Gers fans seek clout for buy-out

[Bluedell 5,367]

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.

 

Miniblue, firstly welcome to the site.

 

Under your suggestion, you are saying that the fans would contribute a standard amount, and high net worth individuals could contribute more and get a seat on the board. However we as a club would not necessarily be maximising our income as there would be a large number of peiople inbetween who may be able to pay more, but nothing near the 6 or 7 figure sums that Smilies/Parks/Singhs etc of the world can.

 

Can there be an additional incentive for higher funding while remaining within the OMOV model?

[maineflyer 0]

I thought that was a great post, raising some excellent points that made me think a little clearer about some developing ideas. For the sake of the debate only, I thought I'd throw some comments back at you.

 

 

I'm 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.

That's a fair point but we need to clearly differentiate between attending games and participating in the running and guidance of the club. These thing are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive. There are very many people around the world who cannot ever attend games but who would want to pay for a voting membership. These 'exiles' currently have little or no tangible means of engaging in the club they nearly all feel passionately about. In my opinion, if you cannot afford to attend games and buy a membership then you simply have a choice to make. To me these are two separate matters and there's no natural presumption that you have to be both or either.

 

In my view a scheme would have to involve regular small payments and be open to all

This simply describes a method of payment. Pay in installment, pay it all up front - why not have many payment options. However, for obvious reasons, I'd have thought the sums involved have to be meaningful.

 

based on the trusts core principal of one member one vote.

I'm not sure I understand the reference to the trust. With open-to-all membership, each with one personal vote, I see no practical role for separate fans' organisations. Rather, everything should be integral to the club. I completely agree though that one member one vote is absolutely essential.

 

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.

The point has been made by others that this idea will only ever succeed if it is actively promoted by the club rather than pursued by supporters organisations in spite of the club ownership and I happen to agree with that fundamental principle. The idea of supporter representation on the Rangers board is an old and flawed pursuit. We need an executive and various operating committees that are ALL voted in by the membership.... what we do not want are a few supporters injected into the existing structure. That will never produce the level playing field and sense of unity that we have been so badly needing and which would only make the club more investible.

 

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.

I hope you'll forgive me for saying this but we need to move on from these old structures and ideas. One membership class, each with one non-transferrable vote. Not electing some supporters but electing all executives and officers. Not a place for some supporters but a hierarchy entirely placed by the members. I absolutely agree with you on the limited term principle however.

[Frankie 8,199]

I agree with MF in that if we have a member's system then we may not strictly require fans on the board per se.

 

I'd rather these important places went to people with key abilities whom the members can still vote out if required on a reasonably regular basis.

 

Take away the aspect of Copland Joe competing with Govan William for a place on the board, then you take away some of the division we've seen in recent years.

[Bluedell 5,367]

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.

 

There was never much infighting within the fans' groups themselves. The Association has had board members on the RST board for a number of years and there has never been any issues between them. Likewise the RST has been a member of the assembly since its inception, therefore largely giving it a lot of support and these 2 organsiations were always going to move closer together given the friendship of the 2 heads of them.

 

The problems have been with websites, and that will continue to a certain extent, although input from the likes of yourself on here and RM will obviously be a great help in overcoming some of it.

 

The RST has shown a great reluctance to move outside its relationship with FF, eg its negative approach to the STS report, and it needs to show that it will be happy to encompass the larger Rangers family over the long term to gain some of the trust that has been lost, and not just at the moment when things are tough.

[maineflyer 0]

Miniblue, firstly welcome to the site.

 

Under your suggestion, you are saying that the fans would contribute a standard amount, and high net worth individuals could contribute more and get a seat on the board. However we as a club would not necessarily be maximising our income as there would be a large number of peiople inbetween who may be able to pay more, but nothing near the 6 or 7 figure sums that Smilies/Parks/Singhs etc of the world can.

 

Can there be an additional incentive for higher funding while remaining within the OMOV model?

 

This question seem to be fundamental to the feasibility of any scheme. I don't know the answer but I believe any 'reward' would have to come in the form of privileges rather than monetary return or corporate control. Otherwise you are immediately back where we are today. The basic question is whether wealthy supporters would be willing to contribute rather than invest. Given the negligible return realised from football investments, I have a feeling they just might. One important aspect of this is that it leaves room for a great many more investors than previously, when investment has been constrained for both political and corporate reasons.

[maineflyer 0]

I agree with MF in that if we have a member's system then we may not strictly require fans on the board per se.

 

I'd rather these important places went to people with key abilities whom the members can still vote out if required on a reasonably regular basis.

