BEARGER 1,830 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Can anyone confirm or not the differences that exist between these two schemes. 1. BuyRangers you can get your money back after 3 years if you decide to leave the scheme, with RangersFirst you lose the money? 2. BuyRangers all monies raised go to buy shares, in RangersFirst money could be used for other things? 3. BuyRangers and RangersFirst seen it posted elsewhere that more will be used on expenses/costs etc. with RF than BR. Is this correct? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Gosh, I wonder which scheme you'd rather succeed, Bearger? It is good to see BuyRangers is still going actually, their sudden appearance and movement over the last week or so is most welcome - a bonus effect of Rangersfirst already as we'd presumably not have heard from them otherwise. Anyway, I wish both schemes well but think this thread is disingenuously posing these slanted questions. One could start another: "confirm RangersFirst has come into existence because previous schemes had engaged with a minuscule percentage of fans despite being around for ages" etc. But lets hope we refrain from setting the schemes off against each other in thread after thread, eh? These questions have been asked and answered before. If the same people keep asking the same questions on different threads in different forums they will still get the same answers, so you wonder why they do it and why start another thread asking them again. Edited February 21, 2014 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I would rather the money was solely used to buy shares to tell the truth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Are the two schemes effectively competing with each other or what? We can't even have one fan ownership vehicle, what a fractious shower we are. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I would rather the money was solely used to buy shares to tell the truth. I may too, but that wasn't my point 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I may too, but that wasn't my point I get the point you are making. I can also see the point of showing the differences. I knew of point 2, and don't like it. Didn't realise about point 1. It would also be good to know the difference in costs etc. between the two. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTP 0 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I'll be honest and say I don't know the difference between them both so I would find it useful if there was a comparison drawn up with the Pro's and Con's of each. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,599 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I think that the questions are valid and it would be good to have it clearly explained. However the OP could have done it in a less partisan way. Hopefully someone will come on and explain it all. If they have been answered then I've missed them so it would be useful if someone can go over it again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Gosh, I wonder which scheme you'd rather succeed, Bearger? It is good to see BuyRangers is still going actually, their sudden appearance and movement over the last week or so is most welcome - a bonus effect of Rangersfirst already as we'd presumably not have heard from them otherwise. Anyway, I wish both schemes well but think this thread is disingenuously posing these slanted questions. One could start another: "confirm RangersFirst has come into existence because previous schemes had engaged with a minuscule percentage of fans despite being around for ages" etc. But lets hope we refrain from setting the schemes off against each other in thread after thread, eh? These questions have been asked and answered before. If the same people keep asking the same questions on different threads in different forums they will still get the same answers, so you wonder why they do it and why start another thread asking them again. I did not mean to put any slant on the questions, honest! I was just writing down what I've seen posted on various forums and wish to know what is correct and what is not. You say these questions have been answered before, but by whom? Was it people who are involved in each scheme? For example a poster on here said that in the RangersFirst scheme money could only be spent other than on shares if everybody voted for it, I have my doubts about that statement. Also what % of takings are spent on admin & costs etc.? It would be best if only those who are intimately involved with each scheme gave us the answers 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I apologise then, Bearsger. I thought you had asked and been answered the same before, (I frequent FF too so I may be confusing forums.) Anyway, the basic point is that l read your post as biased to one side (slanted) and intended to put one in a bad light. Seems I read it wrongly, so - sorry. 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.