Gerspride conference, Sat 14 nov

[Frankie 8,187]

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.

 

The fan groups said they were backing the Dave King bid? Is this confirmation he is no longer in a position to buy?

 

Furthermore, senior Trust board members have said that MIH/SDM will not receive a penny for their shareholding. You suggest that isn't true. Who is right?

 

All seems a bit confusing to me. How will it then look to other bears who're perhaps less interested in this type of off-the-field politics.

[Frankie 8,187]

PS: I'm away to bed now as I have a big night out tomorrow... It may be Tuesday before I can come back to this. Like I say, appreciate you taking the time to answer all our questions UCB and let's hope there is a brighter future for the club involving the fans!

 

[Union City Blue 0]

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).

 

I note your other post, so I'll revert to this one.

 

The Trust will alter Gersave and the cost will not be a problem. This is active WIP.

 

I don't know what you mean about the Dave King comment, sorry.

 

I'm not 100% sure where you are going with your unity question tbh. The fans' groups are obviously - and very clearly - united. I obviously can't speak for Mark or his website, so I don't know if he plans to arrange a website owners meeting.

 

On your related point, people should attend if they are interested in getting fan ownership moving. It's not about Mark Dingwall and whether he backed someone else's idea in the past vs. whether you should back an idea he's involved with now. Surely?

[Union City Blue 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?

 

Market research is one thing - money on the table is another. As the former is short (and there is plenty of the latter being committed on a credible level), all things suggest that now is the time.

 

150 people or so (to my eyes) made the effort today to attend a very positive meeting, to hear about & discuss various models of fan-ownership. Those who were there understand the motivation and the energy we have here so I'm not sure whay you are asking about how proportionate that is to Manchester? (unless it's genuinely related to the market research question which I have tried to answer above ).

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

I put the following report on to RM and thought, as well as UCB's update, I would copy/paste it to here to add to the debate.

 

The first speaker was Jens Wagner, from the HSV Supporters Club. He spoke very well, aided by a powerpoint presentation, on how the club is structured. As most will know Hamburg is 100% fan owned, and he told us they now have 52,000 members paying 48 euros per year. Half of that goes to running the Supporters club, and half goes into the club budgets. The Supporters club is responsible for all ticketing, all other sports that Hamburg are involved in, kids clubs, seniors clubs etc, and all these off-shoots have their own democratically elected boards that report back to the Supporters club board, who in turn elect the Board of Directors, who appoint the manager and run the club day to day. All board positions except one are voluntary, with over 300 elected unpaid officials throughout the vast network of boards and off-shoots. This took my breath away at the size and structure of things at Hamburg, and anyone who thinks we could turn our club into a fan-owned club overnight, even if we had the money, got the reality check of the situation by listening to Jens. He answered many questions also, and was very informative and his English was excellant, and was greatly appreciated and thanked by the 150 strong crowd.

 

Next up was James Proctor, a Raith Rovers fan who works for Supporters Direct, who are a government funded organisation set up to help fans groups set up and run supporters trusts throughout the UK. James spoke very well on this, and very interestingly about UEFA's take on fan ownership, how the EU's freedom of labour movements laws are trying to find some common ground with football players contractual rules, and where he sees UEFA going with club licensing.

 

After a coffee break, Catalan Councillor David Palomar showed a short video of the history of Espanyol, and blew away the myths surrounding the club that seem to have been accepted as fact over the decades, and have done the club no favours whatsoever. He clearly points the finger at Barcelona FC and the Barca press for this dirty tricks campaign, and this culminated with Espanyol nearly going out of business, with their ground being sold off to pay off debts, and not having won a trophy of any kind for 60 years between 1940-2000. It didn't take much to see the similarities of our own situation regarding the way we are demonised in the press, but gave some hope that it is not a lost cause, and once they got themselves organised and the fans got behind the club and they found their proper marketing tools, they have really prospered in the last few years.

 

There was then an open floor for questions to the 3 speakers plus Stephen Smith and Mark Dingwall from the RST, and for around 45 minutes many topics were discussed. The main subject was of course our own situation and what the trust were planning to do. Both Stephen and Mark spoke well and passionately about working as a unified group in conjunction with the Assembly and Association. There was a real desire from the floor to get a scheme in place to try to raise cash to help the club, and of course the trust has the Gersave scheme already regulated and in place, but it may need some tweeking to allow it to accept funds for this. The RST announced they have been speaking to former players about figureheading the campaign, to give all fans a uniting voice to rally behind, and they have also been speaking to potential big investors, and while they have got encouraging signs, we cannot afford to sit around and wait for our white knight, we the fans must do this ourselves. Plans are almost ready to be unveiled to raise whatever cash we can all put in to save our club, and asked for a little more time to ensure they get it right. They are studying 17 different types of schemes that have been used elsewhere and have been suggested for us, and they are very aware of the need to get it right, as only by getting it right will it appeal to enough people to make a difference.

 

All in all it was a very positive meeting, probably the best one the RST have done in years, as they focused on the positive, did not resort to having a go at anyone or blame anyone, assured everyone of unity within the fans groups, and were completely focused on what had to be done, and stated they were determined not to let us down.

