Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I signed up to Buy Rangers last night, so with BR and RF I now have a foot in both camps. Not only do I feel great that I'm helping both of these vehicles that aim to benefit our club, I can now say to friends, hand on heart, look at them both, if you can back them both great but at least back one. It's a team game on the park and God knows we need a team effort off it too. Tannochsidebear makes a great point, regardless of the subject involved, all of us have seen stuff go viral worldwide and attract money to a good cause. We can't do that within the Rangers Family? I think we can. I'm probably going to sign up to both too. I think fan ownership is a non starter and I'm not keen on the RST but I don't want to just sit and do nothing. Until these schemes can speak as one they will never get anywhere though. I think what fan ownership need is a figure everyone can get behind who is media savvy and intelligent. Someone the whole support can get behind. Though certain factions would just hate him because they're told to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruff 0 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I'm probably going to sign up to both too. I think fan ownership is a non starter and I'm not keen on the RST but I don't want to just sit and do nothing. Until these schemes can speak as one they will never get anywhere though. I think what fan ownership need is a figure everyone can get behind who is media savvy and intelligent. Someone the whole support can get behind. Though certain factions would just hate him because they're told to. A figure head would be great and I am sure there will be a few to choose from but first we have to show people that we are serious, we have to attract a figure head. If someone believed in us so much as a support they would have come out already and lead the way, we have to do this as fans and when a prominent member of the rangers family decides to spearhead it and give us a boost, it will be because they want to, not because we asked them to. We have to realise that we cannot depend on others anymore. At the end of the day it is us fans that pay for the club, we follow in numbers, we remember the joys and we remember the defeats more than anyone else. It's time we realised that WE are our saviours, if anyone wants to jump on board it's a bonus. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) Imagine being a fan-owned club. Imagine electing a president to oversee and organise the club instead of not knowing from one day to the next who is going to own it, when it is going to be sold, or which important club asset is going to be unloaded. Imagine a chairman choosing to sell Ibrox and doing it against the wishes of almost all Rangers fans. It could happen, and we are rightly very worried about the possibility. Imagine a president trying to do the same thing but being stopped in his tracks by democratic processes within the club. In a fan-owned club the people matter because the people are the club - not just in terms of allegiance - but in a legal sense. Rangers would belong to us - not uninvited strangers. The case to be fan-owned is very powerful. Right now, we are the people who don't have a say in how our club goes about its business. In the future, if we become fan-owned, we will be the people who matter and the people who make the club an honest and honourable Scottish sporting institution again. I know that people have issues with various personalities in and around fan groups but the message must overcome this. The RST wants each and every one of us to stand together to own Rangers, to make Rangers what we never tire telling people what we believe we already are - the people's club - not for factions, not for dubious business types and not for asset strippers. John Lennon used to saw that 'war is over', but he always qualified it by adding: 'if you want it'. Well, Rangers can belong to us - every red brick in the stadium and every blade of grass on the pitch - if we want it. That's why I am part of the RST's BuyRangers and I hope many of you will join me in becoming a part of it. Edited September 12, 2014 by Hildy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Imagine being a fan-owned club. Imagine electing a president to oversee and organise the club instead of not knowing from one day to the next who is going to own it, when it is going to be sold, or which important club asset is going to be unloaded. Imagine a chairman choosing to sell Ibrox and doing it against the wishes of almost all Rangers fans. It could happen, and we are rightly very worried about the possibility. Imagine a president trying to do the same thing but being stopped in his tracks by democratic processes within the club. In a fan-owned club the people matter because the people are the club - not just in terms of allegiance - but in a legal sense. Rangers would belong to us - not uninvited strangers. The case to be fan-owned is very powerful. Right now, we are the people who don't have a say in how our club goes about its business. In the future, if we become fan-owned, we will be the people who matter and the people who make the club an honest and honourable Scottish sporting institution again. I know that people have issues with various personalities in and around fan groups but the message must overcome this. The RST wants each and every one of us to stand together to own Rangers, to make Rangers what we never tire telling people what we believe we already are - the people's club - not for factions, not for dubious business types and not for asset strippers. John Lennon used to saw that 'war is over', but he always qualified it by adding: 'if you want it'. Well, Rangers can belong to us - every red brick in the stadium and every blade of grass on the pitch - if we want it. That's why I am part of the RST's BuyRangers and I hope many of you will join me in becoming a part of it. You only need 25% to block the sale of major assets iirc. So a significant shareholding could result in similar benefits without outright ownership. But that isn't to take away from your passionate pitch. Increased fan involvement at the highest level of our club is desirable as it will help forge unity between the perceived direction of the club and the desired direction of the club imo and allow us to move forward as a team and support - helping to forge a better Rangers Best of luck 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 You only need 25% to block the sale of major assets iirc. So a significant shareholding could result in similar benefits without outright ownership. But that isn't to take away from your passionate pitch. Increased fan involvement at the highest level of our club is desirable as it will help forge unity between the perceived direction of the club and the desired direction of the club imo and allow us to move forward as a team and support - helping to forge a better Rangers Best of luck Why settle for second best? Why be a minority to an uninvited majority owner? If Mike Ashley owned 51% of Rangers, and if he wanted to sell off Murray Park or Ibrox, do you really think a 25% stake would stop him? We are being manipulated already with this new membership sham and decent fans are falling for it. Any CEO of Rangers with a fast buck priority will easily neutralise a minority group holding 25%. Settling for being a minority stakeholder in Rangers is an accident waiting to happen. We have to learn our lesson - a halfway house - or quarter way - towards fan ownership is not the answer. Outright ownership where the members, not the shareholders, own the club is the revolution that simply has to happen. We don't need any more chairmen - we need elected presidents. