Frankie 8,185 Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 Why ? perhaps because their getting such an easy ride especially on here. Where's the clamber for them to identify to all the consortium members, how much is each member putting in?, will there be too great a conflict with their day job? can they devote enough of their time to the task ahead at RFC? Who's their front man in Scotland? Who are these UK Rangers men they've approached to sit on the board? Surely if the BK's were expected to answer such questions why not Bill Ng and his cohorts? All valid questions/concerns and I think they have been talked about plenty times. Can't answer them all but IIRC, Ng has said he won't be running the club but leaving this to nominal board. Like you, I'd like to see these people break cover so we can make up our own minds on their alleged expertise/wealth but it's not a surprise to see any of the bids retain privacy until such a time they're successful. As I said throughout, we don't know enough and it's impossible to back anyone as it stands. Believe me, I've told my contact that which is why I've always been keen to highlight any valid criticism of their bid. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Why ? perhaps because their getting such an easy ride especially on here. Where's the clamber for them to identify to all the consortium members, how much is each member putting in?, will there be too great a conflict with their day job? can they devote enough of their time to the task ahead at RFC? Who's their front man in Scotland? Who are these UK Rangers men they've approached to sit on the board? Surely if the BK's were expected to answer such questions why not Bill Ng and his cohorts? Fair points, mate. Personally, it is only about the quality of the bid as opposed to the personalities behind it - Whyte and Ellis apart! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Fair points, mate. Personally, it is the quality of the bid as opposed to the personalities behind it - Whyte and Ellis apart! I think there needs to be middle ground. The personalities have a huge influence on the way fans will accept them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 None of the prospective buyers nor Duff & Phelps for that matter have quite grasped that "Trust me" won't cut it with the fans any more. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,185 Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 None of the prospective buyers nor Duff & Phelps for that matter have quite grasped that "Trust me" won't cut it with the fans any more. It's a great shame that our fans remain pretty much powerless to affect the process. Unfortunately I think all bidders are well aware of that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 I think there needs to be middle ground. The personalities have a huge influence on the way fans will accept them. To a certain extent, but like we saw with the previous board, the owner still calls the shots when it comes to the crunch. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 To a certain extent, but like we saw with the previous board, the owner still calls the shots when it comes to the crunch. True. I don't go for the "best way forward is fan ownership" Because many clubs work with one man at the top. But if we think we can do it then i'm right behind it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 True. I don't go for the "best way forward is fan ownership" Because many clubs work with one man at the top. But if we think we can do it then i'm right behind it. I don't believe that we have the culture for fan ownership, but that's not to say that they shouldn't be given a voice by a good owner. Getting a good owner is the problem, and I'd say that we haven't had one since John Lawrence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 I don't believe that we have the culture for fan ownership, but that's not to say that they shouldn't be given a voice by a good owner. Getting a good owner is the problem, and I'd say that we haven't had one since John Lawrence. yeah i agree. Rangers fans are extremely fickle, that's been proved daily since this all kicked off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,185 Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 I don't believe that we have the culture for fan ownership, but that's not to say that they shouldn't be given a voice by a good owner. Getting a good owner is the problem, and I'd say that we haven't had one since John Lawrence. I think SDM could have been a good owner but his ego and lack of accountability by his board/fans meant it ended in disaster. As for fan ownership, I'd like to think it was possible but our fans are extremely fickle and apathetic which would make such a solution very difficult to achieve. A membership scheme and supervisory board is agreeable middle ground but even the Knights haven't said if that's a likelihood or not. We're getting the 'significant fans' stuff but I don't see any carrots. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.