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

[BrahimHemdani 1]

To replace the Assembly?

 

One can but hope.

[Zappa 0]

One can but hope.

 

Not much point in replacing it if it's to be more of the same with some of the same people though, eh?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Not much point in replacing it if it's to be more of the same with some of the same people though, eh?

 

Agreed.

 

At least one of those people is gone, however.

 

It depends how it's organised.

 

If it's on the basis of places for different orgs + say season ticket holders, shareholders (although defo need there own org), overseas etc etc, then it just sounds like more of the same.

 

BUT if it's a completely free election for 12 places on a committee that's another matter altogether.

 

Most likely it will be somewhere in between.

[Frankie 8,150]

Would you consider getting involved, Frankie? Until very recently, I would have considered you an ideal candidate but then you seemed to become very anti-board....

 

I very much doubt it as personal and work commitments mean my spare time is currently very limited. Furthermore, I'm not convinced I'm properly qualified for such a position and feel there are more suitable fans out there for such a role.

 

As for me supposedly being VERY anti-board, I'd be interested to see examples of that. Like most bears I wanted rid of Stockbridge and have doubts about others but I think my criticism has always been fair and balanced while also being aimed at those who consider themselves their replacement. Moreover, after the AGM in December, I was quick to suggest a moratorium on such matters to give the mandated board time to make improvements.

 

If that's VERY critical then I'd like to see you describe people with much stronger opinions than me.

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

The model that Supporters Direct are proposing (and presenting at The Louden on the 14th) is not about the obliteration of the RST, it's not about starting up in opposition to the RST. The RST has, and will continue to have a role. It will represent its members, of which I am one, like it can.

 

SD have had success with Foundation of Hearts and Pars United, both of which became vehicles to deliver greater fan ownership as opposed to fans groups debating the benefits of guys like Jack Irvine (as an example).

 

Their Trusts continue to represent them on all issues, but the vehicle was a single-issue entity which only focussed on fan ownership. That, for me, is massively important to uniting the fans. 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.

[Frankie 8,150]

The model that Supporters Direct are proposing (and presenting at The Louden on the 14th) is not about the obliteration of the RST, it's not about starting up in opposition to the RST. The RST has, and will continue to have a role. It will represent its members, of which I am one, like it can.

 

SD have had success with Foundation of Hearts and Pars United, both of which became vehicles to deliver greater fan ownership as opposed to fans groups debating the benefits of guys like Jack Irvine (as an example).

 

Their Trusts continue to represent them on all issues, but the vehicle was a single-issue entity which only focussed on fan ownership. That, for me, is massively important to uniting the fans. 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.

 

That sounds fair enough but I think the concern about having too many groups is a valid one.

 

Assembly, Association, Trust, RCIC, SoS etc etc all have their pros and cons but only serve to cause confusion and division (not deliberately of course). We need to rationalise these groups if we're to ever have a workable model for improved fan representation/influence.

 

Much better, IMHO, to have two groups maximum; one 'official' and one independent. But I certainly accept your point about having something that focuses solely on ownership rather than being side-tracked by other matters.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Frankie

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

That sounds fair enough but I think the concern about having too many groups is a valid one.

 

Assembly, Association, Trust, RCIC, SoS etc etc all have their pros and cons but only serve to cause confusion and division (not deliberately) of course. We need to rationalise these groups if we're to ever have a workable model for improved fan representation/influence.

 

Much better, IMHO, to have two groups maximum; one 'official' and one independent. But I certainly accept your point about having something that focuses solely on ownership rather than being side-tracked by other matters.

 

 

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.

[Frankie 8,150]

These groups do work together which is all the more reason to rationalise them. For all the good work guys like John Macmillan and Drew Roberton do, I'm not convinced the Association needs to be a stand alone organisation any more. Also, I think your raison d'être for the Trust is inaccurate given their primary aim of the last 10+ years (arguments about how successful they've been aside).

 

IMO, there should be one officially recognised group which is part of the club but also self-funding and prepared to stand against it where required. That gives us a single vehicle for ticketing, RSCs, politics, singing sections and the like; one which we can all get our teeth into via some sort of democratic membership scheme.

 

Then we have the completely independent RST which is left to concentrate on ownership - either via BuyRangers and/or through a CIC concept.

 

Anything else is in danger of spoiling the broth. That may be unfair or unrealistic but that's arguably where we are right now.

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

These groups do work together which is all the more reason to rationalise them. For all the good work guys like John Macmillan and Drew Roberton do, I'm not convinced the Association needs to be a stand alone organisation any more. Also, I think your raison d'être for the Trust is inaccurate given their primary aim of the last 10+ years (arguments about how successful they've been aside).

 

IMO, there should be one officially recognised group which is part of the club but also self-funding and prepared to stand against it where required. That gives us a single vehicle for ticketing, RSCs, politics, singing sections and the like; one which we can all get our teeth into via some sort of democratic membership scheme.

 

Then we have the completely independent RST which is left to concentrate on ownership - either via BuyRangers and/or through a CIC concept.

 

Anything else is in danger of spoiling the broth. That may be unfair or unrealistic but that's arguably where we are right now.

 

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.

[Bluedell 5,329]

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.

 

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.