Proposal for a membership scheme

[Zappa 0]

Why is ownership a stumbling block when I've seen RST people saying elsewhere that the fans collectively have about a 12% shareholding?

 

James Easdale got a seat on the board with under 400k shares to his name at the time of his appointment, so why couldn't a couple of fans representing the wider group of fan shareholders AND one representing a membership scheme both get seats on the club board?

 

The fan representing the membership scheme could obviously only be appointed to the club board, but the fan representing the 12% (or whatever that figure eventually becomes) of fan shareholders could potentially be appointed to both the holding company board and the club board. Am I wrong, or is that theoretically possible?

[calscot 0]

FF is not the RST.

 

That's not the impression I've being getting for a long, long time. Maybe that's something that needs to be sorted out...

 

Perhaps the Trust should start its own forum? When I was a member I didn't really feel like I belonged to anything due to lack of communication and a forum would have helped.

 

I doubt that it would be allowed by a certain person though...

[Tannochsidebear 2,315]

A couple of points re the last couple of pages in this thread if I may.

 

The membership scheme should in no way to be related to an ownership issue. I don't even want the membership board to be on the football club or plc board, just have access to the meetings to discuss the relevant points that are important to the members. This is not, and should never be, about blazer chasing or Directors box seats or running the club. It is about influencing the club in a direction the fans want it to go. It is about getting the club to stand up for the fans, and make the fans the most important part of the club. I feel that for far too long we have been seen as customers, consumers, or just plain old trouble-makers.

 

Most importantly it is about getting the fans, wherever in the world they may be, to feel like an important part of the club, that they have a voice that will be not just endured but encouraged. I hope a membership board would be getting contacted by the club on most issues for their thoughts, which would then lead to members being canvassed and these views being taken back to the board.

 

With the membership belonging to the club, administered by the club, but run by and for the fans, it is very different from what we have ever had before, or would ever get to without it.

 

Fan ownership is commendable but impossible. We are too big a club to go down that road, and the appetite is not there amongst the fans for this at this time.

 

My hope would be that with a successful membership scheme would come, in a generation or so, the possibility of a fans buyout of the club. The feeling being that once we have had a taste of influence and making things happen, we would want to move it further and run the club. However if it always remained a membership scheme with tens of thousands of members worldwide pumping in a huge sum of money to the club every year, not just in share issues every decade or so, that we could have a major positive influence in our club for not a lot of money individually.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

A couple of points re the last couple of pages in this thread if I may.

 

The membership scheme should in no way to be related to an ownership issue. I don't even want the membership board to be on the football club or plc board, just have access to the meetings to discuss the relevant points that are important to the members. This is not, and should never be, about blazer chasing or Directors box seats or running the club. It is about influencing the club in a direction the fans want it to go. It is about getting the club to stand up for the fans, and make the fans the most important part of the club. I feel that for far too long we have been seen as customers, consumers, or just plain old trouble-makers.

 

Most importantly it is about getting the fans, wherever in the world they may be, to feel like an important part of the club, that they have a voice that will be not just endured but encouraged. I hope a membership board would be getting contacted by the club on most issues for their thoughts, which would then lead to members being canvassed and these views being taken back to the board.

 

With the membership belonging to the club, administered by the club, but run by and for the fans, it is very different from what we have ever had before, or would ever get to without it.

 

Fan ownership is commendable but impossible. We are too big a club to go down that road, and the appetite is not there amongst the fans for this at this time.

 

My hope would be that with a successful membership scheme would come, in a generation or so, the possibility of a fans buyout of the club. The feeling being that once we have had a taste of influence and making things happen, we would want to move it further and run the club. However if it always remained a membership scheme with tens of thousands of members worldwide pumping in a huge sum of money to the club every year, not just in share issues every decade or so, that we could have a major positive influence in our club for not a lot of money individually.

 

I think this very eloquently expresses much of what I have said in earlier replies particularly about the difference between membership and ownership and the possibility of developing one into the other as per my reply to plgsarmy.

 

Thank you.

[der Berliner 3,249]

Why is ownership a stumbling block when I've seen RST people saying elsewhere that the fans collectively have about a 12% shareholding?

 

James Easdale got a seat on the board with under 400k shares to his name at the time of his appointment, so why couldn't a couple of fans representing the wider group of fan shareholders AND one representing a membership scheme both get seats on the club board?

 

The fan representing the membership scheme could obviously only be appointed to the club board, but the fan representing the 12% (or whatever that figure eventually becomes) of fan shareholders could potentially be appointed to both the holding company board and the club board. Am I wrong, or is that theoretically possible?

