Rangers First - Email template

[WATP_Greg 0]

Hi, I'm an open and avid proponent of Rangers First - I really believe this can be great for the club and the support.

 

I have been sending this out to my contacts list and thought it could be worth an airing on here:

 

As all Rangers Supporters know it has been a turbulent few years. We seem to move from one crisis to another and I think we are all getting to the stage where the common consensus is that something must be done. The average fan is seeking to have a more open relationship with the club, people who previously had no interest in the on goings behind the scenes at the club are now demanding transparency and openness.

There is a swell of support for increased fan involvement at Rangers Football Club – and something that has previously not received a great deal of wide support is now become a possibility.

 

Rangers First is a fan led membership vehicle, backed by Supporters Direct – a government funded organisation, for fan ownership that is seeking to purchase shares in Rangers in order to achieve the goal of the fans having transparent authoritative consultation with the club. The goal is to ensure that every Rangers fan knows exactly where the club are and where we are going – the advantages of which will lead to greater fan engagement of the club ensuring our illustrious history continues into the future. Once that initial goal has been achieved Rangers First has the capability of increasing the revenue potential of the club in order to help us regain our position as the dominant club of Scottish Football.

 

Rangers First is a CIC (community interest company) that is set up to benefit the Rangers Community. There are currently over 900 members who have signed up to Rangers First within two weeks of the launch and have already donated various levels of finance with membership starting from as little as £5 per month in order to allow as many fans as possible to have a say in the club.

 

It was agreed at the initial meetings that Rangers First is not interested in getting involved with the internal politics at the club (who is on the board does not matter) – we are only interested in getting the fans a voice to ensure that they stay engaged with the club and to help ensure that Rangers stays the greatest and most successful club in the country. We are focused on community involvement and fan governance - you will not see any controversial statements coming from us. We are a democratic organisation that seeks to give the fans a voice. No fan involved will receive any financial reward or payment – we are all volunteers trying to make a difference at the club.

 

Ideally we are looking for 1872 people to buy a life membership at £500 which will give us enough cash to buy circa 5% of the club. 5% being an important number in a plc allowing Rangers First several capabilities including the ability to call an EGM.

 

For the good of Rangers, and The Rangers Support, I would ask of you as a supporter of the club to consider becoming a member of Rangers First.

 

If you could take the time to look at http://www.rangersfirst.org it would be greatly appreciated.

 

I myself, and my family are all taking out life memberships in Rangers First as well as a monthly contribution. We are also donating our shares bought at the IPO to Rangers First. This is something I believe can be the vehicle that ensures we get back to where we should be.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this. If you have any questions at all, please don’t hesitate to ask me. I’m sure we can make a difference.

 

We Are The People

 

- Any constructive feedback?

Edited March 18, 2014 by WATP_Greg
Changed a line to clarify - thanks for the feeback

[Frankie 8,148]

There are a few small grammatical errors you may wish to fix but the main question I have is related the part about 'not (being) interested in getting involved with the internal politics at the club'. Surely that's a bit paradoxical when you consider what the scheme is trying to achieve?

 

If you mean that personally you have no interest then it may be worth highlighting that rather than suggesting the group, as a whole, are not looking to engage with the club via share ownership.

[andy steel 0]

1st para - (personal opinion only) I'd be careful about presenting the fans as uniting behind anything. Yes there has been a lot of support for this scheme, I'm not saying what you have written is wrong, but the wording: 'the common consensus', 'the average fan is seeking' - is it the common consensus? are the average fans really seeking these things? Plenty of us are behind it but there's a danger of claiming to speak for all which gets peoples' backs up, as we've seen before.

 

2nd para: typo: 'to' instead of 'the' in the second sentence: 'the goal is to ensure'

 

Other than that best of luck!

[WATP_Greg 0]

There are a few small grammatical errors you may wish to fix but the main question I have is related the part about 'not (being) interested in getting involved with the internal politics at the club'. Surely that's a bit paradoxical when you consider what the scheme is trying to achieve?

 

If you mean that personally you have no interest then it may be worth highlighting that rather than suggesting the group, as a whole, are not looking to engage with the club via share ownership.

