Fans funding for financial situation

[Frankie 8,186]

Yep, Shroomz has made a few good posts in this thread - as has Big Spliff.

 

The idea of a transfer fund is a worthy one. However, it's unlikey to work even if you get high net worth fans who may lead a project to get 'ordinary' fans on board. GerSave was a similar idea but even the success of that has been extremely limited.

[maineflyer 0]

Yep, Shroomz has made a few good posts in this thread - as has Big Spliff.

 

The idea of a transfer fund is a worthy one. However, it's unlikey to work even if you get high net worth fans who may lead a project to get 'ordinary' fans on board. GerSave was a similar idea but even the success of that has been extremely limited.

 

I'd suggest the "success" of Gersave has been non-existent. Too few took part to matter and too little was done with the money that was raised to encourage further participation. In fact, for a great many RST members, the use to which the first disbursement was put, together with the lack of consultation, was the beginning of the end of their membership.

 

For much the same reasons as Gersave failed, I think the idea of a supporter-generated transfer fund is one of those things that will never get beyond the discussion table. What would stop me is the question - who decides how the money is used?

[pete 2,499]

I'd suggest the "success" of Gersave has been non-existent. Too few took part to matter and too little was done with the money that was raised to encourage further participation. In fact, for a great many RST members, the use to which the first disbursement was put, together with the lack of consultation, was the beginning of the end of their membership.

 

For much the same reasons as Gersave failed, I think the idea of a supporter-generated transfer fund is one of those things that will never get beyond the discussion table. What would stop me is the question - who decides how the money is used?

 

Totally agree, trust is a big word in such a scheme and man's trust in another is not that high. You only have to look at charities where stories go that a small amount of all donations actually get to the nerve centre and the rest is keeping fat cat organisers.

[Big Spliff 0]

I'm assuming that by 'large injection from a group/groups', you mean from corporate business? In what form though? The buying of significant shares or purely in the form of sponsorship deals? TBO, in the current climate, I can't see there being much chance of serious investors or potential sponsors banging on the door with offerings of substantial cash injection. I could be wrong though...

 

Hiya mate; it�s rather rushed (believe it or not!) but here you go, in response and to yours and other recent posts too -

 

If we are talking about club ownership, the 'conditions' I refer to set the tone for would-be investors - this is really important. I'm using a bit of licence here to illustrate the points, but here goes! The conditions look something like this;

 

Consortium

A group of high net-worth people approach SDM & a price is agreed for the club. The 'people' must be a credible bunch acting in concert, fronted by someone who will command the respect of fans. Let's say a Sir Tom Hunter figure, or a Bannatyne, or even a Gordon Smith. Dont want to get into the merits of these people just now, its just for the sake of discussion.

 

Funds

The club is 'worth' circa �£50m. This seems ridiculous in the current climate for a business which has demonstrated repeatedly that it does not make money outside of extraordinary conditions (and even then..... ), and it seems clear that the current regime appear to have maximised future revenue to the best of their abilities. SDM has said he'd be "easy to do business with", and he wants out asap. So lets say the negotiated price is in the region of �£40m with arrangements in place to structure a portion of this in some favourable way. So we need, say �£25m now + �£15m over 5 years (ignoring interest).

 

Our 'Execs' (aside from putting in say �£5m each for partly-emotional reasons) must also have a financial motivation. Any group must be able to run the business as an inherently profitible one, which i believe is possible. The club needs to be restructured early on, so that waste is eliminated and revenue maximised.

 

Management Team

Our ââ?¬Ë?Execsââ?¬â?¢ identify and hire a management team to run the club. Quality professionals on say Ã?£150k per year are appointed to run Marketing, Operations, Finance, HR, Communications, Development etc. A CEO is appointed, say Ã?£300k. Big hitters. The best people for the job. Remember we are only a Ã?£50-70m club and itââ?¬â?¢s not exactly c complicated business to be in is it? You only see your customers once every 2 weeks for Christ sake, they ALL want to be there, there is NO competition for these people to wander off to. What a dream!

Our ââ?¬Ë?Execsââ?¬â?¢ stand for confirmation/election, and agree to be re-elected on a 3 or 4 year cycle. They are responsible for the performance of the management team they appoint so they can hire and fire. They stand or fall based on re-election by the wider membership, who will judge based on performance over the period. The wider membership may vote in keeping with their proportional investment. Votes are cast anonymously on-line, or by postal proxy.

 

The team manager is a key appointment. The club will be run on the basis that it maximises its resources, and really concentrates on youth development. Its scouting network is taken seriously because unlike most other large clubs, there is a fundamental obligation/necessity to rely on it. Itâ��s not optional and not something we bail out of. It becomes the heart of the culture of the club. Rangers becomes known as the place to be for excellent youngsters, and we play them in the team. Presented properly in the right context, I honestly believe fans would support that, under a credible new leadership. Compare this to the apparent �£6-7m of salaries in the squad who are surplus. These people are culled, taking one-off hits (yet) again and the club vows never again to go down this road. The team manager is obviously a key to all this. Identifying and supporting this man is crucial.

 

Revenue

The whole stadium experience is professionally reviewed which a view to maximising revenue - especially on match-day but also across the week. How many people buy burgers and pints outside the ground? Why do they? Would they buy from the club if the product was easily accessible, priced correctly, served by smiling blue-noses (even rotating volunteers!)? Bars/food outlets in the concourses, knocked through to the paved areas outside? Proper smoking areas arranged. Merchendise on sale. Nice working TV's. FP's mingle. Sense of community. Fans would arrive earlier, use it and spend more.

