Gers fans seek clout for buy-out

[Frankie 8,889]

Like I say, there is some amount of kite-flying going on. We can't tell how serious they are until after Saturday.

[maineflyer 0]

I'm not convinced that what we need most are more 'high net worth' investors and I'm even less sure that these should be seen as our principal need or that any new structure should be built around accommodating them. These people are often the worst people in the world to run the club but have by virtue of their wealth alone a means of doing so.

 

Remember, we're not where we are today because we've not had money. We're actually in such perilous condition because we've made such a horrendous dogs breakfast of running the club.

 

One thing mentioned above than makes my blood run coold is the idea of block votes - if that becomes a reality we had better find something better to occupy our attention and not waste time on Rangers.

[biggordy 0]

There are many good ideas and plans to take us forward but I believe we need to act soon.

Someone needs to underwrite the debt or give firm proposals to Lloyds asap to give us breathing space to get everything set up.

All of the issues like voting rights, members' benefits etc. I'm sure can be ironed out soon enough but the main priority at the moment is fending off the bank.

[pete 2,511]

Hi all, ive read this post with interest and would like to try and take the discussions a bit further.

 

As a former RST board member, I have always been, and remain to this day, an advocate for greater supporter representation at Rangers, although through experience I would have to question the desire for supporter ownership amongst the supporters. For information I also know for a fact that Rangers considered such plans a number of years ago, and again the concern at this time was that whilst a few thousand die hards would back the plan, was there widespread support for such actions?.

 

I for one believe the following would work.

 

Im in a fortunate position that I could afford an annual membership, however, this is not a position shared by all and I appreciate most supporters struggle to pay their season ticket costs each year. Therefore In my view asking for a substantial annual membership to a club will not work, as its a scheme that only suits better off supporters.

In my view a scheme would have to involve regular small payments and be open to all, based on the trusts core principal of one member one vote.

 

In simple terms say the fans setup a club, lets call it ââ?¬Å?Rangers For Life Clubââ?¬Â, this needs to be setup in a very clever manner as so not to fall foul of any regulations on investments. The next serious question is how many fans would really join our club, a minimum target would have to be 50,000 fans. Now if we set a realistic subscription to the club, say Ã?£10 per month, then you have a club that will generate upwards of Ã?£6M per year. In my view you have a vehicle that would be well placed to make an approach for the club.

 

As an add on, in my view there are higher net worth supporters who like us all are keen to support a scheme that would benefit the club and ultimately mean its survival. In my view these individuals would be in a position to perhaps provide some upfront capital, that is fully repayable, at some future point ââ?¬â?? thats the only way the process can remain as one member one vote. However, in my view if 3 or 4 individuals provided a sizeable upfront payment they should at least receive a seat on the board for the first couple of years.

 

Lets look at the structure of the club. There would have to be a management board (one who meets regular and deals with day to day issues), and an executive board which comprises the management and the supporters representatives. This would meet monthly. In my view the management board comprises 4 individuals, say a CEO, FD, etc, and there should be an additional 5 supporters in the executive board, which has ultimate power, so the fans are always in charge.

 

For me the key issue is electing the 5 supporters, in my view these should be a mix of high networth individuals and sensible supporters for the first year, with an election every year thereafter to elect 2 new members (to replace 2 of the existing members). Therefore at most a fan can serve is 2 to 3 years. The management board would clearly remain for as long as they deliver the good.

 

Just some initial thoughts ââ?¬â?? which I will take further in another post shortly.

 

I agree fully with your Rangers for life scheme for the long term but i feel it is essential at this point for anyone who can put cash up front to do so. We would really need to get the debt down as far as possible as quick as possible otherwise it will just eat into any incoming cash. A Rangers for life scheme for the long term would hopefully bring whole families into the club thus creating a chain for the next generation

[maineflyer 0]

I think that the point you made on Dave King having little or no control earleir in the thread is a good one, but it raises a couple of questions:

 

Did he realise his lack of control when he made his investment initially (and that the club would be subsequently brought back under the MIH umbrella), or did he think he would have a lot of input?

 

Did Dave King care about control/having input, and if not, is that unusual for guys with that amount of cash?

 

 

My understanding is that a lot of the people around the Members Lounge were great Murray supporters, and over the years we had Bill Thornton, Ian Russell, Satty Singh etc, making loans to the club for some involvement on the board as associate directors or directors of Rangers Development Fund.

 

These guys were only willing to make loans and not actually contribute cash into it, and they appear to have expected some position, however token, in return. It seems to me that experience has shown us that the big hitters would be expecting something major if they were making major contributions into the club, and would be expecting a directorship or similar.

 

Perhaps we bring back the position of "associate" directors who have little influence but can have seats in the directors box etc, and this could fall under your privileges suggestion?

 

However the major question is "would this be sufficient?" and I fear that it may not be.

 

The thing is, as long as you hang out the carrot of reward or return, it will always be a loan or an investment. Only when you remove these things do you create a situation where people will make a contribution. In the end, the decision here is stark and brutal - does the club exist for the benefit of the supporters (would-be members) or for the benefit of a relatively small elite group of wealthy investors. That's not a politically motivated question btw, simply a dichotomy that needs to acknowledged and a position that needs to be taken at the outset.

 

I'm very afraid that the majority of active supporters groups haven't yet made the step up from strategising under the Murray regime and what's required to build something more 'approprite'.

[Bluedell 6,069]

Like I say, there is some amount of kite-flying going on. We can't tell how serious they are until after Saturday.

 

I'm not sure that Saturday will tell us that much.

[biggordy 0]

I'm not sure that Saturday will tell us that much.

 

We need to kidnap the Hamburg Guy.

[Frankie 8,889]

I'm not sure that Saturday will tell us that much.

 

Numbers present will give us an idea of interest to a degree. VIPs present will have better ideas on how to progress. Both of these factors may flush out the people with cash to help create further debate and action.

 

I suspect this is what the RST are hoping as opposed to what DE is saying in the press about already being in negotiations with such people.

[Bluedell 6,069]

Numbers present will give us an idea of interest to a degree. VIPs present will have better ideas on how to progress. Both of these factors may flush out the people with cash to help create further debate and action.

 

I suspect this is what the RST are hoping as opposed to what DE is saying in the press about already being in negotiations with such people.

 

I'm really struggling to go as well due to my son's football times being changed.

[bmck 117]

One thing mentioned above than makes my blood run coold is the idea of block votes - if that becomes a reality we had better find something better to occupy our attention and not waste time on Rangers.

 

Not that it's making your blood running cold isn't proof enough, but why exactly? I dunno if it's a good idea or not - seemed to me like a good idea, but I've not thought it through. What makes it bad?