Gerspride conference, Sat 14 nov

[maineflyer 0]

Personalities aside, the situation we all face together appears to be pretty bleak for Rangers and at the end of the day, that's why we're all here and that's what we all care about. Sometimes on the internet it's hard to recognise that we're all on the same side.

 

The way I see it, the fans could very well be required to put money into the Club in various circumstances and we need to get into a position to do that sooner rather than later. If Dave King rolls into town he might well want some financial input from us. If he doesn't and someone else appears on the scene, they might too. If they turn up late, we might want to put money in during January if players start disappearing. If nobody turns up at all, we might need to help the club sometime in January or in June. There are just so many possible scenarios at the moment that we could be facing - none of them particularly attractive unless the mystery white knight arrives and chucks maybe �£30m-�£40m in. There's no concrete sign of him yet.

 

Seperately, fan representation leading to ownership is not supported by all, but there does seem to be a lot of interest from a lot of people. It would be interesting to hear what people think would be the right models for Rangers and what structures etc people think should be put in place and using which principals etc. These will be the questions if and when this moves on a step or two.

 

I do understand that some people have a reluctance to get on board with the Trust as things stand for a variety of reasons, and for others it is a bridge too far in any circumstances. But as I say, significant supporters' contributions might well be required quite soon and at the moment the RST and partners are (rightly or wrongly) focussed on these eventualities. It would be good to hear more about what the folks on Gersnet would like to see with respect to this.

 

So many fans on this and other forums have told you that there is no disagreement with the principle of being better off together than alone. We all want unity. You really don't need to keep trying to convince people of this. Neither do you need to keep promoting the RST. What you, as a Trust board member, need to do is convince your fellow board members that there isn't a cat's chance in hell of finding the unity or support required while they are still in office. You know that I'm far from being a lone voice in this respect.

 

Let me say it again; the present RST board is not trusted and to all intents is untrustworthy. You appear to have the respect of those who know you on here, what have you done since you were co-opted to clear the decks and make the Trust credible again? Sort out your own house, then come and ask for support - you'll probably get it.

[Union City Blue 0]

It was said that the Trust are looking at 17 different models at the moment. Rather than us reinventing the wheel, would it be an idea to highlight the main areas of differences between the models that are being looked at or what the main areas of connsideration are? That way we can discuss some specifics, rather than talk about abstracts and be miles away from what is being considered.

 

You are quite right Bluedell, and 17 different investment models is waaaaay to much for most brains (even your's I imagine!) to cope with. I'll see what I can get that is summarised and 'post-able' atm. Don't know when I can turn this around but will keep you u-t-d.

 

For me the key issue is squaring the circle relating to OMOV vs. people wanting proportionate voting rights for proportionate investment. It's important not to disincentivise investors as well as encourage everyone to get involved. Would you agree this is the key issue (in terms of mechanics) or do you have others on your mind?

[Union City Blue 0]

So many fans on this and other forums have told you that there is no disagreement with the principle of being better off together than alone. We all want unity. You really don't need to keep trying to convince people of this. Neither do you need to keep promoting the RST. What you, as a Trust board member, need to do is convince your fellow board members that there isn't a cat's chance in hell of finding the unity or support required while they are still in office. You know that I'm far from being a lone voice in this respect.

 

Let me say it again; the present RST board is not trusted and to all intents is untrustworthy. You appear to have the respect of those who know you on here, what have you done since you were co-opted to clear the decks and make the Trust credible again? Sort out your own house, then come and ask for support - you'll probably get it.

 

I wasn't actually promoting the RST here to be honest, I was asking about key issues (personalities aside, which, as you say, I have already picked up some direct feedback on).

 

The thing is, there are moves underway as you'll have noticed from forums and in the media, and that isn't going to stop. I thought it might be useful to re-open the conversation on the basis of what people might be interested in hearing from a proposal when it arrives.

[craig 5,199]

I am a lifetime member of the Trust and from the very outset felt that it was the appropriate form for the fans to get some input with regards to how the club is run. However, when we saw the spate of resignations it piqued my interest and given I know some of those people (at least online) and find them to be fine upstanding folks it made me question what was going on at the Trust.

 

Some of the statements made recently by the Trust have had me cringing which is in stark contrast to most of the statements made prior to the resignations (I am not saying those that resigned ensured a different tact with public statements but rather that there seems to have been a change in tact from the Trust).

 

To be honest, I WANT to stand behind the Trust but I can absolutely see why people would be skeptical of them given some of the individuals involved and how they have handled certain issues. One glaring example for me is, as Frankie pointed out, how come all of a sudden the RST (and its board members) has decided that we will be a "united front" when a mere couple of months ago they flat-out refused to acknowledge and support (or even to provide constructive criticism) of the very fine STS Project - a project which was voluntary from bears and which brought up many of the issues which would be faced by the RST or AN Other if/when the club changed ownership ?

