Rangers First vote to offer club £500,000 loan

[Frankie 8,186]

To be honest, with every passing day, I become more confused and scunnered with fan group politics.

 

Not sure if we need some sort of summit (open to all) but I can't be the only bear with a sore head when it comes to this kind of stuff.

[forlanssister 3,060]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-first-dave-king-500k-7139511

 

 

 

Rangers First and the Dave King £500k row: Fans group is rudderless and their message muddled

 

HERE in a guest blog, US-based journalist Shane Nicholson gives his view after the supporters group’s claim was shot down by the club.

 

RANGERS FIRST announced on Thursday the group was polling members over extending a £500,000 loan to Rangers, a loan which the club had not only not asked for but had explicitly said it would not entertain at this time.

 

You can’t deny the good intentions of RF and the people who have given their time, efforts and most importantly their money to the group since its founding.

 

The community interest company was positioned as an alternative to existing fan ownership schemes, one without borders and without what so many termed “agendas”.

 

But Thursday’s proposal to its members was far from the first mishandling of the message by RF leadership. From the beginning of the group’s existence members have raised concerns over the haphazard way RF has gone about relaying information not only to the CIC’s subscribers but to the general public.

 

It was hashtags and email blasts and in your face whether you wanted it or not, and it never had a cohesive feel. It never seemed to be cognisant of its need for a recognisable identity, never seemed sure of what it stood for beyond a set of generalities.

 

With spokesmen prone to going off track with an already unstable message, it was only a matter of time until the confusion seen on Thursday broke out.

 

Myself, in a questionnaire put out by RF in its early days, voiced concerns over the messaging, whether it via print, television, radio or the often turbulent times that social media can present a group without a concise brand strategy.

 

The rush to be first out the gate and the want to answer seemingly any query put forward were always going to be stumbling blocks given enough time.

 

And so it was yesterday that the group, via Press Association copy, came out firing: noting its substantial and deserved shareholding in Rangers while introducing its plan, but going a step too far saying that it had assurances from the club’s chairman that he personally would match any loan put forth

 

While RF and its heads were busy filling Twitter timelines reminding any and all to be sure to vote for the plan questions were already coming to the fore: Who had talked to Dave King? Had the club even asked for the loan?

 

The answers to those questions may lie in a grey area to remain unexposed, but had the message been concise from the front there would be no reason to ask them, and no reason for Rangers to address them.

 

The club has made clear in recent months that moving forward with a single-entity fan ownership scheme is a plan it can and will embrace. The sniping between parties who favour either of the main plans – RF and the Rangers Supporters Trust, save a few smaller groups – was lamentable, though as of late has gone mostly quiet.

 

Work on what has been termed a merger of the groups – with the club’s support – is well under way.

 

Which makes Thursday’s move by RF all the more surprising. Here was a group who spent so much time and effort deriding the machinations of ex-fans’ group supremos. A group that had taken strides to distance itself from the so-called “blazer chasing” efforts of others.

 

t went to great lengths to say it was “apolitical” when it came to Mike Ashley and Sports Direct attempting to hold Rangers hostage, this after building endless goodwill by positioning itself as a group who could save future generations from the pain a previous regimes have wrought.

 

And yet it made its bold play this week without ever first releasing any accounts; without holding an AGM of its own; and without Rangers ever asking for it to do so in the first place. Why the rush? Why now? Why so boisterously in step with the very politicking it once decried? Sadly, the answer lies in the problems RF has faced since it first began.

 

The good intent of Rangers First was always clear; the message was often muddled, providing at times a rudderless ship, one which ran itself aground on Thursday. RF now has to decide how to move on from that, and quickly. One can only hope they get the message right this time around.

 

You can follow Shane on Twitter @ofvoid.

 

 

 

[Frankie 8,186]

Fair points from Shane but you get the feeling there's something the rest of us are not being told here.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

King has said he'd be willing to put in 30m over the period, which IMO does not mean he'll be handing over a 30m cheque straight away. I never expected him to put that amount in anyway, but did expect him to continually put money in as an ongoing concern, which I believe he's done. This is debate over semantics. The point is he said he'd invest, and he has done; I expect more over the course of the next few years.

 

This was an own-goal by RF, putting both them and Rangers in an embarrassing situation. It seems they have emailed their members before actually contacting the club. Now Rangers have felt compelled to say they have not asked for the loan and that King would not match the amount. Some twitterers (or is it tweeters?) have jumped the gun regarding King matching the bid based on what he has said before. I took the "I will match x..." statement to mean he'd match the initial 3 Bears investment, not any subsequent fan investment. It's a little presumptuous to think King, just because he has money, would therefore match any subsequent fan investment. It's not right.

