We Are The People - This Is Our Time

[Hildy 0]

Indeed, a great deal of research has been done.

 

There is no one size fits all, and the Fan owned history of many of the larger European Clubs has more to do with the model they find themselves using that perhaps how they would chose to be structured should they be presented with the "blank sheet of paper" option, which is where RF started.

 

Choosing the best bits from everything but in the context of what the legal structures available in the UK are and what lessons could also be learned from other UK examples

Right now, we have a system where anyone can buy a majority share in Rangers. This is not acceptable. Any scheme that leaves the door open to Ashley, Murray or even King is not to be recommended.

 

We know, or at least we should know by now that the ownership of Rangers is a major problem.

 

Making the club more like Barca or Bayern has to be properly investigated. Continuing as we are is no longer a sensible or desirable option.

[rea 0]

Right now, we have a system where anyone can buy a majority share in Rangers. This is not acceptable. Any scheme that leaves the door open to Ashley, Murray or even King is not to be recommended.

 

We know, or at least we should know by now that the ownership of Rangers is a major problem.

 

Making the club more like Barca or Bayern has to be properly investigated. Continuing as we are is no longer a sensible or desirable option.

 

As i say Rf has been about taking the best from each model but in a way that can be legally applied in UK law.

 

The sort of legal structures used in Germany for all except about 4 team simply do not exist in a similar form in the UK.

 

Though interesting some ammendments to a law going through Edinburgh from the Green Party are (sort of) trying to alter this

[Scott7 5,153]

I'm always suspicious of anything with green in it.

[Hildy 0]

As i say Rf has been about taking the best from each model but in a way that can be legally applied in UK law.

 

The sort of legal structures used in Germany for all except about 4 team simply do not exist in a similar form in the UK.

 

Though interesting some ammendments to a law going through Edinburgh from the Green Party are (sort of) trying to alter this

Tell me exactly what RF stands for. Greg here seems happy for it to be a minority shareholder, which I find quite absurd.

 

Is Greg right?

[Stimpy 0]

Oh, I know that there is blame to be apportioned to all three groups who, as you say, are working for the same thing separately. I'm certainly not here to cheerlead for any of them.

 

Don't see any difference in the font.

 

Are you coming out to play this Saturday or Sunday? Heading East about elevenish. No Rangers politics all weekend!

 

Saturday's an option. Let me know where and we can talk shop all weekend.

[rea 0]

Tell me exactly what RF stands for. Greg here seems happy for it to be a minority shareholder, which I find quite absurd.

 

Is Greg right?

 

 

Greg is a member and has rightly pointed out that, while he is perhaps (greg you can confirm) not in favour of a greater than 50% ownership (putting aside that the PLC rules make this really difficult anyway) that it will be upto the membership to decide what to do once RF gets past its first target of 5%.

 

The principals that RF stands for have been clearly (i hope) articulated, see the video for a summary of the A.C.T principals

 

All members have committed to be guided by the rule of the majority of the members and fundamentally put Rangers First

[Rangersitis 0]

Saturday's an option. Let me know where and we can talk shop all weekend.

 

It will be mixed company (not in that way!) PM your number and I will give you a bell when I know the details.

[SteveC 150]

Tell me exactly what RF stands for. Greg here seems happy for it to be a minority shareholder, which I find quite absurd.

 

Is Greg right?

 

Hildy, do you really not see why posts like this put people right off all your sensible posts? What tone do you expect your first sentence to come across in? if it is neither belligerent nor petulant, then you have not succeeded in conveying it.

[Hildy 0]

Greg is a member and has rightly pointed out that, while he is perhaps (greg you can confirm) not in favour of a greater than 50% ownership (putting aside that the PLC rules make this really difficult anyway) that it will be upto the membership to decide what to do once RF gets past its first target of 5%.

 

The principals that RF stands for have been clearly (i hope) articulated, see the video for a summary of the A.C.T principals

 

All members have committed to be guided by the rule of the majority of the members and fundamentally put Rangers First

Greg wants RF to stay at just under 30%. He said it earlier in this thread.

 

The get-out clause is always to say - it's up to the members - it's whatever they want.

 

As someone who believes in fan ownership, why would I join a group that might vote to restrict its share in Rangers to less than 30%, maybe even 5%?

 

It's far better to join a group that openly declares that it wants the club owned by the support, that has this as its vision and focus and that won't back off at some future date.

 

That's why I have committed to the RST. I have a clear destination with the Trust. I don't want to be diverted down another road en route.

[Hildy 0]

Hildy, do you really not see why posts like this put people right off all your sensible posts? What tone do you expect your first sentence to come across in? if it is neither belligerent nor petulant, then you have not succeeded in conveying it.

I'm seeking an answer in a civilised manner. No-one has been called names or been insulted.