Gers fans seek clout for buy-out

[Frankie 8,199]

Definitely some fair points there MF.

 

However, these same people, like us unhappy with little or no control of their investment, may also see this as an opportunity so caution must be taken. All the more reason for OMOV of course.

 

Anyone fancy writing an article on all of this...?

[maineflyer 0]

Definitely some fair points there MF.

 

However, these same people, like us unhappy with little or no control of their investment, may also see this as an opportunity so caution must be taken. All the more reason for OMOV of course.

 

Anyone fancy writing an article on all of this...?

 

Intellect like this is wasted on the masses.

[Bluedell 5,367]

Latest article on the subject.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2009/11/11/give-us-10-years-and-fans-could-own-rangers-insists-supporters-chief-david-edgar-86908-21813066/

 

TONY MOWBRAY dreams of turning Celtic into Barcelona on the field - Rangers fans would love to emulate them off it.

 

The Rangers Supporters Trust have organised a conference at Ibrox this weekend and hope it will be the first step in a move to bring ultimate ownership of the club under the control of the Light Blues legions.

 

Spokesman David Edgar admits it could take up to a decade but it's a road an increasing number of supporters believe is worth travelling with the reigning SPL champs in the financial grubber.

 

They are effectively being run by their bankers, the Lloyds Group, and it's believed further swingeing cuts are planned for the end of the season unless a new owner is found.

 

Edgar revealed they have already held talks with potential new investors in the club, financial heavyweights who have pledged to engage fans like never before.

 

That will do for starters but another vision will be outlined at the Gers Pride conference on Saturday in front of around 250 supporters when key speakers from Hamburg and Espanyol will outline the pros and cons of full fan ownership.

 

Edgar said: "There are clubs in the UK under full fan ownership but they are smaller outfits and people have argued it can't be done with bigger teams. However, there are few bigger than Hamburg, Barcelona or Real Madrid, who are all under the control of their fans.

 

"We're not interested in the Ebbsfleet United model. This is not about supporters choosing who plays up front.

 

"This is about engaging fans to take ownership of something that belongs to every single one of us who has Rangers in their heart. They see the mess our club is in because an us and them mentality has been forged between the club owner and fans in recent years. We have not been engaged - we're asked to pay our money up front and then shut our mouths.

 

"However, we live in an internet world in which people want their say. The days of stumping up and sitting back have gone.

 

"We're pumping millions into our club every year in ticket sales, merchandising and hospitality and are happy to do so but we want to know our voices are being heard and our concerns addressed. We've every right to have a say in where our club is going and if that happens it will bring back a real togetherness and sense of community.

 

"We're not daft,we know therew ill be tough times along the way and that's why Barcelona are the best model for this type of ownership.

 

"Forget the fact they are streets ahead on the field.Their fans accept every few years they have to build a new team and they will go through a spell when they don't win before - boom - it all clicks and they have a few years of fantastic success.

 

"Crucially, they have a plan and they have accountability and we would love a similar say in how our club is run. There's no reason why the club can't be brought into full fan ownership within five to 10 years."

 

Edgar is at pains to stress the Rangers Trust may have organised the Ibrox get-together but are not driving the bus towards change.

 

The Rangers Trust, Supporters Association and Supporters Assembly, who represent the vast majority of Ibrox fans, have joined forces to discuss the future.

 

Edgar added: "This is not about what's best for individual fans nor individual groups of fans but what's best for the club. Let's face it, if we don't get this right we may not have a club at all.

 

"We're not too big to fail - people would have laughed at the thought of the collapse of HBoS 18 months ago.We must work together."

 

Edgar refused to name the wealthy potential investors they have already engaged in talks but admits they have been positive and it's now or never. He said: "They have to be judged by their actions and not their words because we know what it's like to be patronised and ignored.

 

"However, we have spoken to potential investors who are keen to see greater fan representation at board level and for us all to take a greater chunk of the club.

 

"One model could see new owners with 67 per cent of the club and fans 33 per cent, with supporter shareholding increasing year on year.

 

"After all, unless you're Roman Abramovich looking to invest as a hobby it pays for any investor to come in with an exit strategy. It might be heresy for a Rangers fan to say it but similar to the plan Fergus McCann openly revealed when he bought Celtic.

 

"If a new Rangers owner finally leaves the club having returned it to the fans it would be a fantastic legacy."

 

The devil is in the detail, of course, and financial stability is key for a club who are expected to confirm later this week they are �£30million in debt.

 

That's a jaw-dropping sum but put into context Edgar points out it's the equivalent of every one of the 150,000 Rangers fan in Manchester for the UEFA Cup Final committing �£20 a year for 10 years.

