Murray: Rangers fans need to make some noise...

[Thinker 866]

Fan ownership is the only way forward for us.

I'm talking 51% of the club like they do in the Bundesleige

The way to do it is to show our strength, boycotting the matches and Sports Direct merchandise. That is the language capitalist bastards understand. When they know the game is up they'll deal.

I think the King group will be a stepping stone to this. An alliance with them and an aim towards eventual ownership.

A deal can be done with Ashley as well providing he'll take a reasonable cut of the profits from merchandise, but we need to force him into that.

 

If the SFA were to introduce a rule like the 50+1 they have in Germany would make our task a lot easier, and I think it would be welcomed by many clubs.

 

Alternatively something set into the law of the land would help: Much as I hate the word "Green" (when linked with football at least), this proposal would very nearly win my vote!

https://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/campaigns/fan-ownership/

Edited December 23, 2014 by Thinker

[andy steel 0]

I can't agree with you at all. I actually believe that the cumulative effect of previous years has brought realization, yesterday's AGM being the tipping point. Unless there is some kind of radical turnaround in attitude from the board before renewal deadline day, season ticket sales next year are going to show another massive drop, and it's going to be an effective boycott.

 

It's understandable, then, the fans who have already been at the point the AGM fans got to yesterday for some time would become frustrated, and seek out a new solution.

 

What a farce for Christmas. I think it's fair to say that if someone could come up with a practical plan to take on MASH and get the club run by Rangers fans or at least Rangers men 100% of us would be behind it. It's the despair brought on by seeing no way out that leads to the plainly unpopular new club scenario.

[andy steel 0]

What percentage of the support is actually trying to make Rangers fan-owned? Whatever it is, it's not that big.

 

In other words, despite all that has happened, there is no groundswell of support to make the one change that will stop the rot - for good.

 

We are the battered wife who takes beating after beating without ever trying to get it stopped.

 

Instead, our fans want another sugar daddy, which could mean dubious ownership for the next 142 years - if we last that long - and they talk about 'fighting' to save the club? When people are prepared to stand back and let the club fall into poisonous hands, they are not fighting for it.

 

They are walking away from the responsibility of owning and protecting it.

 

I suspect that some of those who have chucked it have done so because they have been sickened by our dysfunctionality, our eagerness to rally behind dubious incomers, our failure to identify and address our problems, and our knee-jerk antipathy towards anyone within the support who has the temerity to try and speak out.

 

We lack leadership because we despise anyone who tries to speak out on our behalf, but we have a sizeable element who will bow down before every top table empty suit out of a fundamentally flawed sense of loyalty.

 

The AGM yesterday was an abomination, a farce, an embarrassment and an utter disgrace.

 

No wonder thousands have walked away. They have walked away from a club that has abandoned them.

 

I don't agree with the repeated criticism of those looking for a 'sugar daddy' as you put it. If a trustworthy , megarich figure happened along tomorrow, I'd be right behind them, as it would be better than what we have now. Unfortunately they can't get in, and the ones who did try were found wanting on several fronts. But slagging off people in the other camp won't win many converts!

[calscot 0]

My argument is that a club like Rangers can never be safe while it is available to be owned by a procession of random strangers.

 

The problem is that this is also reminiscent of what fan ownership appears to be - the guys running the club would still be random strangers with all the blazer chasing, machinations, politics and backstabbing that entails. The RST may be a fine organisation these days, I don't know, but to me and many others, it lost its credibility in a crucial part of its development and was then disappointing many times during the darkest days.

 

I think the problem with both current models of fan ownership is that your average fan doesn't quite understand it or even understand how he would own any part of it. Both come across as donating your money for someone else to buy shares and own and run the club. Who do you trust with that? Fans probably agree with King, in that for investing, they want some kind of tangible control in relation to that investment. Neither model seems to offer them that.

 

On a basic level, I doubt the current models will ever be popular as they don't come across as fulfilling the need that fans have, to simply OWN the shares they have paid for, and so have a say in how the club is run.

 

Even now, though, while people talk about fighting to save the club, they still want a sugar daddy to take that responsibility.

 

Thinking about the previous part of my reply, I don't think most fans see a viable alternative - they obviously get that if you gather 100k fans together to buy just £20 worth of shares per year each, over a period of time then we could easily own half of the club after say, fifteen years. What I don't think they get is the logistics of how that can be done in a straightforward and transparent way. Just who do you trust to hold the cash or wield the power?

 

What I suspect a lot of fans would like is some "sugar daddy" that they feel is a fan of the club whom they can trust to come in and buy the club and then facilitate a way to then sell them on to the fans over a period of time - I think that's what Hearts have in place with Budge, and to some extent what McCann did at Celtic. They need a trusted custodian who can act as a central point for the distribution of shares by underwriting the acquisition and selling a tranche to the fans every year - perhaps for a small and reasonable profit compared to say, bank interest.

 

But there are other issues in the democratisation, where you have the same problems with society - who do you proxy your shares or how do you vote with them? Who would vote for their choice in the general election if they didn't represent a party that you knew about and what their ideals and goals were?

