Jump to content

 

 

ThatsWhyWeirChamps

Inactive Users
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Twitter

  • Twitter
    https://twitter.com/LibertIain
  1. Well, here's hoping the unified group takes the fan ownership ball and runs even further with it. I hope it's a resounding success. I have many reservations about the process getting here, but the memberships have now voted. I just hope some of the concerns of those who voted against it can be addressed moving forward. A bigger number voted in favour of the initial suggestion in RF's case (98%, if I remember correctly) - there are obviously valid reasons they went the other way on it and it would be helpful to canvas why. Just because they're the minority does not make their issue an irrelevance nor does it mean some of their issues, if addressed, mightn't have been more favourable overall. It was, afterall, a 'minority' who didn't renew season tickets last year - didn't mean they were of a view which was totally at odds with the rest of the support.
  2. Totally see what you're saying. I've went through a wee bit myself. If you spot any typos, any chance you could send an email to admin@rangersfirst.org to help get them updated (same for anyone else). I know that the guy who done the website has basically had his IT company do lots of work on it for the past two weeks, so it's easy for these things to end up getting overlooked. I must admit, I'm also a stickler for grammar, but it takes an effort from us all to make it look as good as it can, I suppose!
  3. The irony is that each and every one of the former RST guys wholeheartedly agreed with Craig Houston last night when he said it should be lead by people with no history. None of us want to be involved in it going forward. I just want to go watch Rangers on a Saturday and moan about the quality of the football. The clue is in the name. Further to my previous post, to clarify, Club 1872 was bought over 18 months ago.
  4. Every single meeting so far has been governed by consensus. There has been plenty of opprtunity to raise any concerns for all of us. I initially favoured the Rangers.coop name, but through discussion in the room was happy with how we progressed. I'm sure if the name proposed is really a major issue, it can be changed. To give a bit of background to the name, similar to Rangers First being owned by the chap Ian and kindly donated, the name Club 1872 is also independently owned by someone who wishes it to be used. If it is tainted by being proposed before, then it's easily changed. Raise it at the next members meeting and explain it to the room, I'd be willing to wager that most people will see it as petty though. As for James Blair. He completed the skills audit just like everyone else at the meeting. He's done work with SD before. Partner at a respected law firm. What's the issue?
  5. It's a monthly membership fee. You pay whatever you like above the minimum monthly contribution of £5. Don't pay anything you need back, don't pay anything you can't afford. The "return" you get is helping Rangers fans achieve our primary aims. You can cancel at any time, you can alter your payment at any time - up or down. Give what you feel is right for you. For some, that might be £20, for some that might be £50, for some that might be £5.
  6. You said you'd heard costs would be higher, I'm just wondering where from because someone is giving out information which hasn't even been determined yet.
  7. No reason why those costs can't be covered outwith member contributions. I'm not sure how the OP got his information though, none of that has even been discussed yet.
  8. Point 3 is unanswerable, because it hasn't even got to that stage yet. It would seem logical to me to try and cover any overheads by other means though, but that's just an individual thought. Point 2; yes, the money can be used for more than just buying shares. That doesn't mean it's going to be used for other things in the short-term though. Not sure how many times it can be explained that it's just a flexibility worth having. If, after you get to the level of ownership required to get the level of transaprency and accountability that fans require, why would you continue to buy shares? Why not fund projects which wouldn't be funded otherwise? Long term that's a massive benefit, but if that's not what you want to do with your money, then that's fine - join Buy Rangers. Nobody is advising against it. Point 1; Technically you can get your money back from Buy Rangers, it depends upon the RST having the money to do so though. Nobody is asking you to contribute money you can't afford to live without though, if you need the money back, I'd advise you to keep hold of your money and invest at a later date. For example, if every Buy Rangers member backed out at year 3, at current value the RST would have to sell all its shares and still find £140kish to pay everyone back. The more shares the RST buys at current rates, the quicker that sum will drop though. My point was more aimed at asking people not to draw battle lines, both have their merits and both are aimed at doing something positive, can't we just support the one we prefer without trying to point score?
  9. Nice when people invent competition which doesn't exist, isn't it? Your point about costs isn't true either. 1% is the figure in costs for Rangers First, with Buy Rangers you get 1%, plus whatever admin costs plus your £10 annual RST membership. As I've said previously too, Rangers First will be focussed on buying shares initially too, the flexibility is about long-term. I'll state again, however, if Buy Rangers is what you choose - great, both schemes are aimed at doing the same things. I'd ask you to avoid trying to create conflict which doesn't exist though. Promote Buy Rangers, don't criticise the other. I'm a supporter of both.
  10. There's a great deal I agree with Dr Waiton about. I wouldn't say that people should be allowed to say whatever they like, there are some thing which are unacceptable. However, I don't believe that custodial sentences for words should be possible.
  11. Haha! My apologies, I must have clicked the wrong link when researching what you said. My initial statement is based upon the reporting at the time. http://news.stv.tv/scotland/237753-dave-king-settles-on-44m-bill-with-south-african-authorities/ http://www.scotsman.com/news/tom-english-dave-king-s-role-at-rangers-1-3139574
  12. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cara1990272/s5.html http://www.acts.co.za/prevention-of-organised-crime-act-1998/ The acts don't exactly do what they say on the tin.
  13. http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/rfc-politics/310-dr-waiton-on-rangers-free-speech-and-sectarianism It's an excellent read (the Spiers part especially), very well done to John.
  14. Easdale was convicted of VAT fraud. Fraud being the operative word. That's a criminal charge.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.