Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
The RST wants Rangers to be a fan-owned club. It would eventually become something like Barcelona - member-owned - not shareholder owned. RF wants fans to have a minority stake in the club, but only full fan ownership will close the door to the likes of Mike Ashley. What's the point in having 20% of the club if an unpopular party has the other 80%?
-
It's quite simple, and yes I agree that I have made the point several times - but perhaps not as often as Rab has implied that King might have as much dosh as we think . . . Rangers is a sick football club. We can agree on that. The root cause of its illness is the ownership issue. Instead of seeking a cure, and there is one out there, we see thread after thread repeating the same debate about the internal politics of the club. We are no longer football fans. We are amateur accountants. We slag off each other for not recognising that Whyte, Green or whoever was the right sort. We could have a prediction league on boardroom happenings instead of the football. Despite everything, we are still not looking for a cure for our ills. It exists but we can't be bothered to save enough cash to actually acquire it. It becomes pointless after a while then to spectate and speculate on what will happen next to what we think of as 'our club'. We are applying ointment to the patient instead of giving it the major surgery that it requires. I remind you once again: the ownership of Rangers is the cause of all of our problems. If we are not going to properly address this, we will get the club we deserve, and as you can see, it's not a pretty sight. Buying Rangers for ourselves is the route out of this place, but we'd rather gossip about boardroom shenanigans than to actually take it.
-
The RST is not just my ideal vehicle - it's the only vehicle that aims to make Rangers a fan-owned club.
-
Transparency cannot improve under anyone. To improve, it would first have to exist.
-
It would be nice to see 50,000 fans signing up to BuyRangers and embracing the idea of Rangers being a fully fan-owned club, but despite every single one of our problems being ownership-related, we prefer to moan and complain instead of seeking a permanent solution. We expect a solution to just turn up, usually in the form of a sugar-daddy. If, though, someone like SDM had bought into the FO idea, preferably when he was at the height of his popularity, it could have happened simply because he recommended it. In the future, it could happen if someone like Dave King was sold on the idea(I don't think he is). Fan ownership could happen by the back door, and if it came along, after a while, it would seem perfectly normal.
-
Fan ownership would stop all undesirable would-be owners in their tracks but relatively few sign up to it, so no matter what Ashley's motivation is, and even if people don't like it, if he wants to buy Rangers, he can and he will, and we can mutter away interminably. It won't change anything. Rangers belongs to whoever buys it. Sniping disapprovingly from the sidelines is the extent of our vision.
-
Who would I want to take over? Jim McColl? He doesn't want the gig but if he did, he might be inclined to assist in making fan ownership work. At best, he'll be a background figure in a new regime. Mike Ashley? No. His God appears to be money. I don't want Rangers to be a vehicle for his commercial enterprise. Dave King? It would be a short term fix with DK in charge but we'd see too many familiar faces around Ibrox again and he would probably keep Ally on. A new dawn with King might not live up to expectations. Sir David Murray? He would also be inclined to surround himself with the usual suspects, which would not only disappoint me, it would anger me too, but . . . I think he could be persuaded to move the club towards fan ownership which would be a fantastic legacy after all that has happened. If I had to pick one of the above, it would be SDM. I'm not confident that it will happen, though.
-
An interesting and entertaining read, and from a lapsed fan too. I sometimes wonder if this is actually one of the bigger groups in the broad church that is the Rangers support. I believe that the opinions of lapsed fans are well worth hearing. This attitude where current attenders denigrate former attenders is seriously flawed. If people have chucked it, why did they do so and what would bring them home? If we want Rangers to flourish, assuming we get though this awful period, we could do with seeing some old faces returning.
-
The RST got around £13m in pledges a few years ago when things looked grim. I'm sure you are aware of this. That's not too bad for an organisation that some choose not to like. The RST is for Rangers supporters - it is a vehicle to achieve a better Rangers - a fan-owned Rangers. It is there for all of us. You and I know that people will try to shout it down for whatever reason, but it is standing the test of time and it will continue to believe in the fan ownership model. Sometimes I like the people on the RST board, sometimes not, but I stick around because my aim for Rangers is shared by the RST. It's a bit like supporting Rangers. Sometimes the high-ups are a disappointment, but the allegiance still remains firm.
-
The RST has created BuyRangers. If every individual shareholder had used this model to invest instead of investing directly - and I make no criticism of people who want a share in their own name - BuyRangers would have around 12% of the company and an influential voice - maybe even a director. Instead though we are merely individuals unable to compete with corporate entities, so although the Rangers support owns around 12% of the shares in the company, it has next to no clout or meaningful influence. I'm happy to invest with you and any other Rangers supporter who likes the idea of investing as a group instead of as individuals. This is the way to achieve change and eventually, hopefully, a fully fan-owned club.
-
Infighting is a problem for the Rangers support. Until we learn to cooperate and act in a civil manner, we'll take two steps back for every one step forward.
