Rangers Constitution now published

[chilledbear 16]

Odd as it might seem number 1 is the only point I'd take issue with here. I certainly don't want Ibrox sold and leased back or used to fund some vanity project for as yet unknown future or current directors, however, Ibrox is our current home, but it might not be forever. We should retain the option, none of us know what the future holds, we've moved stadium before, we might have to again in the future. Moving stadium isn't always a bad thing, Arsenal, Middlesbrough, Bolton, Bayern Munich the list of clubs who have 'moved' in recent years is long.

 

We should retain the option for future generations, there may come a day it is the right thing to do.

 

Other than that I like what I read.

 

Can understand this..................never say never.

[ranger_syntax 3,774]

Odd as it might seem number 1 is the only point I'd take issue with here. I certainly don't want Ibrox sold and leased back or used to fund some vanity project for as yet unknown future or current directors, however, Ibrox is our current home, but it might not be forever. We should retain the option, none of us know what the future holds, we've moved stadium before, we might have to again in the future. Moving stadium isn't always a bad thing, Arsenal, Middlesbrough, Bolton, Bayern Munich the list of clubs who have 'moved' in recent years is long.

 

We should retain the option for future generations, there may come a day it is the right thing to do.

 

Perhaps, like the U.S.A. constitution, it could be amended under certain circumstances. For example overwhelming support among season ticket holders.

[Darthter 542]

point 8 why should non executive directors get any extra payments if the club are in Europe

ponit 3 why should a member of a directors family not be rewarded if they are employed by the rangers and bringing in much needed income

point 2 most of the fans cant even agree between e each other and I cant see any of them bringing anything to the club

 

Point 8: They are saying that non-exec directors will not get ANY payments unless the team is in Europe - not EXTRA payments

Point 3: It is to prevent lucrative contracts going to family members where the director may have a vested interest. If the family member is a direct employee of the club Point 3 doesn't apply

I agree with you on Point 2.....I think they are essential saying what a large number of fans what to hear - I'll not hold my breath for fan representation on the board. Regular meetings maybe, but not a board position.

[der Berliner 3,247]

Moving stadium, Bayern Munich ... some info:

 

Namesake of the stadium, the Allianz SE, which has the naming rights secured to the stadium for 30 years against payment of sponsorship.

 

The construction costs of the stadium totaled approximately EUR 286 million (total costs including financing costs: 340 million euros).

 

Funding was provided as project funding through the Euro Hypo AG, Dresdner Bank AG*, a closed-end fund KGAL group from Grünwald near Munich, and the FC Bayern München AG.

In addition, the public authorities have paid Euro 210 million for area development and infrastructure. Furthermore, a reclassification of the land from the "commercial area" to "special use area" took place, whereby the value of Euro 84 million has dropped to Euro 14 million. Due to the lower value of the land (which also affects the ground-rent) some MPs argued that Bayern received "anticompetitive assistance" from the government.

 

*That bank was ranked third in Germany ... until the credit crisis happened by and it was taken over by the Commerzbank (who needed Government help soon after).

 

 

I for one would have no problem selling the naming rights of Ibrox for a fixed ... say 5 years. Do we need a more modern or larger stadium tough? For the next 3 to 5 years?

[compo 6,141]

Point 8: They are saying that non-exec directors will not get ANY payments unless the team is in Europe - not EXTRA payments

Point 3: It is to prevent lucrative contracts going to family members where the director may have a vested interest. If the family member is a direct employee of the club Point 3 doesn't apply

I agree with you on Point 2.....I think they are essential saying what a large number of fans what to hear - I'll not hold my breath for fan representation on the board. Regular meetings maybe, but not a board position.

 

as an old fan I just want my grandchildren to have the same years of enjoyment as I had following the rangers

[Bluedell 5,329]

1. Not sure what ring-fencing is proposed but it is not necessarily a good thing. AMMS makes a good point in post 7 and what happens if we suffered another liquidation. How would the stadium end up with newco? If ownership is transferred away from the club then it's more difficult to control.

 

2. A good thing, although may be difficult if the fan is given confidential info and is unable to share it.

 

3. Good in principle but say we get a Mike Ashley type as a director. Does that mean we can't do a deal with Sports Direct, even though they offer us the best deal? I think it's more important to have effective competitive tendering rather than this specific rule.

 

4. This should apply to all directors and not just Execs. A bit concerned about the line about market bench-marking. Does this mean we have to pay our CEO £1m rather than £300K because that's what Celtic pay? It could cost us cash.

 

5. Not sure what this means. Does this mean that a guy who owns one share gets to have as much say as an Easdale?

 

6. There has to be some level of confidentiality on certain matters and it's unrealistic not to accept that.

 

7. The Murray Group got into trouble because their property deals were all financed by short-term loans. Long term loans may be preferable in certain circumstances. Edit - what's better? A long term loan from a bank or a Ticketus arrangement where we mortgage future years' season ticket money?

 

8. I'd prefer good Non-Execs to command a reasonable fee rather than fans who are willing to work for nothing. Yes, it's great of they waive their fees but it shouldn't be a prerequisite as we could end up losing talent.

 

All in all, it's something that's put together to try and win fan support but I'm not convinced the "constitution" is commercially sound.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Bluedell

[ranger_syntax 3,774]

point 8 why should non executive directors get any extra payments if the club are in Europe

point 3 why should a member of a directors family not be rewarded if they are employed by the rangers and bringing in much needed income

point 2 most of the fans cant even agree between e each other and I cant see any of them bringing anything to the club

 

Point 3

 

If everything is above board then it is fine. The problem is that it is much easier to draw a line where the constitution suggests. In the absence of this safeguard we will be treated to months, or even years, of debate about our directors and the deals that club makes. Potential investors (the correct kind) may even be encouraged by a rule like this.

[Hildy 0]

It is unwise to state that Ibrox should be our home permanently. The locale could become undesirable, the structure could become too expensive to maintain, a better venue may become available elsewhere or we could grow out of it.

 

It might seem unthinkable at the moment, but the time could come when it will make sense to move away from Ibrox.

 

The future is hard to predict. A few years ago, who foresaw us playing anywhere other than in the top division? The option to move should always exist, even if it isn't something that would be widely supported right now.

[Zappa 0]

3. Good in principle but say we get a Mike Ashley type as a director. Does that mean we can't do a deal with Sports Direct, even though they offer us the best deal? I think it's more important to have effective competitive tendering rather than this specific rule.

 

Related to this is also the issue of directors, senior football management or scouts having direct personal interests in player and transfer deals. The key issue here is basically that club personnel - especially senior and highly paid personnel - should ideally never have major conflicts of interest.

 

I think the requisitioners might have shot themselves right in the foot releasing this 'constitution' just now, given that it's been released as pledges rather than proposals put up for discussion.

[Super_Ally 0]

The two main ones that jumped out at me are 3 and 5. In terms of 3 we should just secure the best deals for the club financially. If that's a director's mate or family member I don't care.

 

Great post from BlueDell. Sums it all up well.