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Why settle for second best? Why be a minority to an uninvited majority owner? If Mike Ashley owned 51% of Rangers, and if he wanted to sell off Murray Park or Ibrox, do you really think a 25% stake would stop him? We are being manipulated already with this new membership sham and decent fans are falling for it. Any CEO of Rangers with a fast buck priority will easily neutralise a minority group holding 25%. Settling for being a minority stakeholder in Rangers is an accident waiting to happen. We have to learn our lesson - a halfway house - or quarter way - towards fan ownership is not the answer. Outright ownership where the members, not the shareholders, own the club is the revolution that simply has to happen. We don't need any more chairmen - we need elected presidents. I don't think it is 2nd best. Having some Hight Net Worth Individuals involved could be beneficial for the club. A proper established Rangers could attract significant investment and help us build a self sustaining but completely dominant club IMO And yes it would stop him. The 25% is a legal thing. If we own that amount we can legally block the sale of assets. It's in that video I linked earlier detailing what different levels of ownership get you. How much do the people who are running Rangers now own? Or even hold the proxy for? It isn't anywhere near 51%. I think you are underestimating the power of the support owning a collective shareholding in the club even if it is not a majority holding But as FO increases we need to go through the various stages. Once we get to a level where we have enough influence it will tail off. I suspect that will be circa 25% but if the appetite is greater then so be it. At the end of the day the majority of Rangers supporters need to get involved and decide for themselves 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,253 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Why settle for second best? Why be a minority to an uninvited majority owner? If Mike Ashley owned 51% of Rangers, and if he wanted to sell off Murray Park or Ibrox, do you really think a 25% stake would stop him? We are being manipulated already with this new membership sham and decent fans are falling for it. Any CEO of Rangers with a fast buck priority will easily neutralise a minority group holding 25%. Settling for being a minority stakeholder in Rangers is an accident waiting to happen. We have to learn our lesson - a halfway house - or quarter way - towards fan ownership is not the answer. Outright ownership where the members, not the shareholders, own the club is the revolution that simply has to happen. We don't need any more chairmen - we need elected presidents. Where would the 'members' secured funding from? Would they be able to secure overdraft facilities? Many more questions.Pie in sky IMO 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 I don't think it is 2nd best. Having some Hight Net Worth Individuals involved could be beneficial for the club. A proper established Rangers could attract significant investment and help us build a self sustaining but completely dominant club IMO And yes it would stop him. The 25% is a legal thing. If we own that amount we can legally block the sale of assets. It's in that video I linked earlier detailing what different levels of ownership get you. How much do the people who are running Rangers now own? Or even hold the proxy for? It isn't anywhere near 51%. I think you are underestimating the power of the support owning a collective shareholding in the club even if it is not a majority holding Having a goal of owning a mere quarter of the club and then drawing a line under it is, I regret to say, political naivety and an own goal. The sharks can still come in to swim in the Rangers pond, and if they are ruthless enough, they will chew up and spit out minority shareholders without drawing breath. It sounds as though this 25% plan has been drawn up by beancounters who have no concept of the clout that majority owners with menace on their minds have. Fan ownership excludes the sharks from existing within our midst, and even if the odd one does make it to the highest office, we can elect him away and choose - actually choose - his or her replacement. This 25% idea is a sticking plaster and bandages non-solution to our problems. The club needs a revolution, and the revolution is full fan ownership. I really wonder why we are so afraid of it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,306 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 In a fairly short time, the RST's SaveRangers initiative was pledged around £13m when things were looking desperate a few years ago, so in particular circumstances the Rangers support is prepared to step up, but, bizarrely, the utterly pointless RFFF was backed instead and a golden opportunity was lost. The £13M is a staggering figure, however we all know that pledges and actualities are night and day. I would love to believe that with the right mentality, professionalism, savvy and passion we could get both BuyRangers and RangersFirst up to levels where we are not talking about the possibility of a sale/leaseback scenario happening at our club. If we, the collective of individual fans, already own around 12-13% before this latest attempt by both BR & RF to hoover up more in the new issue, it surely is not that tall an order to make the first attempt to get to 25% to block any sale of our assets. If we could get to anything like that, and then get ourselves organised properly, we could see if we could get ourselves aligned with some of the more sympathetic Independant shareholders (i.e. not-fans), to see if we could get to 50.1% for the AGM and oust this board. Nothing is impossible if we had some proper balls about us. I do not denigrate the fine efforts being made by both RF & BR, all volunteers in their own time and for no pay, but I long for a much more professional, hard-hitting campaign that would not have a few hundred fans signing up for tenners here and there but have tens of thousands of fans donating hundreds and thousands of pounds to get our club back before it is too late, if indeed it is not too late already. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted September 12, 2014 Author Share Posted September 12, 2014 Where would the 'members' secured funding from? Would they be able to secure overdraft facilities? Many more questions.Pie in sky IMO How do Barcelona and Real Madrid and most of the German top tier do it? And if they can do it, why can't we? This idea of waiting until a billionaire comes along is draining the club and killing it - along with being akin to believing in Santa. Let us put faith in ourselves - just as our founders did. 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.