So thats that done then is it?

[Tannochsidebear 2,315]

The statement from the Chairman at the club AGM this morning, and posted in full on the boards, made it quite clear that he did not feel that supporter ownership, ala Barcelona, could work at Rangers due to the huge gap in the tv market, and the fact that the fans already pay enough for tickets, transport, strips, events etc, and to ask them to pay even more for a membership/ownership scheme will be too much.

 

What that says to me is that the Chairman does not believe that the income generated currently at the club is sufficient for the club to be progressive. The money we take in from season tickets, tv rights, European competitions, merchandise, publications and other avenues is not enough to put a competitive squad of players at a manager's disposal.

 

As he is party to the finances in much greater detail, and given his successful business background, I am in no position to argue the point with him on this.

 

Personally, I would have thought that we could be run on a self-sufficient basis, and in fact our previous chairman said this very thing a few years ago after nearly bankrupting us the first time this decade. However that is not the point I want to make.

 

If we are to accept the chairman's words in the positive light that they were I am sure intended, where does that leave the current workings of the RST and Assembly who are trying to piece together a workable model for supporter investment?

 

Does this mean that any new owner is only going to be viable if he commits a chunk of cash to the club not just once, but annually to keep us going, and that this cash cannot be in the form of loans or shares, as there will never be enough money to pay him back, given that we need this investment every year to compete?

 

And if so, how much does our current chairman think it would require as an investment annually to ensure that enough cash is in the club to enable it to finance itself properly without debt, and to progress matters as a winning evolving side?

 

My reading of the situation is that is must be a sizeable chunk of cash we are "short" every year, as a membership scheme of say 40,000 members paying �£100 annually would be �£4M per year, and if this is not going to be enough to fill the gap, then the gap must a chasm. And if it is such a gap, how can we expect to ask any one individual to pay such an amount just for the good of the club?

 

Something doesn't quite add up here. Either we can pay our way and make some funds available under the present model, or we need a cash injection each year of perhaps around �£10M.

 

I have no idea what sort of membership/ownership model the RST/RSA are going to come up with, but it would seem to me that, putting the buying of the club aside for a moment, if there were to be a scheme where members pay a sum each year, say around �£100, and for that cash get some small benefits on ticketing, merchandise and events, and the chance to vote on fans issues in a democratic OMOV way, I can see that being quite popular. Say a number equal to the current capacity take that membership option up, that would raise �£5.2M per season of income to the club. Are we trying to say that sort of income would not be enough for a members owned club to be self-sufficient. Has Murray put in �£5M net each year for the last 20 years? Would any potential buyers be willing to put in �£5M net each year?

 

I have liked what I have heard from the new chairman so far in his short tenure, but his statement today has left me with more questions than answers.

[Union City Blue 0]

I share your concern TB, but I think it's a function of where we are in the process.

 

It is down to those who will do Due Diligence on Rangers to evaluate the viability of supporter ownership and work out to what extent additional revenue would need to be guaranteed to address the "sustainability" issue. Without this inside information, the best that can be put together is a rough estimate which will not be good enough to pass the 'sustainability test'. The issue will be whether Lloyds (exclusively) can indeed force the sale to the first bidder with the appropriately-sized cheque - or whether Murray/Rangers do indeed still have a material say in what happens. I am less clear about this today.

 

Personally I don't see this as a set-back at all, but I do see it as proof positive that things need to move on and that business planning needs to be detailed, socialised and have input from those curently running Rangers.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I took it as a warning that the fans just can't buy the club and everything will be OK. It's not to say that they can't but there has to be a realism as to the finance required for the on-going running of the club.

 

I don't think it requires detailed inner knowledge of the club to come up with that conclusion and I'm sure that it would be taken account of in any proposal that's being looked at.

 

It's just highlighting what some knew already that there is no easy answer, but it's not impossible.

