bmck 117 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 This is all a bit like the abortion debate. One side calls themselves pro-life and the other pro-choice; one side calls the other side religious-nutters and the other calls the other baby-killers. People put their own position in terms most favourable to their ends. Most people on here who don't trust the RST are pretty sensible and not uncharitable. And the lack of trust is not because of misinformation and spin, it's just our best analysis of their behaviour, which is publicly available for us to see. Most of us who feel this way are RST members, and had been staunch supporters from the beginning (something likewise proven true by a look back through our articles). Given the fall in our estimation of the RST, and the recent 'stewardship' of Murray, we have come to place a high stock on being able to trust our leaders. This period of relative crisis isn't going to go well without prinicipled leaders. We're the pro-strong-leaders lobby. Step over to UCB, and he sees above all things the need for unity. This period of relative crisis isn't going to go at all unless we can bury past feelings and move forward; the only people aiming for the bigger goal of fan ownership, which, being philosophical RST supporters, we all want, is the RST. This isn't about the RST increasing in power, and those at it's lead - it's about getting together as Rangers fans and doing what is right for the club. The pro-unity lobby value action over inaction, and the higher ideals over personal squabbles. The crux of the issue is this. The problem with progressing under abstract banners like 'the club', or 'the good of Rangers' is precisely that it's only abstract. In practical terms you are always united under something, or, more pertinently, someone. Doing things for the good of Rangers then implicitly implies doing things for the good of the RST . I know that for every bit of my weight I throw behind this, if it all works out, I am contributing to the people sitting at the top of the tree post-fan-ownership-revolution being the same people who essentially took over the RST by force and who have taken every opportunity to haughtily isolate themselves from those who disagree with anything they say. So, the question isn't unity; unity for unity's sake is Animal Farm. Like most people, when push comes to shove and it's a do-nothing or do-something situation, I'll probably do what I can to contribute to the best thing that appears. I think it was Tannochsidebear who said that, as he understood it, any step towards fan ownership would be a step toward the disollution of the RST. This isn't a strange idea, given that this is the RST's most defining issue. If this was somehow worked into an investment scheme - as a sort of show of faith that the RST think the issue is more important than themselves - I'd be more likely to invest. It's a tough one, and I think people are genuinly torn. My intuitions about the RST take on maineflyrean (a new one for the OED maybe) levels of cyncism, but I don't want to miss a once in a lifetime opportunity to do something rather than nothing. Everyone's nearer one end or the other of these two poles, I think. All UCB's rhetoric pushes us towards one end of the pole, and everything people like me see argues towards the other end. What we need is this dilemma to disappear. The only ways I can see it happening is that if either someone who isn't the Trust put it forward (removing trust issues about the trust), like the club or the bank. Or if the Trust somehow linked investment in their scheme to their functional end as an organisation. Anyway, enough rambling. My (extended) tuppence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 A fair analysis as ever B... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 The online community of active users is around 5000 give or take. Had no idea it was so "small". Well when you consider that approx 200,000 went to Manchester and home attendances are 50,000. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_2010 0 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 The online community of active users is around 5000 give or take. Had no idea it was so "small". Well when you consider that approx 200,000 went to Manchester and home attendances are 50,000. Where did you get this info from? I also wonder what kind of numbers the club have on file... Those who have registered for the site, signed up to Rangers World, or even has a history of ticket purchases. That may give a better indication of fan numbers who could potentially invest... As a side note, what would people think about the less desired elements of our support investing and part owning rangers? I have been left disappointed on a few occassions and have not wanted to be associated with some people calling themselves Rangers fans in the past. Should they be allowed to have a stake?! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 How would you determine who is undesirable though Andrew ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Where did you get this info from? I also wonder what kind of numbers the club have on file... Those who have registered for the site, signed up to Rangers World, or even has a history of ticket purchases. That may give a better indication of fan numbers who could potentially invest... As a side note, what would people think about the less desired elements of our support investing and part owning rangers? I have been left disappointed on a few occassions and have not wanted to be associated with some people calling themselves Rangers fans in the past. Should they be allowed to have a stake?! The 5000 number was in my post on a previous page... Based empirically on active forum members as opposed to members of the Rangers official site.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_2010 0 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 How would you determine who is undesirable though Andrew ? I don't know but I am I wrong about having "undesirables"? Re: Frankie, Which forums are those? and do you think the club would be willing to share the info from the sources I mentioned to help analyse the feasability of any fan involvement financially? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I don't know but I am I wrong about having "undesirables"? Re: Frankie, Which forums are those? and do you think the club would be willing to share the info from the sources I mentioned to help analyse the feasability of any fan involvement financially? See this post http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showpost.php?p=178008&postcount=209 As for the club helping 'sell' to the fans I doubt that would be possible in many ways for regulatory reasons. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Pretty interesting little article by David Conn in the Gaurdian - Bundesliga votes to keep clubs owned by members The clubs of the German Bundesliga this week voted overwhelmingly to keep the rule that they must all be controlled by their members, and cannot be taken over by private investors. Even Bayern Munich, Hamburg SV and the other great names of the Bundesliga have to be owned 50% plus 1, a majority, by their members ( there are two exceptions, Wolfsburg and Bayer Leverkeusen, which were originally works teams). Many fans treasure this system, believing it has been instrumental in keeping German football close to its fans and roots even in the slick, commercial modern age. Ticket prices are low, affordable to young fans and the grounds, among the best in the world, boast the highest average attendances in Europe. The national supporters group Unsere Kurve had led a mass campaign to retain the 50+1 rule, and on Tuesday delivered a petition signed by more than 100,000 fans of all clubs. Keeping the "50+1" rule is a statement of confidence in the system which directly rejects the English approach, where football clubs are in reality companies, available to be bought and sold by businessmen from anywhere. Several Bundesliga clubs have grumbled throughout this decade that the rule has held them back from attracting private investment which could improve their finances. Yet at their meeting this week, an application from Hannover 96 to overturn the "50+1" ruling was overwhelmingly rejected, with 32 clubs voting against it, 3 clubs abstaining - and only Hannover 96 themselves voting for the proposal. Dr Reinhard Rauball, the League Association president, said after the vote: "The Bundesliga is remaining true to its principles and maintaining its reliance on the factors which have made a decisive contribution to the success of the professional game in Germany in recent decades: stability, continuity and proximity to fans." This is a sporting tradition we should study more closely. In Germany, they have preserved member-ownership of even their greatest professional clubs, maintain accessible ticket prices, their clubs field teams in a wide spread of sports, and are centres for massive community use of excellent facilities. That is enlightened, and very different from the landscape here, where sport began and is blessed by splendid qualities, yet where we have never truly agreed on the values it should have, or how best to protect them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/nov/13/bundesligafootball-bayernmunich 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Pretty good article and one the SFA should heed. However, one assertion that I think is a bit much is the claims about the highest attendances. Lower ticket prices may be a factor but so is sheer size of population and population density combined with wealth. If you gave England another 30 million people then I'm sure they would match the attendances of Germany. Also uniting the league with Scotland would up the average with the Old Firm. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.