Supporters Direct chief calls on Rangers fans to unite...

[Frankie 8,172]

In an ideal world you're right. But the Association are never going to just write off a 40 year history.

 

For me, the ends justifies the means.

 

I look at how Dunfermline did it. I look at how Hearts did it, and I geuinely don't believe there are any major differences in their fan bases. The only difference is scale.

 

The blueprint is there. Perhaps after we control enough of the Club we can start to enact things like you're suggesting, but reality is that a club-led group at the moment will simply be a supporters tax. Only ownership can guarantee accountability.

 

The percentage needed is wholly different to what it was under Murray too. The shareholding makeup means you'd have a controlling stake with as much as 20%. A target of 25%+1, would be perfect for fans at present and would be wholly-achievable.

 

But you're asking the RST to write off 11 years...

 

You're right to point out the successes of the Pars/Jambos schemes but, while I don't know a lot about their fan groups, I'd fancy it was a bit more straightforward for them to unite behind one focal point. That's the difficulty we face as clearly some people will sabotage anything that they don't feel part of. This makes the need for rationalisation and/or rebranding even stronger.

 

I'm sorry if that sounds negative but it's the reality of the situation. We all have our own brands to protect but as long as we put these before the greater good then we'll continue to stumble from one scheme to the next.

[Bluedell 5,348]

That's the difficulty we face as clearly some people will sabotage anything that they don't feel part of.

 

It's very disappointing to see the toys out the pram attitude that's been shown.

[Frankie 8,172]

It's very disappointing to see the toys out the pram attitude that's been shown.

 

Well, I don't know what's happening in the background and that seems to have upset a few people more than the scheme itself. However, like I say, at some point some people are going to have to make very difficult decisions. As fans we certainly can't go on like we are now. I have no particular gripe against anyone (or any group) but none are functioning well enough to back 100%.

 

That's unacceptable but there's too many folk willing to overlook it to maintain their own (or their group of choice) profile. Even worse, I'm not sure they ever will.

[True_Ger_1872 2]

There are differences though.

 

1. Level of fear - Rangers fans generally never believed that their club would fold, and still don't. The same may not be true for fans of the other 2 clubs.

 

2. Experience of funding - Rangers fans have been through the experience of sugar daddies (SDM, ENIC, KIng etc) putting in cash and there is still an expectation that King (or another) will swoop in to save the day.

 

3. Experience of club spending - Rangers fans have seen previous cash that they have been put into the club being squandered very quickly (£22m in 9 months, SDM spending from 2000 onwards for example) and will be reluctant to dig deep again through fear of it happening again.

 

4. Experience of already giving - the club has asked for cash on many occasions (club deck, 3 share issues, other fund raising initiatives), not forgetting Gersave, RFFF and BuyRangers and and there's only so many times people will go back into their pockets.

 

I therefore have concerns but I do hope that you are successful.

 

I agree with the points above, however i cant help but feel some of these points could / should be used as a positive way of promoting the scheme and trying to break down the boundaries of the various organisations.

 

1 - Totally agree with this point. There always was a degree of apathy with some Rangers supporters, and i think there still is.

 

2 - With this, Hearts have the Romanov era at the beginning when cash was ploughed into the club and things were going well at first. We all know how that ended up and i am sure Hearts fans will be more than wary of this happening once more. For Rangers we had the sugar-daddy of SDM - we also have the coming of Craig Whyte. We are all aware of the variety of opinions that supporters / groups have over either of these characters, but i think this should at the very least make supporters think....would Dave King taking over provide a successful outcome for the club??

 

3 - Another point that i think requires some lessons to be learned from the recent going-ons. The way to ensure this is resolved i feel is possibly the most sensitive area of a scheme as this area is where agendas will come into play.

 

4 - As much as these initiatives have provided some benefits, i think as a group of supporters we need to ask ourselves if we have done enough with this list? And if these initiatives have reaped sufficient benefits to the club and supporters? An ownership scheme will ultimately provide the ultimate assurances from some supporters, and raise lots of questions and issues with some supporters also. However, at the end of the day, we would have a fr greater say in the club which i think would be a fantastic achievement.

