Mountain Bear 0 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Seems a positive to me but the proof will most definitely be in the legally binding pudding. Moreover, this is but one step in terms of securing a better performance out of those running the club. Perhaps, belatedly, the Board are realising that platitudes & appeals to the loyalty of the support won't cut it any more. Frustrating that it's taken so long though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Will any legally binding agreement retain it's status in the event of an insolvency event ? The board seem desperate for the ST money. It would kick the cashflow can down the road a little. I doubt it would be which may be a deal-breaker for UoF. One also has to ask if the club sought any promises from them as well. As for cash-flow, without investment (or drastic cuts) we'll still be looking for loans come early 2015. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Will any legally binding agreement that is being considered,........... retain it's status in the event of an insolvency event ? The board seem desperate for the ST money. It would kick the cashflow can down the road a little. Bottomline, you have to remember who you are dealing with and their motivations and MO. I hope the UoF lawyers are very good and adept at smelling out sp.iv tactics. It's the difference between a legal claim on the assets in the event of insolvency and a (seemingly) binding commitment not to choose to use those assets as collateral or sell them in future. Two very different things and as the Board wouldn't be in control if there was an insolvency event, the type of commitment on offer would be worthless in that scenario. As I'd hoped, the UoF seem to have dragged the Board to the table by their actions and assuming the terms are robust, this would be as good an outcome as I think the UoFs were realistically likely to get. I'd like to see them complete this negotiation quickly, issue a statement urging fans to buy season tickets and then move on to the real business of making fan influence work via a substantial shareholding in the club. Now, if the Board want the other 10-15k supporters back, they might need to sack Ally. Wonder if that's being discussed? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,857 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I doubt it would be which may be a deal-breaker for UoF. One also has to ask if the club sought any promises from them as well. As for cash-flow, without investment (or drastic cuts) we'll still be looking for loans come early 2015. An ongoing fluid situation. One important message is that the fans DO have leverage if we are prepared to use it. Another is that it comes but once a year, so probably best not to agree to any first proposals that come from the club. In this case, the UoF (great credit due thusfar) are rightly taking legal advice and considering the offer to consider. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,366 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Do we actually have any figures from the UoF/King trust or are we just assuming that they might get the club 10-15k more STs? I'm somewhat doubtful that the club will deal with the trust company, as BH has pointed out. More likely they look to appease the supporters who followed that course. In any case, talking to one another is a good step into the right direction. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Having slept on this I still think it's a positive move for UoF. Last week's club statement has shown up the board and proved, that despite them possibly securing over 20k in STs, they're totally unaware as to the the power fan groups can yield in the public eye. (Club statement: http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6929-club-statement) I'm told Wallace stated that he's happy only 5% of supporters are in groups. This was flung back at him by pointing out less than 1% of the British voting population are in political parties yet 30/40/50% vote for them. They underestimated the influence of fan groups. That said, the devil will be in the detail and the plc agreeing to this has still to come as is the actual document itself. Dave King needs to play his part now since it appears the UoF have done their bit. The board and its paymasters are still in control and need removed if the club is to move on. Good news that important assets and traditions might be secured. Bad news that, taking the statement from the club towards UoF on board, our directors are not fit for purpose and they are still there. Some miles left in this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,857 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Do we actually have any figures from the UoF/King trust or are we just assuming that they might get the club 10-15k more STs? I'm somewhat doubtful that the club will deal with the trust company, as BH has pointed out. More likely they look to appease the supporters who followed that course. In any case, talking to one another is a good step into the right direction. The most important aspect wrt the UoF and the ST/security matter wasn't the numbers of pledges 1872 Ltd recieved. It was that they articulated and put forward a message that resonated with much of the 'middle unpolitised group of fans', who simply decided to wait to see developments before/if renewing. To start influencing this 'middle-ground' would put the wind up the board. The board will in the future look to marginalise 'awkward fans groups' if possible. One method will be via the planned 'membership scheme. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Yeah, while it may be useful to know how many joined the UoF fund, the most important number here is the lack of renewals. Club would be unsustainable on such incredibly low numbers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,857 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Yeah, while it may be useful to know how many joined the UoF fund, the most important number here is the lack of renewals. Club would be unsustainable on such incredibly low numbers. That's why they are at the table. They would have been banking on a significant % of the middle ground renewing which for several reasons hasn't happened. These include, not happy with board,.. football (lack of),.. generally scunnered with it all. I'd point to the UoF co-ordinated effort as being pivotal in this. What is a little strange is that more efforts haven't made by the board/club to push ST renewals. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Yeah, I've been making that point for a few weeks now. There has been next to no marketing/PR in terms of renewal persuasion. A couple of terse emails and a Twitter Q&A - that's it. Doesn't make sense. 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.