Gerspride conference, Sat 14 nov

[Frankie 8,187]

Read a report elsewhere about the meeting and it seems it went pretty well - if a little short of concrete information on how the fan groups intend to progress their ideas.

 

Can you shed some light on that UCB? I, and others made a few recommendations and suggestions, last week - are those the kind of models under consideration and, if so, how do you intend achieving them? What people do you have on board that can appeal to the people who couldn't attend today's meeting or that wouldn't normally be interested in the 'political side' of the club?

[Zappa 0]

I couldn't make it either, but like Bluedell would be really interested to read more info about the HSV model. I don't suppose it was recorded in any way (audio or video) ??

[Union City Blue 0]

UCB, I couldn't make it due to family commitments, but would be interested to hear how the HSV model works in practice, and what your thoughts are to the positives and negatives as to how it would relate to Rangers and our support, given the cultural and other differences involved.

 

Family first mate, but I think you would have been intrigued by what the HSV guy had to say.

 

It's a long story in reality, so I can probably only summarise. HSV have a Supervisory Board of 12 - 8 of whom are elected by the 52,000 members at their AGM, so the Members have the biggest and most important say about who's who.

 

The Supervisory Board appoints a Board of Directors to actually run the club on a day-to-day basis.

 

In my opinion, the barriers as far as Rangers are concerned are mainly cultural and philisophical. In Germany, the culture is very much 'club-oriented'; clubs exists to serve their interested communities and the communities ae culturally attuned to owning and running their clubs. Quite different to here, but a perfect fit for the ideaology of supporters Trusts.

 

Having said that, there's no time like the present and hearing first-hand accounts of what can be achieved was fascinating.

 

As someone said today, if the WHOLE COUNTRY can be run on a democratic basis (even with its imperfections), then its not beyond the imagination that a football club like Rangers could be too. I honestly believe that if we get sufficient momentum and a significant catalyst that this can definitely happen.

[Union City Blue 0]

I couldn't make it either, but like Bluedell would be really interested to read more info about the HSV model. I don't suppose it was recorded in any way (audio or video) ??

 

Don't think so mate, but I saw a podcast interview being recorded with the HSV guy Jens, so when that becomes available it should be worth a listen.

[Zappa 0]

I honestly believe that if we get sufficient momentum and a significant catalyst that this can definitely happen.

I think you're going to struggle big time getting sufficient numbers properly on board to the extent of having 50,000+ 'members'. The response to the idea of fan ownership is generally quite positive here on Gersnet, but from what I've been reading on other Rangers forums there a lot of people who simply don't like the idea at all. How you go about convincing people who don't like the idea that it's actually the best way forward for the club is going to be tough! The first step is obviously creating a viable model & plan of action as the likes of Newcastle's NUST have done. It's only once you've gone to the level that the NUST have that you can even hope to get the majority of the support on board. It would be quite interesting to pay a visit to the big Newcastle forums to see what their fans are all saying about the NUST's fan ownership model & action plan.

[Frankie 8,187]

Few more questions that I would have asked if present...

 

How much is it going to cost to alter and administrate GerSave to become a model capable of progressing fan ownership? Do the Trust have the funds/resources in place to do this?

 

Now that a credible senior former Trust member has suggested Dave King is no longer involved in trying to buy the club, who are the Trust behind now given they publicly backed King's bid 2 weeks ago?

 

I believe Mark Dingwall spoke of unity amongst all the fan groups and websites? Does he or they intend organising some kind of meeting on how best to utilise this unity? Why should people attend whose credible projects he didn't back and personally attacked only a few months ago? I'm all for water under the bridge of course but you'll understand my puzzlement at this change of tact.

 

Genuinely interested in the answers to all these (and the ones posted previously).

[Union City Blue 0]

Read a report elsewhere about the meeting and it seems it went pretty well - if a little short of concrete information on how the fan groups intend to progress their ideas.