 

Like everyone else, I can only hope that the people they are talking to are the right ones, with the right motives, that the scheme they choose to take this forward is the most well balanced and wide-ranging system available, that they ask for and take seriously the advice of bears from outside the board of the RST for a different angle on things, and that they produce their blueprint quickly to ensure that the momentum gathered since "Waltergate" is not lost. Let us not forget that the transfer window opens in 47 days, and that if there is nothing in place for the security of our club at that time, the bank will seek to recover whatever funds it can, and the vultures will be circling for a bargain.

 

Now is not the time for petty squabbling, for bringing up what the RST did before, or what people got banned for on another website. Quite simply this is so much bigger than all of us. Perhaps only once in the history of a football club will it be in a position like this. It has fallen to our generation to save our club. Be under no illusions that a white knight will definately come to the rescue with �£100M and everything will be good again. That may of course happen, but in this climate it is highly unlikely. No, fellow bears, it is up to us to save our club. We quite simply have no other choice, we have to act now, as the consequences of not acting are unthinkable

[maineflyer 0]

Sorry TB but for all the wonderful rhetoric, if you really want to contemplate the future and not just present activity, you first have to believe in those who will lead the charge and shape that future.... and that's where it is simply impossible not to judge on the basis of their past.

 

We're all for unity of purpose and collective strength but you're telling us this is now being proposed by the very people who have shunned collective action over the last couple of years and who have refused to engage with the initiatives other fans' groups. When others have come together and acted together, why was it that these people would not? How then should we judge these latest words from specific individuals who have criticised the efforts of their fellow fans and made it abundantly clear they did not want to act in concert? They cannot simply sweep the boards clean because it suits them now. If they want to be taken seriously then they will first have to explain and justify their previous isolationism. It's a basic matter of trust.

 

HSV have 52000 members paying 48000 Euroseach year. That's almost 2.5m Euros, of which as you say about half is donated to he club to be used in whichever way it sees fit. We have a Trust with a falling membership in the region of 1500 members that includes captive life members who pay nothing each year. Apart from the completely different scale achieved by the two organisations, there is the irony of Satrday's meeting being organised by the very people who have failed so spectacularly to create any sense of inclusion and have been unable to grow the RST despite years of opportunity.

 

How am I or anyone else supposed to take any of this seriously. Instead of stepping aside in the interests of progress, we now have the emblems of failure trying to persuade us that what many have been suggesting and pursuing for years is what we should be doing, despite the fact they have been resisting these objectives all the way.

 

I'll watch with interest and I'll hope I'm wrong but I'll take this opportunity to predict that nothing whatsoever will lie beyond the rhetoric until and unless Stephen Smith, Mark Dingwall and a coterie of others depart the scene and allow more able people to take their place. Leopards and spots, old dogs and tricks.

Edited November 15, 2009 by maineflyer

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

This is exactly the response I predicted from not just you, but a lot of Rangers supporters who have become disillusioned with the goings on at the RST, and I perfectly understand it, and probably agree with a lot of it.

 

At the break yesterday, I had this very discussion with 2 RST board members, and told them they had no chance of unity within the Rangers support until they can prove absolutely 100% that they are being open, honest, and totally inclusive, and whatever has happened in the past remains there, and we look to move forward together.

 

The impression I got from them, and also MD and SS during the meeting, is exactly that. Anything that has happened before cannot be reversed, but can be put aside.

 

The olive branch is most certainly out from the RST to appeal to all bears to get together and move forward collectively. This is 100% not about who is running the RST in 2009, but about the survival of the club.

 

It is my impression that, at long last, they have realised that forever looking backward, playing the blame game, and being reactionary, is not a policy that wins many friends. But being positive, forward thinking, and working with others, is the only way to go.

 

What they are asking for, is for you to put aside your personal issues with them, and back the idea of the fans coming together with the cash to save our club.

 

The time to watch with interest is gone, it is time to put your hand in your pocket and save your club. If you decide not to do your bit due to your personal issues with those who are trying to make a difference with this, that is entirely your right and decision to make.

 

There is no time to wait around for a change of leadership in the RST, or to see if they have truly changed their outlook above the passionate words, I suppose it comes down to wether you can give them the benefit of the doubt from within yourself, wether you can rise above it yourself and commit to the future of the club itself over the individuals who previously have gone in entirely a different tangent to where you would like them to.

 

Quite simply there is no other group doing this, as all the groups are together on this, and if you decide to sit around waiting for the white knight to come along, you may be even more disappointed than if you back this, and find out later that it didnt work to your satisfaction.

 

It must be worth the gamble, given the situation the club is in?

[Bluedell 5,365]

TB, thanks for that informative post.

 

It's obvious that the RST does have an image problem in the support, partly shown by MF's post, and partly shown by the general apathy (at best) by the non-internet fans.

 

Do the RST board show signs of acknowledging and addressing this issue as it's going to difficult to get the punters involved if it is not?

 

edit: I see you have addressed the first part of this, but perhaps not the second.

 

It's OK to say that they are the only group trying it, but if they can't appeal to the masses then there could be problems. We only get one shot at this.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Bluedell

[boss 0]

I put the following report on to RM .....

 

I put the following reply on to RM:

 

Same old.

 

Your naivety is touching.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

Haven't a clue what you mean by that Boss, but a little disappointing contribution to the debate from someone who must have plenty to say about it, and whose analysis of the accounts is widely respected and we would be interested to hear your take on things.

 

Apart from wanting some market research done, which we dont have time for, why dont you give us your view on fan ownership as a possibility, or your take on wether you think the RST's appeal for unity from all fans has a hope of working, or what your blueprint of a fans membership scheme would look like.