 

I have no idea what the "job" of a director would involve at Rangers, or that of a non-executive director. Or how many directors could or can be on the board. As TannochsideBear intimated, this should not be about representing shareholders et al, but representing the support on certain, well defined matters.

[calscot 0]

You know it wouldn't take that much for fans to have a say on the board - instead of a membership, just get 100k people to stump up £50 and then buy £5m worth of shares... Even at £20, about 5 million shares would have a decent say in the proceedings. And you could add the same every year.

 

The trouble is there is no trusted body to coordinate it...(I also realize that buying shares isn't always that straight forward.)

[Zappa 0]

The membership scheme should in no way to be related to an ownership issue. I don't even want the membership board to be on the football club or plc board, just have access to the meetings to discuss the relevant points that are important to the members. This is not, and should never be, about blazer chasing or Directors box seats or running the club.

 

Great overall post TB, but I've quoted this section because I've got problems with this train of thought on multiple levels.

 

Firstly, you say a membership scheme should in no way to be related to an ownership issue, but that's almost impossible because relatively large numbers of fans would inevitably be members as well as shareholders, so there's a default relation and connection. Even just as a starting point, it's said that the fans collectively have a 12% shareholding, so why shouldn't there be a fan representative on the board?

 

Secondly, you say you "don't even want the membership board to be on the football club or plc board, just have access to the meetings to discuss the relevant points that are important to the members", but there's a major flaw in this line of thinking because due to stock market rules and confidentiality agreements, there's a lot of important information which could (and probably would) be withheld from the membership board if not represented on the club board.

 

Lastly, you say "this is not, and should never be, about blazer chasing or Directors box seats or running the club" and I have to say that I don't really understand this train of thought at all. I think the whole 'blazer chasing' thing is a bit of an urban myth amongst our support. An elected club director would have the privilege and opportunity to sit in the Directors box, but it's not necessarily the case that a fan rep' on the board would choose to do so. Then there's the final point of running the club, which again doesn't make any sense to me because an elected fan rep' (or rep's) on the board wouldn't be running the club, they would be overseeing the running of the club as a non-exec and representing the fans at club board meetings to make sure that crazy stuff wasn't going on behind the scenes.

[plgsarmy 111]

There are a number of possibilities:

 

1. An option of subscribing for shares could be offered alongside the membership fee.
   
4. The structure of the Club might be altered
   
7. Members might be offered new shares
   
10. If the membership scheme is successful in giving fans a voice on certain issues then they might be encouraged to have a greater voice by becoming shareholders.
    
12. A benevolent existing shareholder might be inclined to gift shares to a members block rather than sell on the open market
    

 

I am sure there are more.

 

Lots of ifs there. It would surely have to be independent of the club if it was buying shares at any time.

[thesins 0]

There are a number of possibilities:

 

1. An option of subscribing for shares could be offered alongside the membership fee.
   
4. The structure of the Club might be altered
   
7. Members might be offered new shares
   
10. If the membership scheme is successful in giving fans a voice on certain issues then they might be encouraged to have a greater voice by becoming shareholders.
    
12. A benevolent existing shareholder might be inclined to gift shares to a members block rather than sell on the open market
    

 

I am sure there are more.

 

Or alternatively fans pump millions more into the club to be a member, vote on someone on the board (who is completely ignored) and the current inhabitants continue to pay themselves exorbitant bonuses with even more of the fans money.

 

Membership works at clubs who have majority, or at least a large minority, level of ownership as then the membership has a proper say. I would back a membership scheme if I knew it was going to help the club but at the current time when we are leaking cash all over it would be the worst time possible to do so.

[thesins 0]

Why is ownership a stumbling block when I've seen RST people saying elsewhere that the fans collectively have about a 12% shareholding?

 

James Easdale got a seat on the board with under 400k shares to his name at the time of his appointment, so why couldn't a couple of fans representing the wider group of fan shareholders AND one representing a membership scheme both get seats on the club board?

 

The fan representing the membership scheme could obviously only be appointed to the club board, but the fan representing the 12% (or whatever that figure eventually becomes) of fan shareholders could potentially be appointed to both the holding company board and the club board. Am I wrong, or is that theoretically possible?

 

Easdale owned very little shares but he had the backing of a large portion of the shareholders. Similar to Walter Smith and Malcolm Murray.

 

Being on the board and owning shares are totally different. But ultimately the shareholders decide who is on the board so shareholding is where the real power is.