ThatsWhyWeirChamps

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.

Hats off to all for their energy. I hope it's off to a flier.

 

I know this is moany, and it might not matter. But the typos do my nut in - if you are trying to get money from people you need to be as professional as you can.

 

& I don't like the rubric 'Taking on the burden of others' for the £18.72 option. I know it's not meant to, but it potentially sends out the message that you, fan X who can't afford £18.72, isn't as good as fan Y who can. The potential is there to send out a negative message, which is the last thing you want if you are trying to get fan x to part with their money. The concept is fair enough, I understand that, it's just that advertising message wise the word 'burden' is a mistake.

 

Given how touchy our fans are, these things do matter.

 

Apart from which, it's been written as 'Taken on the burden of others', which shows how minutes get corrupted.

 

But here I am, being negative. Sorry! The best of luck and fingers crossed for a positive outcome.

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!

Took a while, but I eventually got signed up. Took the £18.72 option!

I know who he means - I have discussed this long enough now. The point is that Rangers First is not the small band of former RST board members that some would portray it as. There are far more people like myself who have no history with anyone (although I did join the RST a short while ago). I think it should be accepted that there are people who come from different backgrounds who have came to work together on this. The lad Ian for instance who worked on his own scheme for months and donated the name is no less important than some of the Former RST board members. I feel that myself and my family have had an impact on this. I think Rangers First is worth more respect than that - it is from a wide variety of Rangers Supporters encompassing a broad spectrum of the support from what I can see.

 

Thats how I feel at least - RF can make a difference to my club and I am confident it will be a success

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.

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?

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.

Eh? What are you talking about regarding where I get my information from? I asked questions about statements made on various forums about both schemes, that was all. I have no inside knowledge from either scheme or have attended any meetings. What information do you mean?

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.

1% is the cost of the direct debit but I suspect the op was talking about other costs such as legal, insurance, marketing, postage, stationery, website, printing etc.

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.

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?

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.

A very poor interview - either the editing was crass or this guy really is an idiot.

 

If you're going to play to the gallery, don't try to hide behind a veneer of academic respectability and at least be up front about your larger agenda.

 

By far, the worst article I've read on TRS.

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.

Not sure of the relevance of the New South Wales Consolidated Acts?

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

If he was not convicted of a criminal offence why did he have to "pay to the Criminal Assets Recovery Account ("CARA") the amount of R8.75 million as contemplated in section 64(e) of Act 121 of 1998" in addition to the " fine of R3 280 000.00 or 984 months (82 years) imprisonment."

 

The Act 121 of 1998 is the South Africa Prevention of Organised Crime Act.

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.

The following is an interview with Dr Stuart Waiton of Abertay University, probably Scotland's foremost free-speech campaigner. Here he gives his views on how increased censorship and authoritarianism is affecting Rangers, Celtic and Scottish football fans. He also touches on wider society.

 

His book, 'Snobs Law – Criminalising Football Fans in and Age of Intolerance' can be purchased here and I thoroughly recommend it. Thanks to Dr Waiton for his time.

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.

As I say if you don't pay any court fine then you go to jail.

 

Kings transgressions are as such very different to Easdale.

Easdale was convicted of VAT fraud. Fraud being the operative word.

That's a criminal charge.

The criminal charges against King were dropped.

The section of the act he plead guilty to breaching involves lack of cooperation, providing false submissions (not fraudulent) and a host of others. None of which are fraud or tax evasion.

Is there anyway this new CIC scheme can be set up that ALL monies must go to buying shares and nothing else ?

If that's your major concern, just join Buy Rangers. That's exactly what all money collected for that has to be used for. Everybody will be just as delighted if you do.

I don't know if it can be made any clearer than it was though; the CIC is purely a flexible vehicle which can match the needs of the fans and the Clubs at any given time.

It's almost certain that the first target will be to attain a decent shareholding before anything else would be considered. Once you reach that 10%, 20% or whatever it may be, surely the ability to keep taking in money and start investing in worthwhile projects which benefit the entire Rangers community - and strenghten the day-to-day relationship with the Club itself in the process - is a massive bonus though?

It is about more than just the generic "fan ownership", it's about genuine community involvement with the Club. About everyone being invested in the welfare of the Club, and the Club being invested in the enjoyment and input of its fans.

In this market, really? it's hard get one good British player for 6-10million far less 6! Average players go for 8 figures nowadays. Also we will not have 6 graduates that make it through to regular top division games - we'll be lucky if we get three . We won't get 6 foreign imports that arrive and do well unless we spend a fortune on about 20 of them (think of all the foreigners we've had over the years that have failed totally at Ibrox). We are talking about getting back into Europe - 30million wouldn't come close to getting us through the qualifiers. IF, and that's only IF, you follow what was being said in the interview about replacing what we have lost by going out and spending. The other route of taking ur years in the wilderness to build from the ground up would have been an alternative - I'm not sure there is time now.

Good, as in relative to our opponents. There are plenty of lower league bosmans and cheap players in England. Bosmans in Scotland too.

I am not disagreing with what he says per se - but I do disagree with the amount, it'd need a lot more than that. You can bet that the schum will start spending when we get back.

They don't really have the money to spend. They have about £35m of profit in the last 18 months and only have a £5.7m cash surplus.

I'll estimate that they'll lose about £8m between December and June too with dwindling attendances, massive costs, no Cup run and out of Europe.

