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

[der Berliner 3,249]

IMHO, people want fans to have a say more than "fans" owning the club. They want money used for the club, not for shareholders' interests. They want a voice rather than a seat on the board.

 

Why not check out a membership scheme much like the one done at Motherwell, with some well-respected chosen few supervising the money and one of them getting a "seat" on the board (what better time to achieve somesuch now?) and having a say in where membership money is being used. A totally seperate income from owning shares and buying season tickets.

 

Just have a look at Motherwell's scheme and try to imagine how this could be adopted to a club of our stature.

 

Much like my season ticket suggestion, if it works, King can buy up a few dozen memberships and finance the club via that "backdoor" and be present at the board meetings.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I have asked Paul Goodwin what is going on and this is the reply I got:

 

what can I do to help at this stage we are asking opinions of all Rangers fans across a range of groups whether they feel that Community Ownership could work. I am not working with one specific group.

 

Quite apart fron the fact that I obviously pushed the salary budget too high for his standard of English; his comments appear to totally contradict the statement quoted in the OP.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

 

Thanks.

 

I am too old to Tweet.

 

I fully understood that you were using "political" in that sense and can only say that if the RST were doing that then it was completely wrong and would not have happened whilst I was the Secretary, which is yet another reason why I am not.

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 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?

 

There were limitations to Buy Rangers. It couldn't accept more than £20k, for example. It can borrow higher than that, but it can't accept more money than that.

 

The CIC model doesn't have those restrictions. It's basically like a combinations between all the good bits of a charity and a normal ltd company.

 

So, in our case, a CIC would have to be run "for the benfit of the Rangers community", which means that everything it does should be about the benefits of Rangers.

 

CICs can borrow, take in donations, can get similar tax status on certain issues to charities etc.

 

There's lots of different routs you could go down too, it can be as small or as large as you make it. If you have 10,000 paying members, you can start to have subsidiary CICs which invest in activities and facilities to bring benefits to the members of the community and generate further revenue which would eventually go straight to the Club.

 

As an example, it might be decided that the CIC, after buying enough of a holding, buys Edmiston House and turns it into a members club or some other sort of facility, a gym, a restaurant anything.

 

As for why we should pursue fan ownership in the first place?

 

Accountability is the main thing. Having a credible and qualified board which was able to focus fully on what is best for Rangers and not on what is best for the share price is the main benefit.

 

It doesn't make us more likely to win the league or beat Celtic, it just brings a level of security which, if we'd had at any point in the last few years, would have avoided much of our problems.

 

You can start to get answers and hold people to account with as little as 5% too, so it's a building exercise. It might take a year, it might take 10 years - but it's a worthwhile exercise.

 

Take Hearts; after they payoff the CVA, at current rates they'll have a £150k/month surpius to pump straight into the Club. That would fund one of the top youth systems in the country.

[Stimpy 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?

CIC started here: http://www.therst.co.uk/fan-ownership-meeting-cooper-suite-ibrox-stadium/

 

The rest is a long, sad sorry state of affairs that has put me off fan ownership and 'groups'. Plus, I'm not convinced the ownership of CIC has been ratified given the articles of association, comfort letter and briefings clearly outlining ownership of the CIC in my possession.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

You can start to get answers and hold people to account with as little as 5% too, so it's a building exercise. It might take a year, it might take 10 years - but it's a worthwhile exercise.

 

I think that is a bit more realistic and I have mentioned it before as the level at which you can force the company to call an EGM and circulate a proposal for consideration at such a meeting. But even that is 10x the number of shares held in the scheme, albeit the price would be less now, the more shares that are bought the higher it will go (barring any major disaster)

Edited February 5, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

I think that is a bit more realistic and I have mentioned it before as the level at which you can force the company to call an EGM and circulate a proposal for consideration at such a meeting. But evenb that is 10x what the number of shares held in the scheme, albeit the price would be less now, the more shares that are bought the higher it will go (barring any major disaster)

 

That's generally the case, yes. But upwards of 100,000 shares are being traded on a weekly basis and the share price is not budging at the moment.

 

Reality is that this is far outwith the fans' control anyway, what we can do is rally round and get working on the best solution for the Club.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

That's generally the case, yes. But upwards of 100,000 shares are being traded on a weekly basis and the share price is not budging at the moment.

 

Reality is that this is far outwith the fans' control anyway, what we can do is rally round and get working on the best solution for the Club.

 

I think it's obvious I was speaking in general terms and you are talking about 13.75 million shares, albeit over a period of time. When Hughes, I think it was, sold 2 million the price went down to 20.5p; thus showing the effect in an illiquid market.

[Frankie 8,151]

Andy Newport ‏@Andythemod9 1m

 

- On @PressAssocSport wire: Number of Rangers fans have taken first steps towards launching a bid to buy the club on behalf of Ibrox support

 

- Supporters Direct Scotland called in to offer advice on setting up a scheme similar to one being used by Hearts fans to rescue Jambos

 

- SDS has offered its help to get the bid off the ground and plan to discuss the plans with influential supporters in the coming weeks

[Hildy 0]

Benefits of fan ownership:

 

Ownership is secure and stable. No longer is there a worry that the club could fall into the hands of someone like Craig Whyte, Charles Green or even David Murray. Any figure wanting to become president of the club would have to stand for election and seek the approval of a majority of the membership.

 

If someone like Dave King, for example, wanted to give Rangers a large cheque, he could still do it, but he could never own the club. He could, however, become its elected president.

 

The club would be accountable and organised democratically. Most of the time the main function would be to elect a president and an overseeing board, but when major issues needed addressing - like moving to a new ground or selling the training centre - a vote of the members would be required to either reject the proposal or give it the green light.

 

Nothing major could happen without member approval. We've seen owners changing the team colours of the clubs they buy, and even changing club names too. That would cease to be a worry for us.

 

There are different models of ownership to look at before opting for one that suits us. Barcelona and Real Madrid are fan-owned and so are the clubs in the German League. A study would have to be undertaken and then a particular system recommended. It might need tweaking but it surely isn't beyond us to come up with a model to do the job.

 

With fan ownership, the uncertainty of when the club is going to be sold will be gone forever, and so will the fear that an unsuitable party could buy it.

 

We've been around for 140 years, and recent events have shaken the Rangers support to its core. We have to learn from this. There are no guarantees in life no matter what system is used, but while Rangers can be purchased by anyone, and for any reason, Rangers fans can only be certain of one thing:

 

Rangers may not be forever. A few years ago, comments like this would have been scoffed at, but not any more.

 

The main door of Ibrox Stadium should be closed forever to rogues and charlatans. Fan ownership will achieve this. Even if it does nothing else, this will allow us to plot our own future free from interlopers whose prime motivation, sometimes their only motivation, is self-gain.