 

Can you shed some light on that UCB? I, and others made a few recommendations and suggestions, last week - are those the kind of models under consideration and, if so, how do you intend achieving them? What people do you have on board that can appeal to the people who couldn't attend today's meeting or that wouldn't normally be interested in the 'political side' of the club?

 

I think the message today from abroad was that there are lots of different ways to set up your structures, and Rangers needs to find the best one for Rangers. HSV's seems like a fantastically well-organised structure (stereotypical jokes are allowed, I believe ). If we were to go down that route it would take a lot of time and voluntary work to put it into place.

 

Everybody's very conscious that we need the right investment vehicle and the right people, aims, model and message; and that the initiative has credibility. I can't say who will be involved right now but I can say that when we go to the supporters we want it to be right. By that I mean right for the concept to get off the ground, fly and succeed.

 

I do appreciate I'm being very general here, but the whole thing involves legal and accountancy advisors, the FSA and so on (each of whom are involved at the moment) and it is taking time to put the detailed plans together. And that's outside of considering the club, the bank, investors, the media and most importantly - the supporters.

 

But we are making good progress on all fronts, so that's good news.

[Frankie 8,187]

I think the message today from abroad was that there are lots of different ways to set up your structures, and Rangers needs to find the best one for Rangers. HSV's seems like a fantastically well-organised structure (stereotypical jokes are allowed, I believe ). If we were to go down that route it would take a lot of time and voluntary work to put it into place.

 

Everybody's very conscious that we need the right investment vehicle and the right people, aims, model and message; and that the initiative has credibility. I can't say who will be involved right now but I can say that when we go to the supporters we want it to be right. By that I mean right for the concept to get off the ground, fly and succeed.

 

I do appreciate I'm being very general here, but the whole thing involves legal and accountancy advisors, the FSA and so on (each of whom are involved at the moment) and it is taking time to put the detailed plans together. And that's outside of considering the club, the bank, investors, the media and most importantly - the supporters.

 

But we are making good progress on all fronts, so that's good news.

 

With respect, I'd expect all that as a matter of course so am surprised and somewhat disappointed there wasn't anything more concrete available today for interested fans to buy into considering the media coverage the fan groups had over the last couple of weeks...

 

I don't think anyone expected registration forms and backing to be given out today by Richard Gough and Graeme Souness but it seems you're some way off having anything concrete ready to roll out. Surely you can divulge a little bit more to whet our appetites?

 

Perhaps your answers to my other questions may help clear the waters somewhat.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

[Union City Blue 0]

I think you're going to struggle big time getting sufficient numbers properly on board to the extent of having 50,000+ 'members'. The response to the idea of fan ownership is generally quite positive here on Gersnet, but from what I've been reading on other Rangers forums there a lot of people who simply don't like the idea at all. How you go about convincing people who don't like the idea that it's actually the best way forward for the club is going to be tough! The first step is obviously creating a viable model & plan of action as the likes of Newcastle's NUST have done. It's only once you've gone to the level that the NUST have that you can even hope to get the majority of the support on board. It would be quite interesting to pay a visit to the big Newcastle forums to see what their fans are all saying about the NUST's fan ownership model & action plan.

 

It's the $64,000 question.

 

How many will put money in, and how much? HSV's members pay 48 Euros annually, so going from zero to 52,000 in one go seems rather fanciful to say the least. Either way this gets you a couple of million quid every year, which will not do the job.

 

What Rangers needs money-wise is; a one-off cash injection to rid the club of its debt, or restructure it over a long period. PLUS capital investment to improve the infrastructure and the team. PLUS (an unknown amount) to secure ownership of the shares from MIH.

 

It's a big task and a big ask - and it may be that the fans can only contribute a portion of it in the first instance.

 

But as nobody else is buying at the moment, it falls to us to do whatever we can. All of us.

[boss 0]

UCB, what market research has been undertaken to see how many fans will support a form of ownership and at what level they would invest? Doesn't this work come first before solicitors, FSA and a prospectus?

 

How many out of our 200,000 fans in Manchester attended today? I read a figure of about 100 from someone that attended. Doesn't that make formal market research imperative?