6 foreign imports

6 good British players

6 good players signed from the rest of Scotland

6 Auchenhowie grads

The 6 foreigners have a rotation/life-span of around 2-3 years before being sold for a profit and replaced (think Jelavic, Cuellar, Bougherra, Boumsong etc). The next 12 build the core of your squad (these are your McGregor, Davis, Naismith, Weir type players) and the 6 Auchenhowie grads are players you hope will eventually graduate into one of the upper tiers (that would be guys like Ness, McCabe, McMillan, Shinnie).

You should be able to build that, if you work cleverly, for £6-10m. You have to have a scout who guarantees a success rate of over 50% with those imports too.

Of the current squad, Law, Bell & Wallace all definitely fit in there as first picks. Macleod probably too.

The idea that it will take £30m is ludicrous, but I can see what he's getting at.

This is a real issue, I agree.

 

Due to the length of the meeting, I refrained from raising a few negative issues I had; some are 'devil's advocate' but they should be examined, just the same. But we were there for nigh on 3 and a half hours and time was up!

 

There's a two sided coin in terms of what SDS consider negativity, their response is to ignore it and plough on. That's a little difficult for us, since the people who are likely to be most hostile wield an unfortunate amount of influence. Ignoring them might allow the ball to start rolling and build momentum, or it might burst said ba' before we even get to the park. It's a hard circle to square.

 

I did ask Richard from SDS to provide something concrete which we could present as proving, indisputably, that SDS were clean, on the level, etc. but didn't get much beyond a personal assurance and the legal guarantees on their website which, sadly, won't be enough for some as we all know. Richard did look a little like a cross between Craig Whyte and Kessler from Secret Army so perhaps a glance at his forbidding visage, and equally forbidding waistcoat, may be enough. I'm afraid there is going to have to be a level of trust for this to work which is not just lacking but completely absent in our fanbase.

 

Also, I wonder whether this will be practical in getting the club to the level we want it at, ie competing in Europe. The mechanism whereby HNWI can contribute helps on that front, but I am still slightly doubtful that it would accrue the cash we would need, and I wonder whether fan ownership might not forever peg the club at the level of say a Dundee Utd or a Kilmarnock. Not good enough, we'd all agree.

 

In the end the first thing we need is a level of maturity no-one has seen for as long. If it doesn't work after that (and you can see I have my doubts) at least we tried and we will have a single body without faction to show for it. That alone makes me throw my ample poundage behind the plan.

 

If someone has a personal issue with someone else, too bad. If someone is holding things back, they either need to acknowledge it or be politely but firmly told. The time for adolescent squabbling between grown ups is not only past now it was past about five years ago - easier said than done? Only if we make it so. I've no doubt at all that most everyone has stuff in their personal life going on which makes fighting about the football look like small beer indeed: despite how important Rangers is to us all it shouldn't be beyond us to take informed decisions in an adult fashion.

 

Those who don't will be seen for what they are, and hopefully accorded about as much attention as my 15 year old stomping his way back up the stairs to his PC Kingdom in the bedroom.

The HNWI thing is more of an added bonus. The IPS model is currently restricted from taking investment over £20k (although I believe that is increasing to £100k soon), whilst the CIC model does not have those limitations.

It provides a good platform for these guys to even loan money to the CIC and allows the CIC to build a shareholding quicker if that is indeed how it decides to work.

Important to not take anything too literally as a definite moving forward though; most of yesterday was outlining the possibilities. Just having the option and flexibility is what the real benefit of the scheme is. It can bend and shape with the ever-changing needs of the fans and the Club.

There was a definite - an absolutely rock solid - feeling at the meeting that bygones had to be bygones and moving forward was the only answer.

 

Anyone who wants to remain outside the tent can do so, of course. But really, it's very childish. If Brahim is on the working party, he has no more say than anyone else who signs up. None at all, only the ability to maybe frame some proposals the membership put forward in legally sound terms; which he can do, given his background. And he only gets elevated if people vote for him, which is your actual basic democracy. So where's the problem?

 

I might point out that BH got a resounding round of applause when he made a plea for unity and progressive thinking. The history may be complex but that's where it has to remain, in the past. A perfect solution will never be found - look at the hassle trying to organise a dinner! But bitching about the past before the thing is even started is utterly futile.

I honestly think there's about 15 guys online who hate everything, and everyone else really can't be arsed.

I wouldn't say I'm best pals with everyone, but we all want the same things at the end of the day. Today proved that when you get guys in a room together, there's generally always a common ground. We all know something has to be done.

The fans have to empower themselves. The Club we have is a reflection on us. It's up to us to change that.

I don't think you'll find 20k people willing to sacrifice £180-240 a year. That's almost a season ticket these days. Maybe a tenth of that. That said, when we get promoted to the premiership, I hope the boycotting of other grounds leaves about 5k fans with a load of money in their pockets.

Remember, not everyone has to commit to that, that's just weighted averages based upon what others have achieved. If you can't commit to £20, commit to £10, if you can't commit to £10 - buy a scarf or take part in one of the other activites.

The sky really is the limit with it, it's about engaging the entire support and trying to get everyone engaged with the Club and trying to make it a success again.

At the end of the day, what do we have to lose?

I pay a gym membership I never use! I have phone contracts coming out my arse! I pay £30/month for my broadband - none of them are as important as Rangers, and something which really engages the community and makes supporting Rangers more than just turning up and paying my money on a Saturday is definitely appealing to me.

I'd be willing to wager that if we played Faure and Gasparotto together we'd play well, and score lots of goals. The added pace would mean we could keep a higher line and press the opponents higher up the park.

Reliably informed this is one of the reasons we lost Dylan McGeough, that and the fact the Dhims offered him 4k a week of a salary.

The young boy Stuart Urquhart left last season because of it too. Fantastic prospect, lost to Coventry because we viewed garbage like Emilson and Argyriou as ahead of him.