 

As a fan, to be able to drive something like this forward and be involved, for me, would be such a fantastic use of time and efforts. It just saddens me that it seems some supporters don't share my thoughts on this.

[Zappa 0]

So what are the differences between the Community Interest Company (CIC) model that Supporters Direct are proposing now and what they helped the RST set up not so long ago with the BuyRangers scheme which is also a community based model?

 

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend why they would heavily guide and assist the RST in setting up BuyRangers only to turn round shortly afterwards and propose a new model. So, what's the story?

[andy steel 0]

You can continue to be anti or pro board if that's your choice but you'd all be able to agree that fan ownership is a cause worth uniting over.

 

Could you set out why fan ownership would be a good choice? People say this, but I don't actually know what it would entail in detail. What would be the model for club going forward, how would it work? If the detail is convincing enough even I would be forced to admit to potential benefits.

 

At the moment it's kind of like government ministers who get up and justify raising the age of retirement and the like on the grounds that 'we're all living longer'...not up here, we're not. Just saying fan ownership would be better isn't convincing enough for me.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think there are historical issues there. In reality, it looks like there are more groups than there are.

 

Can anyone just decide to join the Assembly? The Association?

 

The ony truly open and democratic group we currently have is the Trust. Those 3 main groups continually work with each other these days too.

 

I don't think the division is among groups. The problem isn't too many groups, in my opinion, it's too many with the same or lack of focus.

 

The Association should be pushing and talking about the issues like police harrassment of supporters buses and all other issues related to RSCs - as is their mandate.

The Trust should be representing fans on the political issues, like the board, like Jack Irvine etc.

And the Assembly should have been the umbrella which allowed fans who are not part of those groups to let the Club know what is bothering them.

 

There are common issues which will matter to all groups; ownership of Ibrox or things like that, but aside from that the groups shouldn't really be in each others way.

 

It would be totally against the Rules of SD for a Trust to take a political stance or voice an opinion about the board or similar issues.

 

In my time we were pushed very hard to voice an opinion about the OBA but had to refuse to do so.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

The percentage needed is wholly different to what it was under Murray too. The shareholding makeup means you'd have a controlling stake with as much as 20%. A target of 25%+1, would be perfect for fans at present and would be wholly-achievable.

 

In totality perhaps although even at current prices you are talking about c. £4 million which is 16x what the RST raised for the IPO (and that's assuming the shares would be for sale, which is not the case at present. The main issue that I see however is getting all the fans to combine their shareholdings. I know I am in danger of sounding like an old record but it is fact that at least 20x as many shares were bought by fans on their own account as bought through BuyRangers; doesn't that tell you something?

Edited February 5, 2014 by BrahimHemdani
typos

[BrahimHemdani 1]

But you're asking the RST to write off 11 years...

 

You're right to point out the successes of the Pars/Jambos schemes but, while I don't know a lot about their fan groups, I'd fancy it was a bit more straightforward for them to unite behind one focal point. That's the difficulty we face as clearly some people will sabotage anything that they don't feel part of. This makes the need for rationalisation and/or rebranding even stronger.

 

I'm sorry if that sounds negative but it's the reality of the situation. We all have our own brands to protect but as long as we put these before the greater good then we'll continue to stumble from one scheme to the next.

 

In some of the smaller clubs e.g. Berwick Rangers; there is a VERY high cross over between the Trust and the Supporters Assn, I think it is around 50% or more. I fancy it is quite high at the likes of Dunfermline perhpas not Hearts. It would also have been similar at Clyde and Stirling Albion I suspect. At Rangers, it can't be more than a tiny proprtion.

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

It would be totally against the Rules of SD for a Trust to take a political stance or voice an opinion about the board or similar issues.

 

In my time we were pushed very hard to voice an opinion about the OBA but had to refuse to do so.

 

When I was saying political it was a deliberate small 'p'. But as for a stance on the board, you must have missed the RST twitter for a brief period AGM! "#SpivsOut"

 

It was only a brief period mind, but I'm not so sure that SD take such a hardline approach to that issue.