rbr 1,247 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Very disappointed that if you hold life memberships in both the RST and Rf then basically your losing one , great when people make decisions that dont affect them personally and obviously havent considered this situation arising 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 3,765 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 The use of the word donation ensures my disinterest in further participation. I'll be interested to see what, exactly, will happen to shares in BuyRangers though. Also interested to discover if a life member of the RST has to make any contribution to Club 1872 to gain voting rights. Some good points justifying merger but the Club 1872 experiences are a bit naff and would have best been left for later. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 9,361 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) I was initially disappointed with the proposal: it seems like a bit of a con, with a lot more complexity and no real change except for an extra company to act as an umbrella. On reflection, it does tick all the boxes, but with more clarity and tweaks needed. I think we all agree with the core principles... in principle. Independence is a must, but how independent is a body that elects a member of the club board and a club ambassador? I'd prefer to see members with any link to the club removed from any election to the new C1872 board. The shareholding is the priority IMO, but, as has been said above, why not 50+1? That model is in place and working well in Germany at the moment, so I'd like to see that as the "ultimate" aim. Financial contribution is a bit of a distraction at the moment -- increasing the shareholding should be the priority -- but I see that they include a caveat whereby the funds can be directed to shareholding. Certainly good for the future though, to assist the club and acquire assets (hopefully, that can produce revenue in themselves). The C1873 experiences seem like they are trying to move the whole scheme into a proper membership scheme, like Bayern Munich et al. It seems a little contrived though, and not really necessary at the moment; we have a more pragmatic need for this proposal. I was a little concerned when it says that RF and RST would remain; this just reduces C1872 to an umbrella entity, while maintaining the egos of the previous groups. However, it looks like the membership scheme will be transferred to C1872, with RF and RST receiving funds for their respective purposes (Shareholding and Projects). As has been mentioned, does this not reduce the total members paying into the group? I'm not sure how this can be improved/corrected. There are a few tweaks needed. Disabled representation obviously, but I am sure they have not excluded that willfully. Maybe more clarity on a few things also. However, it seems like the basic outline is beneficial. Having one group would certainly be beneficial, gathering the collective resources and focusing it in a better way. I think it's very positive; hopefully a decent debate will allow the proposal to be fine-tuned. Edited March 9, 2016 by Rousseau 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 " Independence is a must, but how independent is a body that elects a member of the club board and a club ambassador? I'd prefer to see members with any link to the club removed from any election to the new C1872 board." I'll be honest Rousseau, I don't understand what the rush to get these guys involved in the first place was. As said before, I want any fans group I'm involved with to stand totally apart from the club . Supporting financially or whatever, yes. But able and ready to hold them to account too if all is not well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiamBear 0 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 One thing that does stand out to begin with (and perhaps plgsarmy can clarify) is why the organisation wants to limit itself to a 25%+1 shareholding? Surely 50%+1 is better or is that just bad wording in the proposal? I'm sure the reason for that is if you go above 28% company law requires you make an offer for all remaining shares. This means you need to have the money in place to make the said offer. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,148 Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 I'm sure the reason for that is if you go above 28% company law requires you make an offer for all remaining shares. This means you need to have the money in place to make the said offer. Yeah, I'm aware of that and it's a fair point but I'm unsure if it would apply to a scheme such as this as it's debatable if it's a consortium per se. Definitely a question for the meetings though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 I saw something yesterday that an RF life member who paid £500 will get the same membership as an RST member who paid £100 I can fully understand why people are pissed off. I don't think due consideration was given to disabled supporters and their needs. I don't understand the need for donations to be split between shares & projects. What type of projects? Who decides on the projects? Who proposes the projects? This is where I am concerned the Board will have influence. Whilst they may want us to increase shares I am concerned they've suggested this. It's a way to get fans to help pay for developments without the board having to give anything. Not saying I'm against (or for) this proposal, I'm just not convinced. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,148 Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) I saw something yesterday that an RF life member who paid £500 will get the same membership as an RST member who paid £100 I can fully understand why people are pissed off. I don't think due consideration was given to disabled supporters and their needs. I don't understand the need for donations to be split between shares & projects. What type of projects? Who decides on the projects? Who proposes the projects? This is where I am concerned the Board will have influence. Whilst they may want us to increase shares I am concerned they've suggested this. It's a way to get fans to help pay for developments without the board having to give anything. Not saying I'm against (or for) this proposal, I'm just not convinced. 1. The first part is frustrating but not sure how they'd get round it. In any case, your contribution was to buy shares so does it really matter in terms of the actual membership? 2. Generally disabled fans will have the same opportunities as the rest of us to be part of and lobby the new group. As highlighted earlier though, I think their requirements are greater than ours with respect to some issues though and I'd hope that is acknowledged by the new group via a board rep. 3. The donation split is interesting. In many ways share purchases should be priority but I think having some sort of pot in reserve to use for certain projects might be a good idea. In any case, the individual member can choose how their donation is split so effectively have 95% going to shares only. We have to remember if we're going for fan ownership then we'll have to pay for everything anyway. Do people want to remove sugar daddies with their own interests or not? If not, then it could be argued this scheme isn't for them. Edited March 10, 2016 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 1. The first part is frustrating but not sure how they'd get round it. In any case, your contribution was to buy shares so does it really matter in terms of the actual membership? 2. Generally disabled fans will have the same opportunities as the rest of us to be part of and lobby the new group. As highlighted earlier though, I think their requirements are greater than ours with respect to some issues though and I'd hope that is acknowledged by the new group via a board rep. 3. The donation split is interesting. In many ways share purchases should be priority but I think having some sort of pot in reserve to use for certain projects might be a good idea. In any case, the individual member can choose how their donation is split so effectively have 95% going to shares only. We have to remember if we're going for fan ownership then we'll have to pay for everything anyway. Do people want to remove sugar daddies with their own interests or not? If not, then it could be argued this scheme isn't for them. Well yes I think it does, because you've paid 5 x as much, unless RF can show exactly the breakdown of what went to shares then I can see why people would be upset. Point 2 is not enough, the group should make provision, not opportunity. Able-bodied fans have plenty of voice/representation and without provision disabled fans may well be drowned out. I've no problem with a reserve for projects but there is no way it should be the same split. Do people want to remove sugar daddies with their own interests or not? If not, then it could be argued this scheme isn't for them. I kind of resent that Frankie. I've always been supportive of this board. I'm a member of Rangers First but this is not a dictatorship (hence we all get a vote) and fans/members are allowed to feel that the proposals are not right, or do not go far enough. Aren't we all of the opinion 'never again' and so shouldn't we all question these things rather than blindly follow the lead of a chosen few? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Well yes I think it does, because you've paid 5 x as much, unless RF can show exactly the breakdown of what went to shares then I can see why people would be upset. So what is the solution? I don't think there's a perfect answer but what they have proposed seems like the best compromise available. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.