Fans funding for financial situation

[Frankie 8,186]

That makes it sound like the Trust were highly proactive and diligent. I'm not sure that accurately reflects reality for many of us. It's not important in itself but fairly typical that it took me six emails over two years to get them to send me a membership card - despite twice being told it was being sent. As for contacting the Trust and asking questions, I can assure you I do that regularly. The last time was a few days ago. I can recall one reply only, from the current chairman shortly after he took up the post, promising regular contact with the membership and a great deal more consultation - that was the last I heard. There always seems to be this discrepancy between intention and delivery with the Trust. Many words, negligible action. I've no doubt there were many laudable plans laid, the problem has always been translating them into something the membership could actually see.

 

Perhaps I just never got sorted out in the old database but that doesn't excuse just ignoring emails sent via their website.

 

The one good idea that ever came through to me was the Blue Spirit which I thought was a good idea but which was more of an historical PR summary and could hardly be construed as particularly effective communication.

 

I've had one unsolicited communication from the Trust in the last year, asking if I would sign over my vote for the AGM. When I refused to do so they asked if I would like my life membership fee returned. I declined. Otherwise, nada.

 

I can assure you some board members were extremely proactive and diligent.

 

Hence the work done trying to address the communication problem by yours truly and others in the 6-9 months before we resigned. There is no excuse for it not to have been continued after we left as it's all simple, basic stuff which just needs a bit of hard work.

 

Regarding your experience, I used to receive all emails via the website and those I didn't/couldn't personally answer I passed onto others - usually the members secretary or the media gents. I can't understand why they didn't reply. Email isn't always the best form of communication in that regard. I've since seen perfectly valid questions ignored by senior board members canvassing opinion on other forums which is bizarre so that maybe explains why you have been ignored.

 

The Blue Spirit was a quarterly newsletter so of course it was a summary of recent and upcoming activity. Not everyone can receive emails or check the website so that's why it was revamped (to a decent degree). The survey with the renewal pack I was hoping to be a more direct way of communication/feedback but like I say I never got a chance to build on that or the above.

 

Hope this clarifies the issue somewhat.

[Zappa 0]

and anyway I couldnt begin to guess what anybody with �£5m to invest in Rangers would want back!

If I can guess, then you can too!! A guess is just that though & mine was purely based on the type of people that invest that sort of cash. Generally they're looking for a good return on an investment & not just the knowledge that they'll maybe get it back should they sell their shares, but obviously not always, since they make large donations to charity as well. Rangers isn't a charity though & their money would be an investment, not a tax-deductible donation.

 

In this model though, your �£5m gives you;

 

• the opportunity to invest in the new dawn of a "new club".
  
• to be an executive member in the new executive board.
  
• the chance to get involved and share risk with fellow high-investors
  
• the chance to be the senior partner, who effectively pulls all the big strings. (there's lots of cudos, publicity, status in there without room for dictatorship)

I really don't believe that anyone who wanted to invest �£5m & be an executive member in the new board would be willing to do so knowing that in 3 or 4 years they could be voted out & may not even be able to sell their shares, never mind get a profitable return on them. As for sharing risk, well the type of people who take risks involving millions of pounds are generally taking an informed punt on the potential to make significant profit, so they might well have to believe that there is significant profit there to be made. As for the chance to be a senior partner who pulls the big strings, I agree that there would be an attraction there, but again, probably not if there's a chance of them being voted out, so I think they would need to be in place until they decided themselves that enough was enough & it was time to take a back seat or sell their shares.

 

• the opportunity to make reasonable % profits providing financial preformance criteria is met.
  
• the opportunity to re-sell your equity on the market at at time, at no loss if the club is run 'correctly'

These are big 'IFs' imo. There's no guarantee that they'll profit at all & there's no guarantee that their shares will hold there value. It would be a definite gamble.

 

At the end of the day though, its not a money-making exercise - people with �£3m-�£5m 'to tie up for a few years' can find plenty of other ways to do that. This fact may be a killer for some, but you never know. The concept may not even need �£5m people. If �£1m makes you top-tier, then that's all fine too.

I know what you're saying and I'm sure there's a few such people that might be interested in a non-profit-making investment given some of the benefits they'd receive, but I definitely think their benefits would need to be permanent as well as possibly their executive position.

 

�£5m per investor probably isn't far off the mark btw, but I think 25-30 investors of �£1m would just complicate such a venture. Such a consortium or group would ideally be smaller in number than larger imo.

