Union Bears stop their boycott and Champion Rangers First.

[williamite1 0]

RF collect the money from subscribers and then choose the right time to purchase the shares for maximum value.

 

Presumably the large share issue that the Board have acknowledged needs to happen soon is their key focus. That offers the potential to achieve real influence quickly if everyone gets behind them or BuyRangers.

 

Of course there are risks, but I don't know anyone who expects to get their money back or make a return on their investment. The stark choice is that we do this, in big numbers, or:

 

We can wait for another sugar daddy to try and do it for us...

 

...or sit wringing our hands, accepting the status quo...

 

...or walk away...

 

You choose.

I don't think there are many accepting the status quo. We are where we are and there wasn't much any ordinary supporter could have done about.

I agee on having a supporters rep on the board, but the concept of overall supporter ownership is alien to me. As a business model for a club of our size, I just cannot see the sustainability for the funding that would be needed. These are hard times economically and from the little support there is thus far, the majority of fans appear not to want it, no matter how much it is pushed.

For me, yes we need a sugar daddy, but one who is fiscally prudent and MA fits right into that category. He is a strong leader, repels all boarders, doesn't do prisoners. Not only do we need that, Scottish football needs it and I am quite sure our haters at the SFA and scum fc are not relishing the thought of having to face him! Top businessmen are ruthless and there is good reason for that and they don't run successfull companies by committee.

[der Berliner 3,217]

I don't think there are many accepting the status quo. We are where we are and there wasn't much any ordinary supporter could have done about.

I agee on having a supporters rep on the board, but the concept of overall supporter ownership is alien to me. As a business model for a club of our size, I just cannot see the sustainability for the funding that would be needed. These are hard times economically and from the little support there is thus far, the majority of fans appear not to want it, no matter how much it is pushed.

For me, yes we need a sugar daddy, but one who is fiscally prudent and MA fits right into that category. He is a strong leader, repels all boarders, doesn't do prisoners. Not only do we need that, Scottish football needs it and I am quite sure our haters at the SFA and scum fc are not relishing the thought of having to face him! Top businessmen are ruthless and there is good reason for that and they don't run successfull companies by committee.

 

That's all fair and well, but will bounce off the walls created by those who will claim that Ashley is solely here to make money, will not invest and keep the club by its balls via loans et al - much like he does with Newcastle. Unless Ashley steps in and changes things, one has a problem arguing against that. And that Ashley rarely speaks to the media or the support does not make it any easier either.

 

As for the UB's decision, it's IMHO a wise one. Staying away will right now harm the club more than any director, shareholder et al. Ashley makes his money from our merchandise and it is still your liberty not to buy it and thus not support him. I for one do not see much money from STs and match day ticket sales going out some shadowy back door right now, as every penny is needed to pay what is due.

[Mountain Bear 0]

I don't think there are many accepting the status quo. We are where we are and there wasn't much any ordinary supporter could have done about.

I agee on having a supporters rep on the board, but the concept of overall supporter ownership is alien to me. As a business model for a club of our size, I just cannot see the sustainability for the funding that would be needed. These are hard times economically and from the little support there is thus far, the majority of fans appear not to want it, no matter how much it is pushed.

For me, yes we need a sugar daddy, but one who is fiscally prudent and MA fits right into that category. He is a strong leader, repels all boarders, doesn't do prisoners. Not only do we need that, Scottish football needs it and I am quite sure our haters at the SFA and scum fc are not relishing the thought of having to face him! Top businessmen are ruthless and there is good reason for that and they don't run successfull companies by committee.

 

We need to hold just 25% of the share capital to wield real influence and protect the assets of the Club.

 

At the moment that's approx £4.2m. In reality, we might need as much as double that with a share issue coming.

 

I defy anyone to tell me that the collective Rangers support can't achieve that with the help of some wealthy fans to underwrite us, or indeed that it would be a bad idea.

 

If we don't care enough or back our ability to use that influence for the long term benefit of the club, then we'll get the owners we deserve and they'll have unfettered control. Just be very clear that they care not one iota for Rangers' long term interests. Do you really want that?

 

It's a no-brainer.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Anyone buying a season ticket going forward is harming our recovery.

