Frankie

I think there are other interested parties - just doubt they currently have the finance to buy. Not sure about exclusivity but this kind of thing is common if not a necessity during due diligence.

I won't comment on whose is better but I'll gladly pass on one of yours to the former chairman... Maybe he'll buy your 'vineyard' for several million afterwards? :box:

The moderating team will get their own bottle of Buckfast to share in the usual bus-stop...

Didn't even realise the date. This is genuine mate.

Can't see the deal being completed within 72 hours but it makes sense for him to decide his intentions by then or allow other interested parties access to the books.

As part of Gersnet's tenth year anniversary celebrations for 2010, I thought I'd chance my hand and, late last year, contacted the club owner to see if he fancied conducting an informal, fun interview for the benefit of our wee community. Even though I'd had experience of speaking with the former chairman via my work with the RST in recent years, I was still surprised to receive a reply and was even more surprised to see it was a positive one - depending on Sir David's diary. Given his criticisms of the online community in late 2008, that was somewhat of a shock! Fortunately we've managed to find a suitable date where the interview will take place later this month and it will be recorded for download. In the mean-time, I'd like to invite questions from all our site members - please keep them challenging (but civil). Obviously, direct questions on the ownership issue of the club are likely to be politely declined. Sir David has also kindly donated two bottles of his own Chateau Routas Coquelicot Viognier 2005 for the best questions submitted. I've asked the moderating team to judge this.

Just remember, he doesn't do stop and talks... Buy the band and do one!

Lucky for us, he'll not be there on Saturday! :spl:

Might be a few familiar faces helping sell these tomorrow...

plg: I think I can vaguely remember that and I found it petty and irrelevant and was glad it was quickly removed. I said as much privately to the author. Some senior posters on RM and FF should be above the kind of crap we've seen lately but I still don't think it necessarily represents anything other than a few individuals acting like school-kids. The vast majority on either forum couldn't care less about each place and/or probably use both places anyway so won't appreciate the tit-for-tat nonsense. People have the right to be critical of any site, forum or organisation of course but much better it is constructive and based on facts rather than subjective opinions or mischief-making. I just think some find the odd disagreement or criticism a convenient excuse to resort to quite embarrassing behaviour which helps no-one. Think I asked you this before but didn't get an answer, do you excuse the behaviour of some on FF lately - including your fellow board members - who also posted inaccurate information about people (which is still freely available) or resorted to abuse? I don't particularly care if you answer that actually but I'm only asking to highlight the unnecessary behaviour of both sides of the 'argument'. I'm just glad there are some (the majority in fact) who are above such crap as I simply don't see what anyone gets out of it.

Hopefully we've already done so...

I'd fancy Novo and Broadfoot will stay out of those with contracts running out... Steven Smith has already refused while Boyd and Beasley look unlikely. The likely sale of Bougherra will have to pay for the replacements.

That is rather scary... Some nice article material in that info - a member like yourself would be well-placed to write a piece for the main site.

The ownership debate has been delivering constant news for many months so I'm surprised an exploratory document was to be submitted with only a few weeks preparation and without some initial feasibility studies. However, timing semantics aside I am genuinely interested in hearing more and hope the expert advice you have taken is enough to precipitate proper debate in the subject amongst the fans. I look forward to finding out how this debate will be conducted.

I thought months was the time-scale mentioned in your release and mentioned by Trust reps elsewhere but am happy to be corrected as always...? I look forward to hearing more. It's a pity the Assembly seem so quiet but understand they may be somewhat restricted in what they can say given their 'official' nature and financial obligations to the club.

I actually think 20,000 people at �£1500 is achievable given the right plan and the right figurehead. The problem for me is maximising initial take-up and keeping people interested after 5 years. The initial drip-drip has to be turned into a flow which doesn't run dry. I don't mind different levels of membership either if that helps - for example I don't feel any less of a fan because I sit in a different area of the stadium from someone else. As long as the rules are flexible enough not to allow wealthy persons to be overly influential. What we need is a proper debate on the issue and to do that we need to see more than the titbits offered so far.

Thanks for that but, with the greatest of respect, I don't think that is overly positive news. We're led to believe the Trust has been working on this scheme for several months but there seems little substance for us to lay our hats on so far. Surely, you're not changing your plans on a large scale because a few people on the internet may not fancy the up-front payment? Online fans may well be the most active demographic but it probably isn't the best litmus test of wider opinion for a variety of reasons. I'd recommend moving onto studies of more substance asap but appreciate ideas in reaching out offline are short on the ground. If you have a plan which is interesting enough that multi-millionaires will debate it for months, share it with those you want to subscribe to it so we can all provide feedback that way. Sure, some will ridicule it, but that in itself isn't a bad thing to get out the way before launching. Meanwhile the rest of us and the fan organisations can take the more valid suggestions and improve it. That is fan consultation, that is leadership and that is involving everyone.

I see it as a positive circle - get credible people heading it and get people paying subs; get people paying subs and get more business investment. Someone needs to take the initiative and if its the fans, then I'm all for it. The problem is a smaller scale version of this has already been attempted (under different circumstances granted) and hasn't been as successful as any of us would have hoped. I suppose Gersave could be amended/repackaged as a socios scheme but that in itself will cost tens of thousands of pounds - money the Trust doesn't have. In general don't mind paying for improved representation and an improved club but until I know the meat on the bones, the cobwebs stay in my wallet. Moreover, I see myself as reasonably interested spectator reasonably well versed in the politics. Copland Joe on the other hand, will need more than some faceless online persona to persuade him to part with his cash. McColl (or the like) may provide the investment, who provides the much-needed figurehead? And how do the Trust reach the previously tough (impossible?) to reach offline, apathetic casual fan? These are the toughest questions and deflections about negative media coverage won't answer them.

Just sell more of your fine body at Anderston Quay? :fish:

Since when did anyone believe unknown people online...?

Wilson has now started more games this season than Bougherra - his availability problems must now be a factor in deciding on his future.

Expected negative media coverage from the usual suspects aside, why not counter their efforts by answering the more constructive concerns of those genuinely interested in what you have to offer with this plan? As has been asked several times recently, how do you plan to consult and involve the wider Rangers family to maximise the chances of success for fan ownership schemes? People like Spiers and English are easily swatted aside by showing them the proof of the pudding. By only moaning about their coverage it actually lends credence to their claims.

Yeah, time and patience is definitely running out for the lad. He wasn't helped last night by a midfield and fellow strikers who basically downed tools.

I felt a wee bit sorry for him last night. He worked very hard and his first touch was often good enabling him to beat men, but then he'd run the ball out of play or not be found again when he passed to others. No idea what was wrong with Thomson and Miller in particular. They just didn't turn up.

Given he's disappeared from the team again, I'd say the chances of him being offered a new contract are slim to none...