New DK Info from FF

[forlanssister 3,050]

(Copied over from other thread)

 

On the face of it that would cost him circa £20-30 million all of which would go into the hands of the existing investors IF they were willing to sell; which would go against everything he has said to date.

 

Dare I say it; but if he gained a controlling interest he would also have to overcome the "fit and proper" issue".

Any ideas about his strategy?

 

No he wouldn't.

 

Even the SFA cannot dictate who owns a controlling interest in a PLC.

[Hildy 0]

I wouldn't want to own Rangers. I would only buy it to sell it - not gift it - to the support.

 

I believe in the club being owned by the collective - not the individual - even if the individual was me.

[Zappa 0]

I wouldn't want to own Rangers. I would only buy it to sell it - not gift it - to the support.

 

I believe in the club being owned by the collective - not the individual - even if the individual was me.

 

The ideal situation might be something between the two like the Bundesliga fan ownership models of the fans owning 50%+1, so someone like King buys the lot and sells back just over 50% to the fans over 5 or 10 years. It has to be said though, that even with their massive broadcasting & sponsorship revenue streams, some of the Bundesliga clubs have almost collapsed under that ownership model.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I wouldn't want to own Rangers. I would only buy it to sell it - not gift it - to the support.

 

I believe in the club being owned by the collective - not the individual - even if the individual was me.

Can you name successful collective ownerships in the UK? There may be examples on the continent but we all know how far behind the UK is compared to the success abroad.

 

I think if any club in the UK is going to succeed with fan ownership we would be one of the last given the fractured support. Buy Rangers, Save Rangers, Rangers First, I lose count of all the groups and have no interest in any of them, nor really know much about any. None of them are equipped to succeed.

 

With characters like Mark Dingwall achieving high up influence in a fan group, the idea of fan ownership is frightening.

[Hildy 0]

The ideal situation might be something between the two like the Bundesliga fan ownership models of the fans owning 50%+1, so someone like King buys the lot and sells back just over 50% to the fans over 5 or 10 years. It has to be said though, that even with their massive broadcasting & sponsorship revenue streams, some of the Bundesliga clubs have almost collapsed under that ownership model.

 

I'm not a fan of that model.

 

I would like to see the various models examined, from Barcelona to Real Madrid to Bayern Munich, and then settle on the best one, or maybe a compromise, for ourselves.

 

To be honest, I think this is something the RST should be looking at, but I would certainly want the club to be owned in its entirety by its membership.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

No he wouldn't.

 

Even the SFA cannot dictate who owns a controlling interest in a PLC.

FS - You are excellent, keep it up.

[Zappa 0]

I'm not a fan of that model.

 

I would like to see the various models examined, from Barcelona to Real Madrid to Bayern Munich, and then settle on the best one, or maybe a compromise, for ourselves.

 

To be honest, I think this is something the RST should be looking at, but I would certainly want the club to be owned in its entirety by its membership.

 

The Trust have explored all of the different models in detail over the years, but no matter what model they chose they'd still be fighting an uphill battle or swimming against the tide, for a whole bunch of reasons, not least the lack of appetite for joining fan groups as paying members and fan ownership concepts in general.

[Hildy 0]

Can you name successful collective ownerships in the UK? There may be examples on the continent but we all know how far behind the UK is compared to the success abroad.

 

I think if any club in the UK is going to succeed with fan ownership we would be one of the last given the fractured support. Buy Rangers, Save Rangers, Rangers First, I lose count of all the groups and have no interest in any of them, nor really know much about any. None of them are equipped to succeed.

 

With characters like Mark Dingwall achieving high up influence in a fan group, the idea of fan ownership is frightening.

 

We are wasting our time with all these groups. We had too many when we had three and now we have even more, but in a fan ownership situation, this would not be a problem. With one person, one vote, in a membership of maybe 100,000, what is there to fear?

 

It intrigues me that people seem to fear their fellow fans. We allow every adult a vote in how the country is governed. Why are we afraid then that a fan we don't like could become become president of the club? If Britain can run the risk of Milliband becoming PM, surely the Rangers support can run the risk of Mark Dingwall becoming president?

 

If I was to buy Rangers outright, I might look seriously at moving away from Ibrox. As owner, I could make this happen. As an elected president though, the members would stop it from happening and elect someone else.

 

Our door is constantly open to defective, criminal and / or greedy ownership. Doesn't that bother you? Wouldn't you rather have a say in who our president is?

[Hildy 0]

The Trust have explored all of the different models in detail over the years, but no matter what model they chose they'd still be fighting an uphill battle or swimming against the tide, for a whole bunch of reasons, not least the lack of appetite for joining fan groups as paying members and fan ownership concepts in general.

 

I have a number of friends who are reluctant to go down the fan ownership road. One said to me recently that we would have Orange Bands on the pitch at half-time, which is complete nonsense of course, but perhaps it sums up how we see ourselves and why we tend not to like ourselves very much.

 

To each of my friends who are less than keen on fan ownership, I asked the following question:

 

Would you become a member of the club if it became a fan-owned entity?

 

They all said, very enthusiastically, 'yes'.

 

If an active minority can make fan ownership happen, it will be fully grasped by tens of thousands.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

We are wasting our time with all these groups. We had too many when we had three and now we have even more, but in a fan ownership situation, this would not be a problem. With one person, one vote, in a membership of maybe 100,000, what is there to fear?

 

It intrigues me that people seem to fear their fellow fans. We allow every adult a vote in how the country is governed. Why are we afraid then that a fan we don't like could become become president of the club? If Britain can run the risk of Milliband becoming PM, surely the Rangers support can run the risk of Mark Dingwall becoming president?

 

If I was to buy Rangers outright, I might look seriously at moving away from Ibrox. As owner, I could make this happen. As an elected president though, the members would stop it from happening and elect someone else.

 

Our door is constantly open to defective, criminal and / or greedy ownership. Doesn't that bother you? Wouldn't you rather have a say in who our president is?

Britain running the risk of Milliband having power isn't something anyone has voted for though. Aside from the Labour Party electing him leader. I would never vote for Labour so can't be held accountable for such an event. I don't follow your reasoning there (generally always agree with you though). Whoever owned us in a fan controlled environment is something we would hold control over. 'If Britain can run the risk of...' isn't a valid argument.

 

To be fair, we have fans who still think Ally is a manager. On that basis alone, I never want our fans to ever have any power in decision making. Frightening.