Jump to content

 

 

We Are The People - This Is Our Time

D'Artagnan

By D'Artagnan
in Rangers Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

SteveC

SteveC 150

Posted
Posted
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.

 

 

Not if it is a club that will never succeed, that is toxic to many of the people in the small pool it seems to try to attract support from. You've never answered this basic point. RST has been running for years, it is nowhere near FO, it has - whether rightly or wrongly, frankly no-one caress - alienated many fans and groups of fans.

 

You seem to support both FO and RST as the vehicle for achieving this. As I have repeatedly said - it is obvious that you can't have both. Which are you going to support? If you say RST then you will never see FO. It's that simple.

 

What's your choice, FO or no FO?

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
SteveC

SteveC 150

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

 

Who said anything about name calling or insulting terms - I said "tone". You don't think your tone is hectoring, self-righteous or at all unfriendly to RF? Btw I didn't even bother going on to highlight your use of "absurd" in the same line. Setting yourself up as judge, jury and arbiter in a thoroughly "civilised" manner, no doubt.

 

Just to reiterate for the millionth time, I'd be ecstatic if RST took over Rangers with FO, or RF did or a combination of the two. I am just stating what is the reality facing us, it ain't gonna happen the way things are. So if you want FO, you have to stop solely promoting RST's "answer" and denigrating/attacking/constantly undermining RF. Not that I think RF will succeed either, but I wouldn't "needle" them in posts as being somehow anti-FO which you seem hell bent on doing.

 

I do wish that I was wrong re RST's chances of ever making an impact for FO as being impossible, but that's the situation. So we come back to the same question:

 

 

 

What's your choice, FO or no FO?

Edited by SteveC
0
Link to post
Share on other sites
WATP_Greg

WATP_Greg 0

Posted
Posted
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?

 

Yup being the biggest minority shareholder would be fine with me. As long as we have greater than 25% we can veto any sale of major assets. Being a Plc that would give us an extremely strong position imho. However if the facts changed then my opinions might.

 

But that's a personal opinion. One member one vote. Other members may desire full ownership and could vote accordingly. Life in a democracy eh

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hildy

Hildy 0

Posted
Posted
Who said anything about name calling or insulting terms - I said "tone". You don't think your tone is hectoring, self-righteous or at all unfriendly to RF? Btw I didn't even bother going on to highlight your use of "absurd" in the same line. Setting yourself up as judge, jury and arbiter in a thoroughly "civilised" manner, no doubt.

If the tone of a post is worth criticising, read back your own contributions and make a call on them.

 

You'll have to excuse me for now as I have to pop out, but I won't be rushing back to answer hysterical questions.

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hildy

Hildy 0

Posted
Posted
Yup being the biggest minority shareholder would be fine with me. As long as we have greater than 25% we can veto any sale of major assets. Being a Plc that would give us an extremely strong position imho. However if the facts changed then my opinions might.

 

But that's a personal opinion. One member one vote. Other members may desire full ownership and could vote accordingly. Life in a democracy eh

I thank you for your clarity on this.

 

You are entitled to hold this view. I do not however share your opinion.

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
rea

rea 0

Posted
Posted (edited)
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.

 

 

It is of course up to you to do as you wish, it is just great that you are doing something.

 

However both organisations would require to ask their members about taking a majority stake.

 

RF because it has said it will consult its members.

BR because that is the rules of most Community share issue that when you get to the point of potentially taking control you have to ask all the members if they would rather withdraw their share capital. I expect the wording for this will be in the scheme rules somewhere.

 

So for any indeed either scheme to actually take on the liability of 51% or indeed as the ownership is via a PLC over 29.9% (as you then have to offer for the full 100%) you would have to revert the issue and the cost to the membership.

 

hope that makes sense.

 

P.S also worth noting that none of the current parties who "control" the club have a personal or even collective shareholding via proxy of anywhere near 50% + 1

Edited by rea
info
0
Link to post
Share on other sites
SteveC

SteveC 150

Posted
Posted
If the tone of a post is worth criticising, read back your own contributions and make a call on them.

 

You'll have to excuse me for now as I have to pop out, but I won't be rushing back to answer hysterical questions.

 

"hysterical" = tone?

 

You go away and think about it then no need to rush back with an answer... Ponder, ponder ask for advice, seek semantic escape. After all it is all you ever talk about, whyever should anyone think that you know your mind concerning it?

 

An answer would have taken less time and fewer words than your evasion, you know.

0
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.