4th Meeting of the Rangers CIC Working Party.

[WATP_Greg 0]

Yes, I realise that thanks but my point was that it is not vain to want to buy shares now; and it is not an either/or (buy now or later) if you want to own shares in your own right; you can do both.

 

Sorry, but I do see it as vanity - If you are like the vast majority of the Rangers Support you are not seeking to make a return on your investment. The shares being on the open market there is no money going into the club and there is little power in shares held individually. Therefore, the only reason to own shares is to say you own shares. Just get one share and put the rest into a collective scheme IMO

 

Thats the way I see it and that is why I am donating my shares (all but two) to Rangers First as the shares are better together IMO

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Sorry, but I do see it as vanity - If you are like the vast majority of the Rangers Support you are not seeking to make a return on your investment. The shares being on the open market there is no money going into the club and there is little power in shares held individually. Therefore, the only reason to own shares is to say you own shares. Just get one share and put the rest into a collective scheme IMO

 

Thats the way I see it and that is why I am donating my shares (all but two) to Rangers First as the shares are better together IMO

 

Buying a few hundred shares say on the open market doesn't really make a great deal of difference whether the money goes directly into the Club or not.

 

I agree that "the vast majority of the Rangers Support are not seeking to make a return on your investment" but there is a difference between having a framed certificate hanging on the wall and being vain about it.

 

Of course the situation is different now with the collective options available; so your strategy is entirely credible and commendable.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

You can still buy your own shares independently , theres nothing to stop you , I have my own as well post IPO , but this is about something bigger and possibly better than self interest , if you cant see that then no worries you stay as you are

 

It has got bugger all to do with self interest. What a condescending pile of pish. I will buy shares when there is a further share issue to be a part of our club and vote as I like. That certainly does not stop me supporting any fans initiative if I agree with it. If you invest and have shares you have a vote. Unless, of course, you invest and have no say, because some egotistical chap will make up your mind for you.

 

My old man was not blessed with height, so I cannot enter into a pathetic 'my dad is bigger than your dad' pissing contest with RF or BR.

 

Bigger and possibly better you say? Correct, possibly.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

I disagree entirely - there is no point in buying shares personally other than vanity at this stage - If there is a new public share offering then that would be of course a different scenario.

 

The power in shares only lies in being as a collective IMO

 

I did say I would buy shares when DK facilitated change. That will be a further issue.

 

The power in shares lies in how you vote, buying them as a collective means rap all. As long as they are bought.

[Hildy 0]

I did say I would buy shares when DK facilitated change. That will be a further issue.

 

The power in shares lies in how you vote, buying them as a collective means rap all. As long as they are bought.

 

The fans currently own 12% of the company, so we keep hearing.

 

What do the fans have for that 12%?

 

If you or I had 12% we might be directors now, but because the fan 12% is spread across several thousand individuals, it has no real clout, and no director either.

 

If an organised fan group had 12%, it would likely have a director already installed in the boardroom. Buying as a collective is hugely important.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Lol only green appoints directors and only ones who work to his agenda

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The fans currently own 12% of the company, so we keep hearing.

 

What do the fans have for that 12%?

 

If you or I had 12% we might be directors now, but because the fan 12% is spread across several thousand individuals, it has no real clout, and no director either.

 

If an organised fan group had 12%, it would likely have a director already installed in the boardroom. Buying as a collective is hugely important.

 

One of the objectives of RF is to "sweep up" as much of that 12% as possible; hence the facility to pay for a Life Membership in whole or in part in shares. At current prices just over 1,600 shares would buy you a Life Membership.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

The fans currently own 12% of the company, so we keep hearing.

 

What do the fans have for that 12%?

 

If you or I had 12% we might be directors now, but because the fan 12% is spread across several thousand individuals, it has no real clout, and no director either.

 

If an organised fan group had 12%, it would likely have a director already installed in the boardroom. Buying as a collective is hugely important.

 

And there you have it in a nutshell. But I can see why many think that is a plus. Personally, I have seen how some at the forefront of BR are with fans / investors / their shares and it is not for me.

 

BH's treatment of a guy who wanted to invest heavily in our club and prevent the car crash catastrophe that was Greenco is up there as well mind you.

[calscot 0]

Sorry, but I do see it as vanity - If you are like the vast majority of the Rangers Support you are not seeking to make a return on your investment. The shares being on the open market there is no money going into the club and there is little power in shares held individually. Therefore, the only reason to own shares is to say you own shares. Just get one share and put the rest into a collective scheme IMO

 

Thats the way I see it and that is why I am donating my shares (all but two) to Rangers First as the shares are better together IMO

 

What's wrong with owning shares and giving a proxy to a fan group?

 

Owning shares is about having a say in perpetuity while you own them, you don't have to pay a penny again. You can pass them onto your family and you can sell them (probably for a lot less than you paid) if you are in a tight financial situation.

 

Wanting some ownership for your money seems pretty normal, but then we ALL have egos.

 

No-one is asking Dave King to donate £20m to RF for a life membership, it's not expected, but the rest of us must be the lower, unworthy classes who don't deserve to have shares for our money.

 

I definitely have enough of an ego to be insulted by that assertion.

[Bluedell 5,329]

It's not ego, but it is just wanting something for your money. I'm not looking for a return and I'm not looking to boast about how many shares I own, but I do want to own something for my money.

 

Who is going to run the CIC? Who is going to run it in 5 years time? Look at the RST. It's a democratic organisation but many have not liked the composition of the board. They have an exit strategy by just walking away but they still owned their shares through Gersave or their share of BR (as I understand it). Obviously some are happy to give cash over for no return but many aren't.

 

If they can the CIC should move away from the membership fee concept. If they can't then perhaps they could set up a mechanism whereby shareholders can proxy their shares to the CIC without handing over ownership.