 

Take away the aspect of Copland Joe competing with Govan William for a place on the board, then you take away some of the division we've seen in recent years.

 

Exactamundo Frankie. That's the important point at the very heart of the matter.

[bmck 117]

Just to throw an idea out that seems to run contrary to the current OMOV thinking. I think there perhaps should be a one-fixed-sum-one-vote system. This directly corrolates investment to responsibility. This needn't be thought of, however, as a shortcut for high net worth individuals to positions of prominence if you have an important caveat. Namely, that groups can block vote, and elect a representative who represents their concerns and intuitions. For example, you only need to look at the difference between maineflyer's and, say, calscot's perspectives. These tensions are always going to exist within the support. With the block voting system high net worth supporters aren't put off from investing the substantial capital we need by an attendent lack of return; similarly, small net worth voters wont feel impotent provided they find themselves having concerns which align themselves with sufficient numbers of other people. In this sort of system high net worth investors' motivations to maintain their own power will naturally align themselves with the majority opinions so as to stay the possibility of large block voting against them. High net worth investors will have the carrot of large support and the stick of severe undermining to always act in the club and majority's best interest. There are loads of flaws with this idea, but provided a decent constitution is drawn, with proper checks and balances and weighing of votes it could work.

 

You could essentially model it on Classical period Athens; with board positions have fixed one year terms.

[Frankie 8,199]

Joint Fan-Group Press Release

 

http://www.thebluenose.co.uk/rangers-fans-unite-for-change-and-progress/

 

JOINT PRESS RELEASE

 

 

RANGERS FANS UNITE FOR CHANGE AND PROGRESS

 

The Rangers Supporters Assembly, Rangers Worldwide Alliance, Rangers Supporters' Trust and Rangers Supporters Association united today to urge Rangers fans around the world to consider playing their part in changing the ownership of the club.

 

The organisations are considering the options open to fans to invest in the club on a massive scale and on an accountable basis.

 

We are considering various options for this - whether on our own or in partnership with others. We intend that the future of the club will never again be reliant on the goodwill of a bank or any individual.

 

One option we are currently discussing with advisors is the changes necessary to turn the Trust’s Gersave scheme into a suitable vehicle for the gathering in of funds. However, any form of investment will only take place on the basis of the suitability of the terms gained in negotiations.

 

Rangers as a club cannot continue in the current state of limbo with the threat of being run by the Lloyds Banking Group. To move things on before the January transfer window we are formally inviting any potential credible investors to discuss their plans for the club with us.

 

Rangers fans are by far the biggest financial investors in the club. We are determined that the club will continue to flourish and never again will it run the risk of falling into the hands of a bank. We call on fans to be patient but to unite behind sensible proposals we hope to recommend to them over the coming months.

 

John McMillan - General Secretary, Rangers Supporters Association

Andy Kerr - President, Rangers Supporters Assembly & Rangers Worldwide Alliance

Stephen Smith - Chairman, Rangers Supporters Trust

[Bluedell 5,367]

This question seem to be fundamental to the feasibility of any scheme. I don't know the answer but I believe any 'reward' would have to come in the form of privileges rather than monetary return or corporate control. Otherwise you are immediately back where we are today. The basic question is whether wealthy supporters would be willing to contribute rather than invest. Given the negligible return realised from football investments, I have a feeling they just might.

 

 

I think that the point you made on Dave King having little or no control earleir in the thread is a good one, but it raises a couple of questions:

 

Did he realise his lack of control when he made his investment initially (and that the club would be subsequently brought back under the MIH umbrella), or did he think he would have a lot of input?

 

Did Dave King care about control/having input, and if not, is that unusual for guys with that amount of cash?

 

 

My understanding is that a lot of the people around the Members Lounge were great Murray supporters, and over the years we had Bill Thornton, Ian Russell, Satty Singh etc, making loans to the club for some involvement on the board as associate directors or directors of Rangers Development Fund.

 

These guys were only willing to make loans and not actually contribute cash into it, and they appear to have expected some position, however token, in return. It seems to me that experience has shown us that the big hitters would be expecting something major if they were making major contributions into the club, and would be expecting a directorship or similar.

 

Perhaps we bring back the position of "associate" directors who have little influence but can have seats in the directors box etc, and this could fall under your privileges suggestion?

 

However the major question is "would this be sufficient?" and I fear that it may not be.

[Bluedell 5,367]

Joint Fan-Group Press Release

 

Sorry to be negative again but it says virtually nothing.