Stimpy 0 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 What I have been trying to say for a while now. The majority will do as they see fit, and the various groups need to get out there away from the internet. The majority of Rangers people I associate with wouldn't know the RST from the Assembly etc. or FF from RM, or Vanguard Bears. Boom! Anyone that's been in meetings with me over the trust's scheme will know how much I respect the power of social media, but also the fact that our support is unaware of fan groups. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Fan ownership doesn't mean fans running the club on a day to day basis, it would be up to shareholders to vote on a model. That could mean, for example, a management/supervisory board being voted in to appoint and supervise something along the lines of the current structure. So you could still have a Charles Green running the club, but rather than being accountable to anonymous investors he'd report to a democratically elected board representing the fans. I know there has been a lot of in-fighting between various groups, but to m mind this is representative of only a minority of our support. The RST is one of the biggest groups and only has a few thousand members. If you had 50,000 or 100,000 or 200,00o fans electing a board it would be representative of more mainstream views, and the extreme elements would be frozen out or on the peripheries. from reading your posts on here, you were at the AGM? I stated during it, by pointing out too, that the current board will never and nor intend to be on the board of Rangers FC. Your post is bang on the money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Fan ownership doesn't mean fans running the club on a day to day basis, it would be up to shareholders to vote on a model. That could mean, for example, a management/supervisory board being voted in to appoint and supervise something along the lines of the current structure. So you could still have a Charles Green running the club, but rather than being accountable to anonymous investors he'd report to a democratically elected board representing the fans. I know there has been a lot of in-fighting between various groups, but to m mind this is representative of only a minority of our support. The RST is one of the biggest groups and only has a few thousand members. If you had 50,000 or 100,000 or 200,00o fans electing a board it would be representative of more mainstream views, and the extreme elements would be frozen out or on the peripheries. I whole heartedly agree with you , however the apathy amongst Rangers supporters in general plus the infighting is just staggering,we always look to someone else to do what ever is needed . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 from reading your posts on here, you were at the AGM? I stated during it, by pointing out too, that the current board will never and nor intend to be on the board of Rangers FC. Your post is bang on the money. Speak for youself 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I'm not going to argue with your own feelings here, and god knows I've thought along those lines because of the abuse flung at me for no reason. However, what we see and read along with many others isn't picked up by the majority. The internet as a whole from a 'Gers perspective is in its infancy. I was over in Scotland at the weekend where I stayed with an old friend and he knew nothing of the nonsense that goes on and all my old school friends are the same. None of them touch the internet like we do and don't care about the crap we have to read. I got a text with a screen shot that wasn't very nice and when I tried to give him a brief run down, his reaction was who are they. As the internet grows from our perspective, mainly FB and twitter IMO, most won't care, will never get involved in it, and will make up their own minds based on facts presented to them. Just my opinion of course:) I yet again have to agree 100% , the vast majority of guys in my work plus my friends , dont come any where near the internet forums . they just cant be arsed , some times you do get into a bubble believing the views in these sites are actually replicated out in the real woprld 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Small idea to the RST guys , with the upcoming share issue and therefore the demise of the gersave scheme , as a way of increasing the trusts membership without additional costs , would it not be a better idea to give every season ticket holder an honorary membership to the trust , that way you are working with the club and gaining a far better spread of members , just an idea 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Small idea to the RST guys , with the upcoming share issue and therefore the demise of the gersave scheme , as a way of increasing the trusts membership without additional costs , would it not be a better idea to give every season ticket holder an honorary membership to the trust , that way you are working with the club and gaining a far better spread of members , just an idea Good idea, and will be considered. Obviously not as simple, as you know, but well worth thinking about. Thanks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Small idea to the RST guys , with the upcoming share issue and therefore the demise of the gersave scheme , as a way of increasing the trusts membership without additional costs , would it not be a better idea to give every season ticket holder an honorary membership to the trust , that way you are working with the club and gaining a far better spread of members , just an idea Surely giving people free(If you mean that) membership, where they had to pay in the past, would be classed as an additional cost? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Surely giving people free(If you mean that) membership, where they had to pay in the past, would be classed as an additional cost? They had to pay in the past as they also recieved a share , most of the cost was I believe , brokers fees for buying the shares, these would no longer be part of the deal , just a straight forward RST membership , I believe the club would be open to this. Alternatively if there was a cost , and this may be controversial , there could be an opt in or opt out option to joining the trust at say a minimal fee of £2 just as an example , to cover any administrative fees incurred Edited October 7, 2012 by rbr 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Surely giving people free(If you mean that) membership, where they had to pay in the past, would be classed as an additional cost? The issue is keeping the Trust solvent. I have my own feelings on it and what we could raise with a humongous database but is it viable? 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.