-
No. We've been individual shareholders before and now we're doing it again. It didn't work out too well the last time and it isn't working out very well now. We need to join together. That's what BuyRangers offers. One day when we are a member-owned club, we'll all have exactly one vote each, but until then, sticking together is the best way to proceed. Together we have a voice that cannot be ignored. Apart we are disparate and weak.
-
It's better for us all to join together and invest as one body. If we had done so at the initial share issue, we'd probably have a director on the board by now, but people want to be individual shareholders while proclaiming 'we are the people'. The RST has provided the vehicle. It's up to us to use it. We can make 'we are the people' work for us instead of it just being a mantra.
-
It can be useful to stand apart from this mess to try and see it as some others do. The one thing that I see non-Rangers people agreeing on is how shocked they are that Rangers has not only gone into meltdown, but how the club has no powerful allies. They see a support that is all at sea. They, like many Rangers fans, perceived the club to be the 'establishment' club. Now they know that it is not. They see the club for what it is now because the aura of invincibility has vanished: the magic has gone. Some are amused by what has happened, but many are amazed. They never thought that this once mighty part of the Scottish football establishment could be torn down. To interested observers, our calamity has been their ongoing fascination.
-
If you stand back for a moment and survey the scene, it's not a pretty sight. Basically, the club has no idea what it is doing, the management hasn't a clue how to run the football operation, and the fans - a relatively small number of them - are more or less out of ideas how to rectify a situation that is increasingly desperate. The 'do something' attitude kicked in way too late. 'Flash mobs' are now being talked about by a support that happily slagged off our rivals for their 'to the car park, Declan' mentality, and this kind of approach - even if it makes a difference - alienates some of our fans. We seem to be lashing out wildly because we have nothing meaningful left to offer. Sell out Ibrox for one game, empty it for another but travel anyway, and then give your ticket money to fan groups that cannot even agree on a vision for the future. As I said, stand back from this and survey the scene. It is a pitiful and sorry sight.
-
A club has made a statement in an official publication that the club you grew up supporting no longer exists. This is not banter. It is a lie. You might be content to get walked all over by Rangers-haters seeking to undermine the club, but many of us, quite rightly, do not. Title 55 will not be reported as title 55 by everyone. It will be reported as title no.1 by some media outlets - unless of course they realise that there will be a price to pay for spreading this lie. That's why this issue needs to be addressed - now.
-
We understand banter. We participate in banter. This isn't banter.
-
That's what I was wondering. How hard is to give up a voluntary role, if that's what it was? This shouldn't be the end of the matter. A full retraction and SFA punishment are appropriate for this.
-
Do you know if he has resigned from a non-salaried position?
-
Yes, it certainly is ironic.
-
To get fan ownership though, even though it takes time, it is better for fans to link arms and go in together. I think you are right not to invest a serious sum of money, but you could have a community share with the RST for around £130, and that's it. You are in and no more payments need be made. The day may or may not come when you can put in significantly more, but being part of a movement intent on making Rangers a fan-owned club is surely a worthwhile experience.
-
To invest mob-handed, it is desirable to set up a vehicle to do so. The RST has done that and each person involved is the holder of a community share. It's a bit like being a part of a consortium, but having lots of partners instead of just a few. I could have a single share in Rangers if I wanted, but I choose not to. I go in with the collective now. One day, I'll hopefully be a member of Rangers in my own name, but until that time comes, I'm delighted to be investing in partnership with other fans.
-
That seat on the board: many would have thought that it was a good thing having Walter Smith on the board of directors, and he even became chairman. What good did it do? None at all - and the reason? He was out of his depth. In the ultimate irony, he was asked to perform in a role that was not his best position. Having one person on the board, even when that person is chairman, is massively over-rated. Settling for being a minority when the majority is poison is an exercise in futility.
-
As previously stated, if we started over with one group, within a short time there would be more. It's how we operate. There would be the Church of Rangers, the Free Church of Rangers, the Wee Free Church of Rangers, the Wee Wee Free Church of Rangers, the Wee Wee Free Free Church of Rangers and so on. Splintering into factions is our speciality. Nobody does it better.
-
The idea of people giving money they can't afford to a hastily cobbled together scheme is quite sickening. I understand why you and many like you did so - the club put out an appeal for financial help - and I applaud your motivation, but your money, and that of your mother, is now lying in a bank account while the club wanders around with a begging bowl asking for a few dollars here and a few dollars there. I don't blame you for doing what you thought was the right thing, but I cannot excuse those who launched this scheme when it had no hope of saving Rangers. The club was trying to cash in on the apparent success of the RST scheme and the RFFF effectively destroyed any last hope we had. I am aware of people who were going to put in generous sums to SaveRangers if it got off the ground, but when the Fighting Fund came along instead, they didn't give it a cent. They knew that it was a waste of time, energy and money. I just wish there was a way that people could get their money back, but the Fighting Fund was effectively a scheme where cash was just piled up, mostly anonymously.