BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It's not all about looks although, admittedly, I do have the whole package. Happy to leave that to others to decide. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I don't think that's the issue, I think that fan ownership will only be delivered by a single-purpose vehicle. The Trust continues to represent its members on the day-to-day issues, like the Club's PR man, as an example, and that's fine, but perhaps that approach won't unite enough fans behind it to be successful enough on the fan owership front? That's basically the premise of the presentation. No bad words to be had about the Trust, as I say, I think fans should be represented on those issues too - but perhaps the two-pronged approach just isn't viable? Due to other more personal issues Mark is taking a hard line against it. That's perfectly fine, all that's asked is that you look at what is proposed with an open mind and decide if that sounds achievable. If not, we continue as is. I can see that the Trust's remit has expanded in ways that haven't pleased everyone. But it was set up specifically to promote fan ownership, wasn't it? So we come back to the issue of the baggage it now seems to come with and the perceived need for a 'neutral', baggage-free vehicle to achieve the same goal. Again, fair enough. But if it's successful, we're still going to have the same divisions over the club. But they'll be within the group rather than/as well as on the message boards/twitter. Stances on, for eg, board members will need to be taken. Hope I'm making sense: genuinely trying to work out what's going on. Massively supportive of the concept of fan share ownership and have started researching coops etc. But I'm not cheerleading for the trust (not in it) nor FF (on since the old email forum but based in London and too much of a handwringer for 'the clique'). But they banned me from RM before I'd even managed to post!). Edited February 6, 2014 by Oleg_Mcnoleg Too many typos 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Is this like an ex-RST board member retirment community then that fate has had me stumble upon? This thread has got interesting and funny. hahahaha Quite a few getting their teeth into the debate, funny thing is though it's the same set of teeth that's being passed around hehe 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 This thread has got interesting and funny. hahahaha Quite a few getting their teeth into the debate, funny thing is though it's the same set of teeth that's being passed around hehe I am happy to say I have all my own can't speak for any of the others although rumour has it that................. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It is though. The views of the Rangers community are being sought. That doesn't mean it's competition for the Trust or the formation of a new fans group. It's a proposal to bang heads, get all fans together and working towards one common goal. If it doesn't get the support initially from all sections then it won't be progressed. Mark is trying to make this look like some anti-Trust exercise when that isn't the case. I continue to be a member of the RST - I believe in it, and I think the people on board are capable of representing my views, but I think we have to explore fresh ways to bring more of the support to fan ownership. Thing is mate, rightly or wrongly, many will view this as a new group in competition with another one. What are bears meant to do if BuyRangers is promoted before the launch of CIC and they acquire more shares? RST should and have to promote BuyRangers but then you'll get idiots saying they're doing it inspire of the CIC and vice versa. Cluster fuck:( Get back round the table and make an investment vehicle a cross party scheme. Get everyone involved including SOS and websites such and TRS and CRO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Get back round the table and make an investment vehicle a cross party scheme. Get everyone involved including SOS and websites such and TRS and CRO. Aren't they trying to do this which is why everyone has been invited to next week's meeting? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It's good to hear the different views, I'm looking forward to see what comes out of the meeting. Perhaps fans involvement needs a vehicle which has only one aim and doesn't get involved in other matters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It's good to hear the different views, I'm looking forward to see what comes out of the meeting. Perhaps fans involvement needs a vehicle which has only one aim and doesn't get involved in other matters. The stand-alone vehicle suggestion is an interesting concept but one which, I assume, will still need some sort of board of trustees. This means names and that will, inevitably, bring division when some fans automatically take sides depending on who is standing where. We're seeing that already elsewhere. Moreover, unless you have people involved the every-day fan can relate to, folk will be too cautious. RFFF was partially successful because it had such people and any fan ownership scheme - be it BuyRangers or the CIC idea, will need the same to not only attract the average Joe but to take away the usual inter fan community politics. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Goodwin emailed the chairman with concerns over a headline and not what was said. So myself and Gordon collated statements from other trusts which were all on Rangers, and sweet fuck all to do with their core objective. Guess what, Goodwin never commented on the facts presented. He ignored us and let it go as we asked for proof of where he had challenged all other trusts for commenting on other clubs, against the rules btw, and that they only commented on Fan ownership. Ha! I fuckin knew it!! As Bluedell's sig says, Never Forget. never Forgive. Sometimes I lurch into sanity & think we need to move on & then my inner loon kicks in and the thought of working with the people who were dancing on our grave so short a while ago....just makes my flesh creep. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The stand-alone vehicle suggestion is an interesting concept but one which, I assume, will still need some sort of board of trustees. This means names and that will, inevitably, bring division when some fans automatically take sides depending on who is standing where. We're seeing that already elsewhere. Moreover, unless you have people involved the every-day fan can relate to, folk will be too cautious. RFFF was partially successful because it had such people and any fan ownership scheme - be it BuyRangers or the CIC idea, will need the same to not only attract the average Joe but to take away the usual inter fan community politics. My earlier post about the the same people as usual and how they all had history together alludes to this. It may be that it will need an outsider to take it forward, but as Andy posts .........WHO? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.