 

He added: "If 50,000 season ticket holders committed an additional �£30 a year to become members of the club it would generate around �£1.5m annually. There would also be an opportunity for fans to pay additional monthly sums, with member benefits.

 

"That money could be ring-fenced away from the core budget used to pay salaries and other costs.

 

"Members would then have a vote on how to spend the money.

 

"It's about democracy for the fans and government by the fans. It sure beats our current position where we're so close to financial meltdown."

 

[miniblue 0]

Hi all, ive read this post with interest and would like to try and take the discussions a bit further.

 

As a former RST board member, I have always been, and remain to this day, an advocate for greater supporter representation at Rangers, although through experience I would have to question the desire for supporter ownership amongst the supporters. For information I also know for a fact that Rangers considered such plans a number of years ago, and again the concern at this time was that whilst a few thousand die hards would back the plan, was there widespread support for such actions?.

 

I for one believe the following would work.

 

Im in a fortunate position that I could afford an annual membership, however, this is not a position shared by all and I appreciate most supporters struggle to pay their season ticket costs each year. Therefore In my view asking for a substantial annual membership to a club will not work, as its a scheme that only suits better off supporters.

In my view a scheme would have to involve regular small payments and be open to all, based on the trusts core principal of one member one vote.

 

In simple terms say the fans setup a club, lets call it ââ?¬Å?Rangers For Life Clubââ?¬Â, this needs to be setup in a very clever manner as so not to fall foul of any regulations on investments. The next serious question is how many fans would really join our club, a minimum target would have to be 50,000 fans. Now if we set a realistic subscription to the club, say Ã?£10 per month, then you have a club that will generate upwards of Ã?£6M per year. In my view you have a vehicle that would be well placed to make an approach for the club.

 

As an add on, in my view there are higher net worth supporters who like us all are keen to support a scheme that would benefit the club and ultimately mean its survival. In my view these individuals would be in a position to perhaps provide some upfront capital, that is fully repayable, at some future point ââ?¬â?? thats the only way the process can remain as one member one vote. However, in my view if 3 or 4 individuals provided a sizeable upfront payment they should at least receive a seat on the board for the first couple of years.

 

Lets look at the structure of the club. There would have to be a management board (one who meets regular and deals with day to day issues), and an executive board which comprises the management and the supporters representatives. This would meet monthly. In my view the management board comprises 4 individuals, say a CEO, FD, etc, and there should be an additional 5 supporters in the executive board, which has ultimate power, so the fans are always in charge.

 

For me the key issue is electing the 5 supporters, in my view these should be a mix of high networth individuals and sensible supporters for the first year, with an election every year thereafter to elect 2 new members (to replace 2 of the existing members). Therefore at most a fan can serve is 2 to 3 years. The management board would clearly remain for as long as they deliver the good.

 

Just some initial thoughts ââ?¬â?? which I will take further in another post shortly.

[Union City Blue 0]

One thing I want to add is regarding supporters' groups 'infighting'. In the on-line environment, this is grossly over-exaggerated IMHO and in the real world this is hardly a topic of discussion for your average Rangers fan - and not at all inside the groups themselves as far as I'm aware.

 

Aside from a relative handful of people having pops at each other on various websites, there is in fact, no 'infighting'. Things have moved on and we are living in different times now - this can be seen from the recent shows of unity in public statements between the Assembly, Trust and Association. Whilst structures and priorities means each organisation has specific aims and purposes, there is no 'infighting' and I think we'd all like it if it stayed that way. I don't see this as an issue going forward either regardless of how things pan out.

 

IMHO there will always be fans' groups - although in what shape & in what role is obviously up for debate in certain circumstances. Even 1,000 (never mind 10,000) individuals emailing queries or ideas to a handful of people on the board of a fan-owned Rangers would be impractical although I guess that'd be one of the things up for discussion in the brave new world if we manage to get there. The exact model all have at the other end depends on an awful lot of variables and compromises will most likely have to be made at all levels to achieve the dream. It'll be interesting to hear more about that on Saturday actually.

 

The priority is to aim high and seriously advance fan-ownership; pure and simple.

[Frankie 8,199]

UCB:

 

As far as I'm concerned, ensuring supporters groups are retained is an essential part of the process. However, this should also be seen as an opportunity to improve/refine them to help remove the perception of 'in-fighting' or distrust that prevails amongst many online fans.