 

Just some thoughts....

[Big Spliff 0]

If I can guess, then you can too!! A guess is just that though & mine was purely based on the type of people that invest that sort of cash. Generally they're looking for a good return on an investment & not just the knowledge that they'll maybe get it back should they sell their shares, but obviously not always, since they make large donations to charity as well. Rangers isn't a charity though & their money would be an investment, not a tax-deductible donation.

 

 

I really don't believe that anyone who wanted to invest �£5m & be an executive member in the new board would be willing to do so knowing that in 3 or 4 years they could be voted out & may not even be able to sell their shares, never mind get a profitable return on them. As for sharing risk, well the type of people who take risks involving millions of pounds are generally taking an informed punt on the potential to make significant profit, so they might well have to believe that there is significant profit there to be made. As for the chance to be a senior partner who pulls the big strings, I agree that there would be an attraction there, but again, probably not if there's a chance of them being voted out, so I think they would need to be in place until they decided themselves that enough was enough & it was time to take a back seat or sell their shares.

 

 

These are big 'IFs' imo. There's no guarantee that they'll profit at all & there's no guarantee that their shares will hold there value. It would be a definite gamble.

 

 

I know what you're saying and I'm sure there's a few such people that might be interested in a non-profit-making investment given some of the benefits they'd receive, but I definitely think their benefits would need to be permanent as well as possibly their executive position.

 

�£5m per investor probably isn't far off the mark btw, but I think 25-30 investors of �£1m would just complicate such a venture. Such a consortium or group would ideally be smaller in number than larger imo.

 

Just some thoughts....

 

thanks bud, I clearly need to address these issues more thoroughly.

[Zappa 0]

thanks bud, I clearly need to address these issues more thoroughly.

 

You'll maybe want to strangle me mate, but I've thought of another couple of relatively important issues. The main one is - should someone who comes along now, never having bought a season ticket before be entitled to be a 'member' & thus have a vote on certain matters before someone who's been buying season tickets for over 10 years? I mean there's probably supporters who've put a hell of a lot more into the Gers kitty in their lifetime than someone who just happens to come along at the right time & throw in a grand or two. That's possibly a very difficult issue to overcome. Secondly, who's going to initiate the coming together of these big investors to discuss any such proposal? It seems obvious that the only candidates would be either one of the potential big money investors or SDM himself & personally, I can't see SDM doing it.

 

I hope you don't think I'm negative about the idea, because I'm not at all. Just throwing in some thoughts... :cheers:

[Big Spliff 0]

You'll maybe want to strangle me mate, but I've thought of another couple of relatively important issues. The main one is - should someone who comes along now, never having bought a season ticket before be entitled to be a 'member' & thus have a vote on certain matters before someone who's been buying season tickets for over 10 years? I mean there's probably supporters who've put a hell of a lot more into the Gers kitty in their lifetime than someone who just happens to come along at the right time & throw in a grand or two. That's possibly a very difficult issue to overcome. Secondly, who's going to initiate the coming together of these big investors to discuss any such proposal? It seems obvious that the only candidates would be either one of the potential big money investors or SDM himself & personally, I can't see SDM doing it.

 

I hope you don't think I'm negative about the idea, because I'm not at all. Just throwing in some thoughts... :cheers:

 

Fuck sake mate, you'll never get a job with the Chairman if you're gonna insist on fucking questioning things all the time

 

Seriously, what your comments show is that it's all well and good talking about a concept (and although a concept may be sound), real support means answering real questions. I've got some off the cuff answers for you, but I'm not trying to pretend that I've thought through all the mechanics - partly because some of it will be tricky and will need creative ideas about how to get round potential obstacles. It needs discussion, collaboration, detail, description, direction, facilitation, pulling together the best people and the best ideas. That's all part of the process as far as I'm concerned.

 

Having said that, I think we need to start with an idea; a vision, if you will. If we like it, we try to work out how to achieve it. I think that now more than ever, the club needs a new vision.

 

We need to build up our ideas, whatever they may be, so that courses are charted and obstacles avoided or swept aside. The reason the RST (for example) has disappointed to an extent is that enough people simply haven't bought the vision, or even seen the necessity to buy a new vision. That needs to change - it will change.

 

Hopefully everybody who is interested is thinking hard - and somebody will come up with that special something. It'll happen.

 

[Zappa 0]

Fuck sake mate, you'll never get a job with the Chairman if you're gonna insist on fucking questioning things all the time

oops... I didn't think about that...