 

Seems to me that there needs to be a similar party system which could allow the warring factions of the support to pretty much live with each other in a constructive way, despite the differing values. RST and RF could be two of those but there could be others that you proxy your shares to each year, and change whenever you want.

 

I think at the moment, none of that is in place, and so I imagine most fans just feel a bit detached from it all while they watch and feel powerless from the sidelines.

 

 

We are not fighting to save the club at all. We are hoping that someone else will save it for us.

 

I think the fans want to do something, but how do you do that when the fight is, to your average bloke, in the complex, inaccessible and ultimately mind numbingly dull arena of finance? They need a leader in that field they can believe in, who has the financial clout, nous and balls to take the interlopers on. I don't think we'd have defeated the attempted English invasion/annexing without the likes of Wallace and The Bruce, and we desperately need someone soon before we lose all heart and eventually surrender.

[colinstein 294]

the fans would own the club

Hired professionals would run it

 

1 fan

1 vote

[Hildy 0]

I don't agree with the repeated criticism of those looking for a 'sugar daddy' as you put it. If a trustworthy , megarich figure happened along tomorrow, I'd be right behind them, as it would be better than what we have now. Unfortunately they can't get in, and the ones who did try were found wanting on several fronts. But slagging off people in the other camp won't win many converts!

 

If Dave King arrived, it would be an improvement on what we have now - no argument there - but it would not be a long term solution and after a period of time we could end up where we are now with the club in inappropriate hands.

 

The sugar daddy desire is fairly widespread within the support but it is a recipe for disaster.There's no point in sugar coating this - it is the wrong way to proceed.

 

If Dave King arrived, I'd hope that the RST would approach him about selling the club to the support over a period of years.

[calscot 0]

the fans would own the club

Hired professionals would run it

 

1 fan

1 vote

 

See, there's already a huge can of worms in that simplistic description that pretty much doesn't answer ANY of the potential concerns I put forward.

 

The first point just isn't even true - individual fans don't seem to have any tangible ownership, at best it's a one year rolling lease and only as a paid up member of one of two collectives run by random strangers.

Second point just brings back the random strangers - again.

Last says you don't get out proportionally what you put in.

 

I doubt any of the three sit well with most people, it's not ownership in the usual way that people see ownership - especially when it comes to owning shares. To me that's the problem, and no-one seems to want to even acknowledge it. I don't think you'll convince many sceptics with that kind of sell - it's merely re-stating the three of the main things that I think may be putting many off, without even the slightest explanation.

 

It might be pretty simple but it simply doesn't seem to be what many fans want to buy into.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Fan ownership is the only way forward for us.

I'm talking 51% of the club like they do in the Bundesleige

The way to do it is to show our strength, boycotting the matches and Sports Direct merchandise. That is the language capitalist bastards understand. When they know the game is up they'll deal.

I think the King group will be a stepping stone to this. An alliance with them and an aim towards eventual ownership.

A deal can be done with Ashley as well providing he'll take a reasonable cut of the profits from merchandise, but we need to force him into that.

 

I am sorry to have to tell you that "Fan Ownership" is simply not going to happen.

 

If my arithmetic is up to scratch then I make it that the RST/BR & RF combined have about 1.7% of the issued share capital and there doesn't seem to be any prospect of them getting together any time soon (although as an RF member I welcome the decision to talk to other groups). Other individual shareholders were said to own 12% but what proportion of that 12% have gifted their shares to RF? 12% is 9,777,384 shares and the RF own 633,528 in total including all those bought from monthly contributions and lump sums, so not many it seems.

 

51% is light years away.

 

The 2010 RST Scheme envisaged 20,000 people paying £1,500 each over 5 years underwritten by McColl to raise the £30M thought to be required to buy the Club from SDM at that time. Currently the RF have close to 2,000 paying monthly and it's my belief that only a very small percentage of the 2,600 RST members are paying monthly, possibly less than 200. So it's my guess that the RST&RF are raising about £20,000 - £25,000 per month between them, say £250,000 - £300,000 a year (at an average of £10 pppm). Even if every last RST member is or could be persauded to pay monthly then I doubt you would raise more than £500,000 a year.

 

IF and it's a very BIG IF you could acquire 50% of the shares at 18p right now that would cost you north of £7M. But there is now way that the instititutions are selling out now for 18p/share.

 

Assuming that there is a new share issue to raise approx £8M, that might be something like 5,000,000 shares at say 16p and would mean that a 51% stake would cost around £9-10M.

 

The fans had the opportunity to buy the company out of insolvency but even in those very difficult times all that the RST could raise was £250,000; very commendable but nowhere near enough.

 

King is a busted flush and all the other pretenders are full of hot air.

 

Face facts, Ashley will increase his stake one way or another and he and a small number of institutional shareholders already control the Club, witness the 90% votes to return Easdale/Llambias yesterday. I expect that after the next share issue the top four shareholders, Laxey, MASH, Artemis and River & Mercantile will own in excess of 50% of the shares and together with Blue Pitch and Margarita will do exactly what they want when they want.