Talking of merchandising, how many people have tried to buy Rangers gear and cant? Its ridiculous. Distribution and merchandising deals need to be done which maximise availability and revenue. A hybrid of the Celtic/Rangers model if you like. We have the best deal on paper - they have the best distribution. You can get a Celtic, Man U or Chelsea top in every sports shop in the UK, why not Rangers?

 

Our 'Exec' go public. The story is that they intend to buy the club with fan's help. SDM is seen to be participating and generous relating to structuring of payments etc. The story is positive. A credible new future is defined. They have raised �£25m with plans to provide the additional �£15m. They need fans to match their �£40m to reduce debt, to build a reserve and to fund player purchases.

 

Fans are asked to contribute. Scenarios I've seen suggested which fit this model are 8,000 x Ã?£5k or 4,000 x Ã?£10k. If the big boys were not fully available these numbers could be tweaked to raise more. Fans (either as individuals or as businesses) can buy shares and become ââ?¬Ë?membersââ?¬â?¢ . Caps are in place to prevent anyone contributing more than say 5% (Ã?£2m). Some type of distribution model is worked-up to spread ownership. Shares are for sale at, say, Ã?£1000 each. Companies can buy these too. In return members benefit from a variety of things;

 

Firstly, access to the stadium. Ibrox is vastly under-utilised, nearly every day of every week. What if your company put in Ã?£10,000 as a one-off investment (donââ?¬â?¢t forget tax offset, meaning the cost is actually Ã?£7k)? You have lifetime access to Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park. Good quality access, where you are treated like a member, not someone who has no real right to be there. You can book meeting rooms, seminars, tours etc. The place is kitted out with wi-fi, state of the art communications systems. The stadium is full of lounges and restaurants etc, what if we could use them? How many bluenoses organise meetings in Glasgow hotels in a year and at what cost? I must have spent Ã?£5k on meetings in the last 2-3 years and Iââ?¬â?¢m by no means a meeting-junkie. A new members community springs up, they can cross-promote their products to each other, and to the wider fan-base. They can use each otherââ?¬â?¢s services. They can harness collective purchasing power. Etc etc etc. There is something tangible and worthwhile for them to invest in. We are near an airport, a city centre, a developing business community, visitor attractions, motorway, subway blah blah. Ibrox as a business hub. What a dream! And Murray Park. ââ?¬â?? how might it be used more effectively?

 

I believe there are thousands of businesses and individuals worldwide who would contribute to such a concept if the conditions are right. I really do.

 

The absolute key points in all of this are; 1)the business and concept is attractive enough for people to want to invest, 2) the business plan is coherent 3) there is a top quality management team.

 

This post is too long and lacks a bit of structure, so I�m going to draw a line under it for now! Hope you find it (if not all new) then at least worthy of discussion. Obviously, the more you write the more holes there are likely to be but I'd be very interested in any thoughts. (flaws as much as positives)

 

Cheers!

[UCF2008 0]

One way of generating more cash is friendlies. Yes, they're meaningless in terms of winning trophies and they can be a hinderance (ie liverpool game in between the CL qualifiers), but at the end of the day we play x amount of pre-season friendlies each summer anyway. Why not make them more attractive by hosting a tournament?.

 

This season the proposition of the North Atlantic league has rose it's head again. What I would suggest is to test the water on this concept by initially playing a cut-down version of the league in pre-season. You could for instance go for a format similar to the CL, only with less teams. Say we had two groups of 4, with the OF plus 2 from Holland, 2 from Portugal and 2 from Norway / Sweden. Each nation could take it in turn to host their home games over the space of a week, with the winner of each group playing for the title. You could fit the whole tournament into approx. 4 - 5 weeks.

 

It would give the clubs involved a decent standard of pre-season opposition, while also allowing them to guage potential costs / income and with it being a 'friendly' tournament in pre-season, it's doubtful that UEFA or FIFA would have any objection.

[Bluedell 5,356]

I'd suggest the "success" of Gersave has been non-existent. Too few took part to matter and too little was done with the money that was raised to encourage further participation. In fact, for a great many RST members, the use to which the first disbursement was put, together with the lack of consultation, was the beginning of the end of their membership.

 

For much the same reasons as Gersave failed, I think the idea of a supporter-generated transfer fund is one of those things that will never get beyond the discussion table. What would stop me is the question - who decides how the money is used?

 

I seem to recall that a request for suggestions was made both on the RST website and by email to RST members.

[Big Spliff 0]

I seem to recall that a request for suggestions was made both on the RST website and by email to RST members.

 

I dont recall either Dell, but I could be wrong. Communication is acknowledged by all parties as a problem where the Trust is concerned, pretty much always has been.

[Bluedell 5,356]

I dont recall either Dell, but I could be wrong. Communication is acknowledged by all parties as a problem where the Trust is concerned, pretty much always has been.

There was a request for suggestions put up on the RST website on 13/11/07. I believe that there was an email sent out around this time as well.

 

I wouldn't deny that consultation in respect of the first tranche of Gersave cash could have been improved, but to send letters out to all members would have been a time-consuming exercise.

[Big Spliff 0]

There was a request for suggestions put up on the RST website on 13/11/07. I believe that there was an email sent out around this time as well.

 

I wouldn't deny that consultation in respect of the first tranche of Gersave cash could have been improved, but to send letters out to all members would have been a time-consuming exercise.

 

cheers, must have missed that!

[Frankie 8,186]

Tremendous post above Big Spliff...

 

May I use the content (and edited slightly) for a main site/NewsNow article - obviously you'll be credited as author?