Why entrust Rangers to people who don't share our values or dreams?

[andy steel 0]

The culture has already started.

 

BuyRangers has around 2,000 people already signed up.

 

That's where my money is invested - and I won't be spending a cent on any other scheme. As previously stated, we have the tools already in place to work towards fan ownership so let's use them.

 

Incredibly, we now have two singing sections - how many investment groups does the support actually need?

 

Answer: one.

 

Let's work together on this - not as forums and groups - but as Rangers fans with a common goal.

 

I've said my piece on the overarching idea, but I'm just not buying this guy's spiel. There's no reason why an independently funded ownership group ('GersnetShare') wouldn't proxy shares across to BuyRangers if the time came to make a move, but the idea - which surely chimes with your aim, Hildy - is shot down in flames?

 

The answer to the question, how many investment groups does the support actually need is 'as many as it takes to get the job done'. Why the hostility to parallel schemes?

[Hildy 0]

Andy, why even bother with a parallel scheme?

 

Why waste time and energy setting up a scheme whose function is to ape one that already exists?

 

If 'we are the people', why do we need to factionalise to achieve a worthy aim?

 

Surely there must be one idea that people can get behind without setting up a variety of models?

 

BuyRangers already has around half of one per cent of the company. The first step has been taken. The first brick is in place.

 

Fans keep crying out for unity, and yet here we have another example of the support splintering instead of banding together to make the goal achievable as soon as possible.

 

It makes no sense.

 

Hearts and Dunfermline fans seem to have managed to focus their energies. It's time we did the same.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Bluedell 5,329]

Andy, why even bother with a parallel scheme?

Perhaps. for example, because a new scheme offers supporters more safeguards in respect of the assets of the club?

 

The RST scheme has many pluses but it doesn't mean that it can't be improved upon, and who knows, perhaps the RST may look upon another scheme as being more beneficial and put its weight behind it?

[Zappa 0]

I think what we could try at Gersnet is have a bunch of us buy up some shares from a few hundred to a 1000 each - and at 27p a share (plus a £12 set fee so 326 shares for £100) it's a good time to do so.

 

Even if the share price drops as low as 20p it would still be a high risk investment and you'd need to be prepared for every possibility, including the possibility of losing your money.

[Hildy 0]

It's a free country, Bluedell.

 

If you are prepared to put in the work required, good luck to you, but it's this kind of thinking that weakens us as a support and as a club.

 

If we need to create new groups to reflect our own image all the time, it's no wonder we are in such a mess.

 

People want cooperation and a semblance of unity, and we can't even get a couple of singing sections sharing the same section.

[calscot 0]

I personally will NOT join in the RST scheme, partly because they have not convinced me over the years despite being a member for a while, but mostly because I would have to pay for membership, I don't see how I actually own any shares, I would have little influence on how my money would be used, and I've no idea how I would get any money back if I decide to leave.

 

I think there many people who feel the same and so why stop them doing something different that suits them better but still helps towards the goal?

 

My proposal wasn't for a "scheme" per se, and whoever is not interested in it then makes absolutely no difference to it or me.

 

I just thought it was an idea that could appeal to a lot of people who want to actually own some shares in the club for sentimental value, to help the club get into the ownership of the fans and actually to have a say in how the voting power of the shares are used.

 

The points are that after buying them, they are yours until you sell them or they become worthless, no-one can take them away. You could easily lose money but you may also accrue value in them if the price goes up, or they might stay around the same, which gives you the option of cashing them in if you're in a tight spot. You don't have to keep paying to use them and you can easily remove your proxy at any time if you don't like the way it is being used. You don't have to worry about another body's solvency or other factors either.

 

Basically it's just very simple. All you have to do is buy as many shares as you like and proxy them to whoever you like, if they are able to use it. That's it. You are fully in control of your investment.

 

It's about getting lots of independent fan shareholders together to wield some power. If there are 50 of these that combined are big enough to influence the running of the club then it's better than one that isn't.

 

I think I'm probably going to buy some shares anyway so it doesn't make much difference to me.

 

I've been a member of RST and at no time felt part of it, or felt I had any influence. I do feel that on here. I certainly wouldn't proxy my shares to them unless there is some large change in my perception of it as an organisation.

 

When you force everyone into the choice of one Marmite scheme then you're chances of success are low. People like freedom of choice, to have control of their investment and to have some voice for their hard earned money.

[calscot 0]

Even if the share price drops as low as 20p it would still be a high risk investment and you'd need to be prepared for every possibility, including the possibility of losing your money.

 

I agree, but when you buy shares in a football club, you spend an amount you can afford to fully lose. It's not about making money, it's a sentimental investment. I'm talking around the 100-200 pound mark. Or you could have a membership scheme of say 50 quid which means you are guaranteed to lose it all immediately and then again every single year.

[Bluedell 5,329]

It's a free country, Bluedell.

 

If you are prepared to put in the work required, good luck to you, but it's this kind of thinking that weakens us as a support and as a club.

 

Not me, mate. I've done my fair share of work for fan ownership in the past, but not now. I was just putting forward a hypothetical.

 

However, one thing that does need to be taken into account is a dose of realism. It may be fine for you and me to say that we should not have any schemes to go against the RST one, but that's in an ideal world.

 

We have seen the extent of the anti-RST feeling on this forum and others. That doesn't just exist in forums but there are many fans that I speak to at games who I have tried to encourage to invest in the past who won't because it's the RST. That's not going to change in the short or medium term. That's a fact.

 

It's perhaps unfair on the RST, but that's the reality and for any scheme to be vastly successful needs it to have independence from the RST to get wide-spread support.

[Hildy 0]

Calscot, I agree with your last post.

 

I wouldn't encourage anyone to buy huge numbers of Rangers shares. As you say, buy only what you can afford to lose.

 

£100 - £200 seems like a decent level at which to invest.

 

We're not in this to make money. We're in this because it matters and because we care.

[Bluedell 5,329]

People want cooperation and a semblance of unity, and we can't even get a couple of singing sections sharing the same section.

 

I'd say that there is co-operation between TBO and UB, as far as I can see. They have co-existed in the same section for a while now and I don't see anything wrong in TBO wanting a bit more independence. They appear to still have a good relationship with the UBs (who can be very focused (for lack of a better word)) and I don't see a problem with the 2 groups co-existing and having their own aims and ways of doing things as long as they continue to co-operate and discuss things.