 

Whilst that notion may well be exaggerated David Edgar has alluded to how important the internet is in terms of putting fan ownership in place. As such, one would ignore the politics (petty or otherwise) of that world at their peril. In my view, ensuring the success of such a scheme, credibility is everything. Thus, while the fan groups may say they are united (and I'd agree on the face of it they are), the deeper truth is not so straightforward. Obstacles remain in that regard but those in itself should not be a reason to not press ahead with change.

[Bluedell 5,367]

Got to admit that I find that article a little scary. The RST may have expertise in a number of areas but I don't believe finance or the legal side are their strengths at the moment. Perhaps they have brought in some skills, but I'd hope that they are not trying to plan the future of the club without it.

[Frankie 8,199]

Hi all, ive read this post with interest and would like to try and take the discussions a bit further.

 

As a former RST board member, I have always been, and remain to this day, an advocate for greater supporter representation at Rangers, although through experience I would have to question the desire for supporter ownership amongst the supporters. For information I also know for a fact that Rangers considered such plans a number of years ago, and again the concern at this time was that whilst a few thousand die hards would back the plan, was there widespread support for such actions?.

 

I for one believe the following would work.

 

Im in a fortunate position that I could afford an annual membership, however, this is not a position shared by all and I appreciate most supporters struggle to pay their season ticket costs each year. Therefore In my view asking for a substantial annual membership to a club will not work, as its a scheme that only suits better off supporters.

In my view a scheme would have to involve regular small payments and be open to all, based on the trusts core principal of one member one vote.

 

In simple terms say the fans setup a club, lets call it ââ?¬Å?Rangers For Life Clubââ?¬Â, this needs to be setup in a very clever manner as so not to fall foul of any regulations on investments. The next serious question is how many fans would really join our club, a minimum target would have to be 50,000 fans. Now if we set a realistic subscription to the club, say Ã?£10 per month, then you have a club that will generate upwards of Ã?£6M per year. In my view you have a vehicle that would be well placed to make an approach for the club.

 

As an add on, in my view there are higher net worth supporters who like us all are keen to support a scheme that would benefit the club and ultimately mean its survival. In my view these individuals would be in a position to perhaps provide some upfront capital, that is fully repayable, at some future point ââ?¬â?? thats the only way the process can remain as one member one vote. However, in my view if 3 or 4 individuals provided a sizeable upfront payment they should at least receive a seat on the board for the first couple of years.

 

Lets look at the structure of the club. There would have to be a management board (one who meets regular and deals with day to day issues), and an executive board which comprises the management and the supporters representatives. This would meet monthly. In my view the management board comprises 4 individuals, say a CEO, FD, etc, and there should be an additional 5 supporters in the executive board, which has ultimate power, so the fans are always in charge.

 

For me the key issue is electing the 5 supporters, in my view these should be a mix of high networth individuals and sensible supporters for the first year, with an election every year thereafter to elect 2 new members (to replace 2 of the existing members). Therefore at most a fan can serve is 2 to 3 years. The management board would clearly remain for as long as they deliver the good.

 

Just some initial thoughts ââ?¬â?? which I will take further in another post shortly.

 

Welcome to Gersnet, miniblue!

 

Obviously you highlight more important challenges facing such schemes. As such, can we really get our act together in time to get something concrete in place either on its own merits or to accompany/complement another bid?

 

Is there are structure already in place that could be used quickly and effectively and how best do we reach the ordinary Copland Joe who isn't online or perhaps doesn't trust the online based groups who claim to represent fans?

[Frankie 8,199]

Got to admit that I find that article a little scary. The RST may have expertise in a number of areas but I don't believe finance or the legal side are their strengths at the moment. Perhaps they have brought in some skills, but I'd hope that they are not trying to plan the future of the club without it.

 

The real question is just how many kites are the Trust flying just now...?

 

I guess that may be answered on Saturday as they're certainly getting some much needed publicity and debate from the issue.

[Union City Blue 0]

UCB:

 

As far as I'm concerned, ensuring supporters groups are retained is an essential part of the process. However, this should also be seen as an opportunity to improve/refine them to help remove the perception of 'in-fighting' or distrust that prevails amongst many online fans.

 

Whilst that notion may well be exaggerated David Edgar has alluded to how important the internet is in terms of putting fan ownership in place. As such, one would ignore the politics (petty or otherwise) of that world at their peril. In my view, ensuring the success of such a scheme, credibility is everything. Thus, while the fan groups may say they are united (and I'd agree on the face of it they are), the deeper truth is not so straightforward. Obstacles remain in that regard but those in itself should not be a reason to not press ahead with change.

 

Yep, it's all about moving forward mate.