the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I'm surprised you surprised Darther, you should know by now Rangers fans love nothing more than having a moan. If an Arab sheik rolled up tomorrow we would have a moan about that as well. worst thing that could happen to us according to some maddo on here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 worst thing that could happen to us according to some maddo on here. also the best according to some.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 If the consortium keeps its promises and doesn’t allow the club to become over extended like it was before, then Rangers could be a very successful business. If Rangers are run in the correct fashion then the club should pay for itself. It has the infrastructure to be built upon, stadium, fan base and training facilities etc. I would very much like to see that and wouldn't care if the owner(s) was taking a cut from it. As long as they weren't bleeding us dry. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 A few months ago, many folk on here were crying out about the clubs ownership - "We should never have one person in charge again" were the cries. However, now that the club is effectively owned by multiple people/trusts/organisations, I am noticing a shift....people have been moaning about multiple, faceless entities owning part of the club, and I am detecting some subtle hints that some folk would like to see a single wealthy owner again, that can support the club financially - Ian McColl's name being mentioned again..... Do fans REALLY know what they want ownership-wise, and do the fans REALLY know what is best for the club at a corporate level in order for it to progress and remain financially sound??? We simply don't know who owns us as things stand, we don not know who is behind BPH, Margarita Trust or Norne Anstalt, we don not even know if we actually have any "institutional" investors as opposed to their private clients hiding behind the institutional mask. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 We simply don't know who owns us as things stand, we don not know who is behind BPH, Margarita Trust or Norne Anstalt, we don not even know if we actually have any "institutional" investors as opposed to their private clients hiding behind the institutional mask. As long as the club is being run correctly....does it REALLY matter??? Personally, I couldn't really care, as long as the club is still playing, is financially sound and is seen to be actively trying to improve/better itself. I believe its a good thing to have the ownership split over multiple people/groups etc....no ego's got get over inflated. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 As long as the club is being run correctly....does it REALLY matter??? Personally, I couldn't really care, as long as the club is still playing, is financially sound and is seen to be actively trying to improve/better itself. I believe its a good thing to have the ownership split over multiple people/groups etc....no ego's got get over inflated. How can you make the judgement that the club is "financially sound" without seeing a set of accounts? and how do you know ownership is split if you don't know who owns what? David Murray's shares were held over at least three different vehicles (though there was no attempt to hide the fact). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 We simply don't know who owns us as things stand, we don not know who is behind BPH, Margarita Trust or Norne Anstalt, we don not even know if we actually have any "institutional" investors as opposed to their private clients hiding behind the institutional mask. Raised the point in my article, is some anonymity for some small shareholding an unreasonable request in the environment Rangers live in? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Raised the point in my article, is some anonymity for some small shareholding an unreasonable request in the environment Rangers live in? Funny definition of small. Anonymity goes against the transparency mooted by Green from day one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 How can you make the judgement that the club is "financially sound" without seeing a set of accounts? and how do you know ownership is split if you don't know who owns what? David Murray's shares were held over at least three different vehicles (though there was no attempt to hide the fact). I'm not business minded....even with a set of accounts I wouldn't be able to determine if we're financially sound or not. What I do know is that at the start of the year we weren't doing particularly well on the financial front.....whereas no we appear to be pretty stable. Importantly, we have a team out on the park playing football, and everyone appear to be getting paid when they should. The club also appear to be wanting to progress as a business and make itself more self-sustainable. The setup/people/trusts/investors etc that are in place at the moment appears to be allowing that to happen..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I'm not business minded....even with a set of accounts I wouldn't be able to determine if we're financially sound or not. What I do know is that at the start of the year we weren't doing particularly well on the financial front.....whereas no we appear to be pretty stable. Plenty of people on here with enough knowledge to decipher the accounts and give a true and accurate reflection of what they actually mean. Importantly, we have a team out on the park playing football, and everyone appear to be getting paid when they should. The club also appear to be wanting to progress as a business and make itself more self-sustainable. The setup/people/trusts/investors etc that are in place at the moment appears to be allowing that to happen..... Time will tell, it was the apathy regarding who actually owned us that gave Craig Whyte free rein to do what he did. 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.