 

It can also be argued that not buying one is allowing the Easdales and Ashley to strengthen their grip on the club and is harming our recovery.

 

There's no easy answer to it.

 

One thing I do know is that statements like yours will only end up putting bear against bear and that will end up causing more harm than if someone decides to buy or not to buy a season ticket.

[Bluedell 5,329]

For me, yes we need a sugar daddy, but one who is fiscally prudent and MA fits right into that category. He is a strong leader, repels all boarders, doesn't do prisoners. Not only do we need that,.

 

Do we really need someone who doesn't do prisoners? Someone who refuses to give us our share of the retail money, someone who threatens us to ensure that his company benefits at our expense?

[forlanssister 3,050]

We need to hold just 25% of the share capital to wield real influence and protect the assets of the Club.

 

At the moment that's approx £4.2m. In reality, we might need as much as double that with a share issue coming.

 

I defy anyone to tell me that the collective Rangers support can't achieve that with the help of some wealthy fans to underwrite us, or indeed that it would be a bad idea.

 

If we don't care enough or back our ability to use that influence for the long term benefit of the club, then we'll get the owners we deserve and they'll have unfettered control. Just be very clear that they care not one iota for Rangers' long term interests. Do you really want that?

 

It's a no-brainer.

 

One of the problems is that we need a few more equity issues to get to where we should be and that has the effect of putting RF and the RST further from their goals not closer.

 

However i must point out even though I do not financially back either scheme I certainly wish them every success.

[williamite1 0]

Do we really need someone who doesn't do prisoners? Someone who refuses to give us our share of the retail money, someone who threatens us to ensure that his company benefits at our expense?

If he were to become outright owner, which I am confident that he will, Rangers would be his company and his money to do with what he pleases as with any owner.

We need a level of sustainable investment that will continually see us at the top of the SPFL and in the Champions League group stages. That is where MA's head is at, in promoting his other business interests. To achieve this, we would need to at least equal scum fc's investment and in the grand scheme of things, is minuscule in the MA world and in how much he needs to sustain NUFC. We are a much bigger brand than them, so makes for good business sense. To generate serious cash, every football club needs to be successfull on the park. Win win all round and who knows he might even get to like us with a passion. How much more money are you looking for?

[williamite1 0]

We need to hold just 25% of the share capital to wield real influence and protect the assets of the Club.

 

At the moment that's approx £4.2m. In reality, we might need as much as double that with a share issue coming.

 

I defy anyone to tell me that the collective Rangers support can't achieve that with the help of some wealthy fans to underwrite us, or indeed that it would be a bad idea.

 

If we don't care enough or back our ability to use that influence for the long term benefit of the club, then we'll get the owners we deserve and they'll have unfettered control. Just be very clear that they care not one iota for Rangers' long term interests. Do you really want that?

 

It's a no-brainer.

 

 

It's a no brainier that we will never achieve that figure and if by some miracle and the time that we do, there will be little shares to trade when the new owner buys up what is currently available from all the institutional shareholders, to ensure that such a scenario never happens. What major investor, particularly one like MA would leave such a door open for others to influence what he does. No chance.

[Little General 80]

If he were to become outright owner, which I am confident that he will, Rangers would be his company and his money to do with what he pleases as with any owner.

We need a level of sustainable investment that will continually see us at the top of the SPFL and in the Champions League group stages. That is where MA's head is at, in promoting his other business interests. To achieve this, we would need to at least equal scum fc's investment and in the grand scheme of things, is minuscule in the MA world and in how much he needs to sustain NUFC. We are a much bigger brand than them, so makes for good business sense. To generate serious cash, every football club needs to be successfull on the park. Win win all round and who knows he might even get to like us with a passion. How much more money are you looking for?

 

Where is all this Champion's league guff coming from? MA is only protecting his onerous contract, which seems to be well sewn up. There is no chance of him being outright owner.

[williamite1 0]

Where is all this Champion's league guff coming from? MA is only protecting his onerous contract, which seems to be well sewn up. There is no chance of him being outright owner.

Well there's hardly much value in trying to promote a brand from losers is there?