 

As I say, I WANT to stand behind the Trust but historical barriers can be hard to break through and I definitely got the feeling that those currently running the Trust were more for personal agenda than the betterment of the Club. Just a personal opinion and I would be more than happy to retract it if I saw changes in that regard.

 

Sometimes a step back needs to be made to take a step forward. If it were the will of the regular fans that the RST board resign so that the fans get behind the club would those board members do so for the betterment of the club ?

 

That aside, we currently have nothing other than the fact that other clubs have managed to go into fan ownership. There is absolutely nothing concrete other than "if they can do it so can we" so something needs to be done, and soon. I am sure you all are working in the background to achieve this but until the common fan in the street sees it in black and white there isnt much to comment on.

 

And, FWIW, I thought you were being a bit unkind to boss's questions UCB. The reality is that his questions were questions which many a fan should be asking anyway - if boss has these questions so likely will other Bears and, if his questions can be answered now it surely saves time at the critical end of this process. In the interests of what is trying to be achieved here and, lets not forget that we are asking joe public to part with his hard-earned in times of economic uncertainty, those questions SHOULD be answered openly and frankly - and ironic it could be too that whilst recognising that the only way that the Trust can win people back is to be "open and frank" and then refusing to answer those questions. They could always be answered with caveat emptors (although it looks like TB did answer them on RM, that correct ?)

 

I am all for unity of the support and I am sure we all are - I wish for the day to come that it happens.

 

Until then though I just thought I would provide my own personal opinion of how I see things, sorry if they offend.

[craig 5,199]

You are quite right Bluedell, and 17 different investment models is waaaaay to much for most brains (even your's I imagine!) to cope with. I'll see what I can get that is summarised and 'post-able' atm. Don't know when I can turn this around but will keep you u-t-d.

 

For me the key issue is squaring the circle relating to OMOV vs. people wanting proportionate voting rights for proportionate investment. It's important not to disincentivise investors as well as encourage everyone to get involved. Would you agree this is the key issue (in terms of mechanics) or do you have others on your mind?

 

BD is a member of MENSA, he will cope

 

I would agree with your second statement. That would be the critical reconciliation for potential investors. We would be remiss, though, to not consider that there will be other issues which will play a part though. Investors will need to know how those running the club will do so, how and when elected, how frequently, how can they be removed if felt necessary - plus plenty of other things such as further funding and many, many others.

[Union City Blue 0]

Until then though I just thought I would provide my own personal opinion of how I see things, sorry if they offend.

 

No offence taken Craig.

 

I agree that we could do with moving to something black and white so that everyone can get their heads round it and see where we can go from there.

[craig 5,199]

No offence taken Craig.

 

I agree that we could do with moving to something black and white so that everyone can get their heads round it and see where we can go from there.

 

Getting it in written format is the critical piece I suspect UCB. I dont know about anyone else but I am a very visual person, I need to see things written down to fully appreciate them.

 

And, as we know, time is of the essence.

[maineflyer 0]

I wasn't actually promoting the RST here to be honest, I was asking about key issues (personalities aside, which, as you say, I have already picked up some direct feedback on).

 

The thing is, there are moves underway as you'll have noticed from forums and in the media, and that isn't going to stop. I thought it might be useful to re-open the conversation on the basis of what people might be interested in hearing from a proposal when it arrives.

 

On the contrary UCB, you need to be laying out what it is you are asking fans to unite around. Let's see the shape of the alternative strategies being considered - then we'll let you know what we think of them.

 

Personally, I don't know what the fuss is about here. I'm very sceptical that the Trust will deliver anything.

[spanner 0]

Why is anything urgent, it has been stated our banking arrangements stand until Dec. 2010.

[Bluedell 5,679]

For me the key issue is squaring the circle relating to OMOV vs. people wanting proportionate voting rights for proportionate investment. It's important not to disincentivise investors as well as encourage everyone to get involved. Would you agree this is the key issue (in terms of mechanics) or do you have others on your mind?

 

That's certainly an important and difficult question, one which has been touched upon previously on here.

 

To start with, you need to consider practicality against idealism. Ideally you want to be able to achieve OMOV, but there is a high risk that that it won't raise enough cash as there is no incentive for the big hitters to put a lot of cash in, and presumably we are want a high amount of cash in quickly so from a practical viewpoint it needs to be abandonded.

 

There was a good discussion on this before http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=14609.

 

Perhaps some sort of hybrid scheme is needed whereby initially people have power based on the level of their investment, but over time it is transformed into a OMOV scheme, or else there are safeguards put in place to try and limit people's votes up to a set maximum of, say, 5%, although there may be some inherent problems with this.

 

Just some initial thoughts.