where I can in any small financial way to get shares into the hands of the supporters. We will disagree on many things but I would rather disagree with someone on whether we sign this player or that player... than have a Club that just doesn't feel like the Club I have supported for 35 years.

 

Time to use whatever financial means we have to increase the shareholding. We can say that RSF or RF buying shares is futile - but at least it is TRYING to wrest power from those who harm us.

Perhaps I'm being wildly over-optimistic, but it feels to me that the tide is finally turning in favour of fan influence / ownership among the support.

I don't see fan ownership working at all but have been with Rangers First for a while and just signed up for the RST. I will probably sign up for Buy Rangers. As Craig says it's most likely futile but at least it's doing something.

 

If we're being honest neither scheme is going anywhere based on exponential growth. They need to marge and have a radical shake up for a start.

RangersFirst has almost doubled in 3 weeks. If we keep that up we could buy Sports Direct in a couple of years.[emoji6]

Maybe the RFFF should step in here and make up for the difference ... or do we keep that money dry till the SPFL and SFA do something silly with regards to our license?

I suspect it will be nearly impossible to get agreement on what to spend it on. Sprucing up Ibrox once ownership is finally sorted out is the only thing I can think of that all parties might agree to.

Because they want 35p

Let's call that a 10p premium per share. If the good guys bought another 5% holding from one of them on that basis, it's only an additional £400k (£1.4m against the going rate of £1m).

£400k is not to be sniffed at, but every half full home game will cost us the same.

Of course GreenCo might say it's all or nothing.

I think the fan minded shareholders would win a vote comfortably if it came to it. They're probably worried about the carnage the current lot could cause in the intervening period though.

Better to try and get them to go peaceably if possible IMO.

Spot on D'Art IMO.

Thanks and keep fighting the good fight.

If only.

 

When these fans are in positions of influence, they can damage the club. Look at the Livingston programme debacle. Rangers are supposed to be pursuing this but if the whole thing just fizzles out, it won't be a surprise.

 

Look at BBC Scotland - would you say that they have implied that we are a new club?

The opinions of the football authorities and Rangers' own fans are the only ones I care about.

The rest can howl at the moon for as long as they like and it will make not one jot of difference.

Actually, the ASA probably won't have an issue with this, as it's only stating an opinion.

They have to get the ad past the ASA first...

Apparently it's going to be in the Sunday Herald in 2 weeks time.

The copy is being revised to put more pressure on their Board to challenge the authorities "same Club" stance.

I believe it is probably genuine. Genuine but absolutely barking mad. The idea of Celtic fans harming their own Club by boycotting it because it doesn't share their own obsessive fantasies is absolutely delicious.

You dont need to MB - there is plenty of evidence to suggest there has been serious' date=' perhaps even gross negligence by this investigative body during the course of their enquiry into our club.

 

I hopefully manage to run a blog later today which attempts to provide some insight into this latest denial from them of information[/quote']

 

I can well believe that there's been negligence D'Art.

 

I can also believe that there are some local HMRC officials who did / wanted to pursue us with greater zeal because of their dislike for us.

 

However, I don't believe that they are following the bidding of their political masters' anti Rangers agenda, or that any personal bias would have swayed the views of the senior officials who must have sanctioned the pursuit of the later stages of this case.

 

We know that HMRC are under massive pressure to clamp down on Tax evasion and this has been viewed as something of a test case. That suggests to me that HMRC are simply pursuing every possible avenue in a case they genuinely believed they could win, on the basis that the extra cost is worth it even if the chances now are pretty slim.

 

I do admire your dogged pursuit of this issue though and I'll be interested to read about what you've unearthed. If we eventually find there's more than mere negligence involved (which is of course bad enough), then I'll happily apologise and admit my naive faith in the checks and balances that are supposed to protect us.

I dont believe for one minute they dont know how much this has cost.Costs are not relevant unfortunately to those behind all of this.

It is all about trying to justify this HMRC pursuit of Rangers instigated by politicians from the dark side who sought to cause as much financial damage to Rangers as possible. Their problems began when WS returned as manager in 2007. The 9 in a row Rangers manager was back so they had to do something. And they did.

As you know Rab, I don't buy the giant conspiracy theory, but I do agree that HMRC will have a good idea of the costs incurred to date.

Surely it's got to be kept in the public accounts? Could an MP not demand to be told the costs?

One for the Audit Commission. The fact HMRC don't know how much they've spent on one of their highest profile cases is at least as significant as the total cost (assuming of course that it's true...).