 

Moreover, Rangers haven't said they'd not accept the loan, just that they had not requested it -- for that is serious ammunition for our detractors IMO. King needs to be clearer also with his statements, although it is a sad state of affairs in which any innocuous statement can be twisted to form an agenda. I suspect if RF offered to provide 500k then Rangers would happily receive it. RF should have contacted the club first though, and perhaps made it clear that Rangers had not requested it.

 

These continuous loans are a necessary evil at the minute. It's not great to be dependent on such means of investment, but we are confident and content as to the source and terms of these loans. We need to raise some capital in the form of a share issue, but I suspect we'll still struggle year-on-year until we're back in the Premiership, Europe and those merchandise arrangements are terminated.

 

Absolutely spot on, especially the bit in bold which, if clarified at the outset, would have prevented the trouble-makers from making this a big issue.

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

I don't get what the issue about offering a loan is. Why is it a huge decision? What are the downsides of doing it? Why wouldn't 100% of members not be in favour of it?

 

I can understand his point about James Blair's conflict of interest to an extent, although as he isn't a director any conflict would be fairly limited.

 

I agree BD, I dont know any of the parties involved, but this looks like grandstanding to me, or at worst a misunderstanding of what the RF board are intending with this.

[craig 5,199]

The only real downside I can see is that it would be unsecured with a drop dead repayment date two years down the line. That intervening two year period means a period of uncertainty for those funds whilst in the hands of the Club.

 

However.... should the Club hit financial hard times in that period then it must surely be beyond doubt that RF would make these funds available anyway.

 

Mountain out of a molehill IMHO. To be honest, I felt Mr Bowman's letter to James Blair was more of a "look at me" letter. Though I say that with extremely unlimited knowledge of the situation.

[rbr 1,247]

Rangers have loads of " look at me type fans " , generally they do fuck all though

[colinstein 294]

anybody guess what it is "we're not being told"

A lot of people seem to think so. Who isn't telling ....RF or the board ?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Yes, but then those like BH and JJ who back Lambias and Leach (ie.Ashely) would choose the upper end.

 

Firstly, the fact that I said I thought L&L were doing a good job at the time I said it i.e. prior to the fiasco with the RFB, does not imply support for Ashley and in any event has nothing whatsoever to do with King's funding or the lack of it.

 

Secondly I don't need to choose the upper end, King himself stated:

 

"But I would say I would probably have to put in £30m of the £50m over the period of time. And I could probably get other people to put in £20m.

 

‘Would I be willing to invest £30m despite what happened previously? Of course. Sure.’

 

Which bit of the above quote is it that you don't understand?

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz3wdEMMD2Z

Edited January 8, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

King has said he'd be willing to put in 30m over the period, which IMO does not mean he'll be handing over a 30m cheque straight away. I never expected him to put that amount in anyway, but did expect him to continually put money in as an ongoing concern, which I believe he's done. This is debate over semantics. The point is he said he'd invest, and he has done; I expect more over the course of the next few years.

 

This was an own-goal by RF, putting both them and Rangers in an embarrassing situation. It seems they have emailed their members before actually contacting the club. Now Rangers have felt compelled to say they have not asked for the loan and that King would not match the amount. Some twitterers (or is it tweeters?) have jumped the gun regarding King matching the bid based on what he has said before. I took the "I will match x..." statement to mean he'd match the initial 3 Bears investment, not any subsequent fan investment. It's a little presumptuous to think King, just because he has money, would therefore match any subsequent fan investment. It's not right.

 

Moreover, Rangers haven't said they'd not accept the loan, just that they had not requested it -- for that is serious ammunition for our detractors IMO. King needs to be clearer also with his statements, although it is a sad state of affairs in which any innocuous statement can be twisted to form an agenda. I suspect if RF offered to provide 500k then Rangers would happily receive it. RF should have contacted the club first though, and perhaps made it clear that Rangers had not requested it.

 

These continuous loans are a necessary evil at the minute. It's not great to be dependent on such means of investment, but we are confident and content as to the source and terms of these loans. We need to raise some capital in the form of a share issue, but I suspect we'll still struggle year-on-year until we're back in the Premiership, Europe and those merchandise arrangements are terminated.

 

This is a very sensible synopsis in my view and there is no question but that King said "I would probably have to put in £30m of the £50m over the period of time".

 

I have never argued otherwise.