[Union City Blue 0]

I took it as a warning that the fans just can't buy the club and everything will be OK. It's not to say that they can't but there has to be a realism as to the finance required for the on-going running of the club.

 

I don't think it requires detailed inner knowledge of the club to come up with that conclusion and I'm sure that it would be taken account of in any proposal that's being looked at.

 

It's just highlighting what some knew already that there is no easy answer, but it's not impossible.

 

I agree with all of that Bluedell, I think I was maybe just going into a little more detail and speculating about what would get AJ more comfortable, but saying virtually the same thing as you.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I agree with all of that Bluedell, I think I was maybe just going into a little more detail and speculating about what would get AJ more comfortable, but saying virtually the same thing as you.

 

Your post was too long to read.

 

Glad we're on the same page, mate.

[Union City Blue 0]

Your post was too long to read.

 

Glad we're on the same page, mate.

 

I'll try to post in digital or binary form from now on to get your attention

[wabashcannonball 0]

I think the bottom line is that those who see a change of ownership as the only way forward, are stuck with Murray for the foreseeable future, better get used to it change if it ever happens will not occur overnight or even anytime soon.

[Tannochsidebear 2,315]

I took it as a warning that the fans just can't buy the club and everything will be OK. It's not to say that they can't but there has to be a realism as to the finance required for the on-going running of the club.

 

I don't think it requires detailed inner knowledge of the club to come up with that conclusion and I'm sure that it would be taken account of in any proposal that's being looked at.

 

It's just highlighting what some knew already that there is no easy answer, but it's not impossible.

 

 

Perhaps it was just a warning to dampen expectations in the event nothing happens.

 

I think most of us realise that it is not about just raising a one-time �£31M to get our club back, and then we will be challenging Barca.

 

I have just went back and read the chairmans statement again. It is not a one-off line, he goes into some detail.

 

An ownership change with a commitment by a stable owner or

ownership group to be a source of substantial, regular, and reliable source of

unencumbered cash is vital to the Club moving from a surviving to a thriving

mode.

 

I am, therefore, very sceptical of any scenario

which relies on these same stalwarts to allocate more of their limited

resources by writing a check each year to fund our performance ambitions.

 

You are asking questions of your elected

representatives and at the end of the day you and your fellow supporters will

determine the destiny of the financial resources available to the Club by your

discretionary personal spending practices. However, like it or not, Rangers now

competes in an environment where there are obligations of ownership and this is

a scenario where shareholders have significantly less discretion.

 

Supporter Groups acquiring the rights without the corresponding ability to

underpin the working capital of our Club is akin to paying a transfer fee to

another Club to bring in an impact player and then not having the funds to pay

his wages.

 

 

It is quite clear to me he feels that the way football works, and what has to be in place for the club to be viable, that a supporters run club in this country is unworkable at our level.

While he is not ruling anything out, and states that he is more than happy to talk to any "legitimate and credible parties", it looks like he has serious doubts about wether any group without major credible financial backing could succeed in taking the club forward year after year.

[Zappa 0]

It is quite clear to me he feels that the way football works, and what has to be in place for the club to be viable, that a supporters run club in this country is unworkable at our level.

While he is not ruling anything out, and states that he is more than happy to talk to any "legitimate and credible parties", it looks like he has serious doubts about wether any group without major credible financial backing could succeed in taking the club forward year after year.

 

Yep, that's exactly how he comes across & it's a good thing too. He's nobody's fool and is clearly only expressing that opinion because he's got the security & longevity of the club to consider as a top priority.

[Tannochsidebear 2,315]

That is pretty much my take on his comments as well Zappa, but I wish I could have an hour with him to go deeper into it all.

 

The pros and cons of equity funding for starters, then what about an annual membership scheme instead of equity funding.

 

It is of real importance to us all, and his comments have thrown a spanner in the work being undertaken by our fans reps, and will no doubt have fans dubious as to the chance of success if the chairman feels it cannot work.