 

Boycotting the Club by not attending matches is completely counter productive and boycotting a few SD shops is no more than a tiny pin prick in Mr Ashley's well round posterior.

 

Ashley is in this to make money for SD but in order to do that he has to make Rangers successful first in Scotland and then at some kind of level in Europe. He and his man Llambias will be ruthless in pursuit of that objective. I doubt they'll put up with the buffoon Somers for any longer than it takes to find a replacement. Other new directors will be brought in, starting no doubt with a finance director and yes he will be paid a salary commensurate with the job; but I am confident that the time of ludicrous bonuses not based on financial performance is over.

 

Ashley is the only show in town.

Edited December 23, 2014 by BrahimHemdani
"Asley" was a typo, honest!

[Hildy 0]

The problem is that this is also reminiscent of what fan ownership appears to be - the guys running the club would still be random strangers with all the blazer chasing, machinations, politics and backstabbing that entails. The RST may be a fine organisation these days, I don't know, but to me and many others, it lost its credibility in a crucial part of its development and was then disappointing many times during the darkest days.

 

I think the problem with both current models of fan ownership is that your average fan doesn't quite understand it or even understand how he would own any part of it. Both come across as donating your money for someone else to buy shares and own and run the club. Who do you trust with that? Fans probably agree with King, in that for investing, they want some kind of tangible control in relation to that investment. Neither model seems to offer them that.

 

On a basic level, I doubt the current models will ever be popular as they don't come across as fulfilling the need that fans have, to simply OWN the shares they have paid for, and so have a say in how the club is run.

 

 

 

Thinking about the previous part of my reply, I don't think most fans see a viable alternative - they obviously get that if you gather 100k fans together to buy just £20 worth of shares per year each, over a period of time then we could easily own half of the club after say, fifteen years. What I don't think they get is the logistics of how that can be done in a straightforward and transparent way. Just who do you trust to hold the cash or wield the power?

 

What I suspect a lot of fans would like is some "sugar daddy" that they feel is a fan of the club whom they can trust to come in and buy the club and then facilitate a way to then sell them on to the fans over a period of time - I think that's what Hearts have in place with Budge, and to some extent what McCann did at Celtic. They need a trusted custodian who can act as a central point for the distribution of shares by underwriting the acquisition and selling a tranche to the fans every year - perhaps for a small and reasonable profit compared to say, bank interest.

 

But there are other issues in the democratisation, where you have the same problems with society - who do you proxy your shares or how do you vote with them? Who would vote for their choice in the general election if they didn't represent a party that you knew about and what their ideals and goals were?

 

Seems to me that there needs to be a similar party system which could allow the warring factions of the support to pretty much live with each other in a constructive way, despite the differing values. RST and RF could be two of those but there could be others that you proxy your shares to each year, and change whenever you want.

 

I think at the moment, none of that is in place, and so I imagine most fans just feel a bit detached from it all while they watch and feel powerless from the sidelines.

 

 

 

 

I think the fans want to do something, but how do you do that when the fight is, to your average bloke, in the complex, inaccessible and ultimately mind numbingly dull arena of finance? They need a leader in that field they can believe in, who has the financial clout, nous and balls to take the interlopers on. I don't think we'd have defeated the attempted English invasion/annexing without the likes of Wallace and The Bruce, and we desperately need someone soon before we lose all heart and eventually surrender.

 

As soon as we had two FO models, the situation became needlessly complex. My enthusiasm for fan ownership remains unabated but even so, I chose not to sign up to RF. I prefer the football trust movement which seems to have been accepted and trusted across the football community, so that's where my money goes - to the RST's BuyRangers scheme.

 

If fan ownership is eventually achieved, I'd like to see Rangers being member-owned - not shareholder-owned. I'd happily allow different tiers of membership, but one member - one vote would be the deal. Millionaires and modest-incomed people would have an equal say at election time.

 

It would be useful if a model was created to demonstrate this. I would like to see the day when Rangers has no shareholders - just members with one vote each.

 

Leaders? 'He doesn't speak for me!' Isn't that what we hear when a fan leader tries to put forward a point of view. Chris Graham and Mark Dingwall probably get more abuse from Rangers fans than from Celtic fans. Finding someone who fits the bill isn't easy when the Rangers support effectively sees itself as a proletariat that knows its place - on the outside looking in.

 

Those who step forward are sometimes detested immediately for having the audacity to do so. 'He's no' a better fan than me'.

 

Culturally, Rangers fans have been subjects and not citizens for too long and it's not going to be easy to change this, but we have to try.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Asley is in this to make money for SD but in order to do that he has to make Rangers successful first in Scotland and then at some kind of level in Europe. He and his man Llambias will be ruthless in pursuit of that objective. I doubt they'll put up with the buffoon Somers for any longer than it takes to find a replacement. Other new directors will be brought in, starting no doubt with a finance director and yes he will be paid a salary commensurate with the job; but I am confident that the time of ludicrous bonuses not based on financial performance is over.

 

Ashley is the only show in town.

You can't be serious.