WATP_Greg
-
Posts
355 -
Joined
Everything posted by WATP_Greg
-
There was the deadline of early on Friday last week and I believe there is a 2 or 3 day lag between signing up for gocardless and the money being drawn down (iirc) so there was still a fair few £s from the extra members last week and even this week it is still continuing to grow. I've been pleased to see the number of life memberships keep rising too - at £500 a go they are contributing more than 2500 shares at the current price
-
It's over 300k I'm sure - a good start! Once all of the donations come in that were signed up from the share issue I'm sure twitter said it will put them at over .5% of the club. So still a long way to go.
-
I have listened to the podcast from the first episode - Enjoy it, even if I don't agree with every opinion held. I would probably add that I think the stereo audio (If that is the right term) can be a bit annoying to me - as I'm someone who often only has one ear bud in. Though a minor complaint amongst an enjoyable experience. Also seen on twitter that RF doubled their shareholding at the last share issue - good news
-
From my experience at the AGM the majority was disappointed by the result - Admittedly the sample size was about 100 lads in The Louden when the results got announced but I supporse it depends how you define plenty. Again though, it was not the fans who voted the board in - it was others.
-
Why can't we all just get along
-
1. More shares in Rangers Supporters hands is better than the alternative - Personal gripes rank well below the interest of Rangers for me. 2. Being jaded is understandable, but I believe that our support has immense potential and will continue to care about it and see what I can do to help, however small a contribution it might be. If we all contributed then we would be getting somewhere. 3. I assume you are not suggesting that the fans were the ones that ratified the position of the board members at the GM?
-
I personally thought our pressing was superb as well- something that we have clearly worked on this season. Good to see
-
Erm - I care about Rangers here - the more who have joined fan ownership vehicles the better. I suppose the difference being that I do care At the end of the day more shares under Rangers fans control is nothing but positive.
-
and 1723>1000 BR is the vehicle - however I have amended my post to be more specific. As a former RST board member are you privy to how the numbers have improved this week? I asked on the other thread but no one answered. Hopefully by a good amount
-
Actually, the membership of RF will decide what is done - I am just one member. Whatever the majority says goes. If you were able to convince the RF membership to aim for 100% ownership then thats what they would do - I have only spoken in a personal capacity. Though I completely stand by my assertions and opinions and I am very comfortable to be part of RF and what it is trying to achieve.
-
Monthly subscriptions are around 1000 mark according to Ross on FF - RF are greater than that He also said RST membership was around 2500 iirc - he's a current RST board member
-
1723 at last count. Not a bad improvement in a week. I believe that is RF now has the biggest membership currently contributing in to a collective fan ownership vehicle amongst the Rangers Support. But we need to keep going. RF applied to take up it's extra allocation so based on the shares being undersubscribed it's assumed that the full extra allocation has been taken up. Anyways. Good win for the Gers tonight too
-
Sorry I was watching the game, great performance btw. You certainly shouldn't doubt my 'fondness' for Rangers. I don't feel the need to justify myself in that regard. But I think I'll leave this discussion. I fundamentally disagree with many of the points that you are making and continue to make despite what I believe to be relevant counterpoints. I believe that there are many ways to influence the boardroom at Ibrox beyond owning 100% of the club. The scenario of a 51% nefarious owner is entirely hypothetical and with us being a plc I think it should be acknowledged that any major shareholder will hold significant sway. I am open to any solutions that I feel will help the club and the support.
-
"While Rangers is under controversial ownership, thousands of people will not pay towards its upkeep because they believe that their money is being plundered instead of being wholly spent on the club's wellbeing." Exactly, that’s ACT is required before any subsequent investment – You really should look at what RF is proposing "If Rangers was fan-owned and in trustworthy hands, people would happily buy merchandise and attend games and do so uncomplainingly. I agree – Getting ACT can be a method with which trust is built with the club, however, it would also help identify where the interests of the club are not being matched by the actions of this or any future board. With untrusted ownership, which the RF plan leaves the door wide open to, they hold back or stay away or sometimes chuck it altogether. This current episode has already cost us support. Some will not return, and yet the RF plan is do precisely nothing to stop the whole sorry tale happening again. A lesson has not been learned here, which is both mystifying and inexcusable." Sorry, but that is a complete straw man – ACT is a safeguard and to get that we need a significant shareholding. You dismissing it does not alter the fact that circa 25% ownership is significant. Laxey have a man on the board with significantly less of a shareholding for instance. "A quarter share will not save Rangers or make it the club it will need to be to recover its reputation both as a football club and as a sporting institution - and if the current lot can reduce Rangers to its current sorry state, don't imagine that a 25% holding is going to inhibit a majority owner with 51% or more who has acquired Rangers for reasons best known to himself." Again 25% allows the blocking of sales of assets and shareholders have influence, I cannot understand you dismissing that so readily – look at any business environment – shareholders have great power. Personal incredulity does not change reality "Fan ownership will slam the door shut on the sharks and the charlatans. Minority ownership, however, most certainly will not. I'm sorry to say it, but the RF plan looks like an exercise written up by accountants whose career experience has been to look after the books of the neighbourhood church. " I disagree, It seems that you are unfamiliar with RF – you should have a proper look at it IMO – come down The Louden tomorrow from 2 and discuss it with the lads. I’ll even buy you a pint. Also, why the use of such derogatory terminology, RF has the largest number of individuals involved in a collective shareholding initiative amongst the Rangers support – surely it deserves a bit of respect. But I would like Rangers supporters to always be respectful of one another. "Only by shutting out the crooks will we be properly rid of them - and the only hope of doing that is to become a fully fan-owned club." Not the only way IMO. Hopefully I have tried to put across my own opinions on the matter – I think that either option would be better than the current situation so I urge all Rangers supporters to get involved in a collective shareholding initiative.