 

Thanks for your feedback:

 

What I mean is that Rangers First have no interest in the internal politics of the club - by that I mean that RF are willing to work with any board that gives the fans transparent authoritative consultation and is working to the best interest of the club and the fans. The participants aren't important to RF it is what their relationship with the fans is.

 

Does that clear it up?

[WATP_Greg 0]

1st para - (personal opinion only) I'd be careful about presenting the fans as uniting behind anything. Yes there has been a lot of support for this scheme, I'm not saying what you have written is wrong, but the wording: 'the common consensus', 'the average fan is seeking' - is it the common consensus? are the average fans really seeking these things? Plenty of us are behind it but there's a danger of claiming to speak for all which gets peoples' backs up, as we've seen before.

 

2nd para: typo: 'to' instead of 'the' in the second sentence: 'the goal is to ensure'

 

Other than that best of luck!

 

Thanks

 

I can sort of see where you are coming from but the statement:

 

"The average fan is seeking to have a more open relationship with the club" I think is entirely accurate and doesn't represent any particular 'group of fans'

 

I believe that over 95% of the support are not affiliated to any group but I speak to a great number in my line of work - I genuinely believe that is the common consensus.

[andy steel 0]

It probably is. I don't disagree. But the experience of the RST shows that people are put off if they think someone is trying to speak on their behalf, even if they agree with them.

 

I suppose the question ends up being, are you hoping to win over people who already agree with you but weren't aware of the scheme, or are you trying to entice reluctant fans on board. Even if it's the first, there's still the need to step cautiously lest you alienate the second. Dancing on eggshells with Bears, man.

[Bluedell 5,329]

What I mean is that Rangers First have no interest in the internal politics of the club - by that I mean that RF are willing to work with any board that gives the fans transparent authoritative consultation and is working to the best interest of the club and the fans.

But what if a board isn't? What if people in RF believe that a board isn't necessarily working to the best interests of the club? For example, I'd claim that taking out a secured loan at 30% isn't.

 

you will not see any controversial statements coming from us

So if someone in RF found out what Whyte was up to you wouldn't have issued a statement on it? What is not controversial to one person may be to the next.

 

I think that you are making claims that you can't possibly adhere to over a period of time, or else RF becomes toothless. Perhaps reign back the commitments of what you will and will not do in the future as surely that's up to the members to decide whether a controversial statement will be issued or not?

[Frankie 8,148]

Thanks for your feedback:

 

What I mean is that Rangers First have no interest in the internal politics of the club - by that I mean that RF are willing to work with any board that gives the fans transparent authoritative consultation and is working to the best interest of the club and the fans. The participants aren't important to RF it is what their relationship with the fans is.

 

Does that clear it up?

 

Yeah that's a bit clearer but I'm not sure you could make such a claim without leaving yourself some room for manoeuvre. After all every situation is different...

 

For example, if we go back 2-3 years would you have been willing to work with Craig Whyte or would you have used your influence to contest his actions?

[WATP_Greg 0]

It probably is. I don't disagree. But the experience of the RST shows that people are put off if they think someone is trying to speak on their behalf, even if they agree with them.

 

I suppose the question ends up being, are you hoping to win over people who already agree with you but weren't aware of the scheme, or are you trying to entice reluctant fans on board. Even if it's the first, there's still the need to step cautiously lest you alienate the second. Dancing on eggshells with Bears, man.

 

 

I agree and can see where you are coming from - This is something that I am putting out to personal contacts and thought it might be worthwhile putting out there for others to see and comment on.

 

In general statements from an organisation such as RF I would certainly change the wording but as this is a personal letter to people I know I think its ok - But I appreciate the feedback

[WATP_Greg 0]

Yeah that's a bit clearer but I'm not sure you could make such a claim without leaving yourself some room for manoeuvre. After all every situation is different...

 

For example, if we go back 2-3 years would you have been willing to work with Craig Whyte or would you have used your influence to contest his actions?

 

That would obviously be a different situation entirely as if Rangers First was in place and we as the support had TAC then Whyte could not have done what he did, we would have all known and actions would have been set in motion to minimise the damage. That is a good part of why I joined RF - If someone comes in and removes TAC then we know we have a problem.