-
To each their own - I find your attitude to 25% ownership (an order of magnitude higher than current collective shareholding efforts) strange - particularly when you led with the point of stopping the sale of assets - which of course 25% legally can avoid. If we are specifically speaking of RF then I find the possibility of using the monthly donations to improve the Rangers Community a fantastic idea and would allow us to gain a competitive advantage over our rivals into the future - that is more important to me than whether we have 100% ownership of the club - as long as we can influence the club so that it is being run in the correct manner (which circa 25% would certainly contribute to despite your protestations) as such a shareholding would do in any PLC. I think this is a prime example of why having two separate vehicles offers advantages and choice.
-
Entirely disagree. As I have stated 25% stops the key fear that you raised. The most influential people at Ibrox just now own significantly less than 25%.
-
I don't think it is 2nd best. Having some Hight Net Worth Individuals involved could be beneficial for the club. A proper established Rangers could attract significant investment and help us build a self sustaining but completely dominant club IMO And yes it would stop him. The 25% is a legal thing. If we own that amount we can legally block the sale of assets. It's in that video I linked earlier detailing what different levels of ownership get you. How much do the people who are running Rangers now own? Or even hold the proxy for? It isn't anywhere near 51%. I think you are underestimating the power of the support owning a collective shareholding in the club even if it is not a majority holding But as FO increases we need to go through the various stages. Once we get to a level where we have enough influence it will tail off. I suspect that will be circa 25% but if the appetite is greater then so be it. At the end of the day the majority of Rangers supporters need to get involved and decide for themselves
-
You only need 25% to block the sale of major assets iirc. So a significant shareholding could result in similar benefits without outright ownership. But that isn't to take away from your passionate pitch. Increased fan involvement at the highest level of our club is desirable as it will help forge unity between the perceived direction of the club and the desired direction of the club imo and allow us to move forward as a team and support - helping to forge a better Rangers Best of luck
-
On twitter there RF has commented that with the donations that have came in over the last week and assuming the capability of getting those shares at the coming issue then they will have over 0.5%. I think that's a good start and I believe the majority of that would not have been put into FO without RF. That to me is a very good thing. With regards to trust - it is up to each of the organisations to ensure they have the correct procedures and processes in place to ensure a level of transparency so that trust comes naturally.
-
I agree - Being a member of the each of the organisations is what grants you voting rights over the shares contained within them (Though RST membership as a whole votes for BR's shares I believe). I think all the FO vehicles should be on good terms but I actual formal unification is complicated and potentially unworkable imo
-
-
RF want the benefits of FO but not the need to have 100% of the club - as a PLC I think its entirely appropriate. If we got to 25% we wouldn't need to go any higher imo
-
I would rather stay out of that stuff. I have heard both sides of the reasonings for leaving the RST and I don't have anything to say on the matter as it is not for me to discuss (being a complete outsider to the issues). It is in my opinion a fallacy that RF is a splinter group from the RST - the majority of people involved were not part of any RST projects in the past. However, I think RF as an organisation has always been on point in maintaining the point that anyone going for a collective shareholding is positive (RF, BR and VB's schemes often mentioned). At the end of the day, it is Rangers and the support that is the important things. All these vehicles are a means to an end - to make Rangers better
-
authoritative consultative transparency. It's in the video http://www.rangersfirst.org/rangers-share-issue/ Sorry assumed most on this thread had looked into RF.
-
Who and what are you referring to? I can't comment on something I haven't seen.