Gers fans seek clout for buy-out

[Bluedell 5,516]

The ongoing financing of the club needs to be addressed before any of this is realistic.

 

Yes, the fans can own the club and have to pay an annual membership but what happens when the novelty wears off in a few years. Many may prefer not to pay their annual membership if they don't care who is on the board. We all know that there is apathy shown by a large section of the support and we could see membership dwindling. Do we need these funds as part of the ongoing income of the club or is it just extra cash?

 

Will we obtain or even want financing facilities? How will they be used? If we have a few supporters elected to the board for a limited time period as has been suggested then we could find that they wish to use it all up sio that the club can be successful under their watch, and not have to worry about the future as it will be someone else's problem. Does this scenario preclude having a majority of fans on the board as was suggested by Miniblue?

 

What happens if the club fails to qualify for the CL for 3 years in a row? Do we cut our cloth accordingly and cut back the wage bill? Will we be in a position to "speculate to accumulate"?

 

It may be possible to overcome these issues, but they need to be addressed to ensure that any fan ownership proposals are taken seriously by the support.

[Frankie 8,402]

Block votes would lead to inevitable conflict but, there's a chance of that under OMOV anyway...

[bmck 117]

Block votes would lead to inevitable conflict but, there's a chance of that under OMOV anyway...

 

It's essentially how the parliamentary system works. We all have one vote, but there are benefits in pursuing your interests via a 'party' or block.

[maineflyer 0]

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?

 

I've just noticed that it would apparently make my blood run coold, which is probably really frukking cold.

 

I admit I'm just exploring these ideas and reacting to what emerges.The thought about block votes was that this allows votes to coalesce, destroying the safeguards inherent in OMOV but, more worryingly, presenting the opportunity for political activity, with certain individuals trying to accrue votes and exercise control beyond the level of ordinary members. It's not so different from where we are today - the guy with the most money buys the most shares and controls the entire club - not on merit but simply on the basis of wealth. Start blocking votes and you concerntrate influence and simultaneously erode the sense of individual participation taht seems to me to be so important.

[Frankie 8,402]

It's essentially how the parliamentary system works. We all have one vote, but there are benefits in pursuing your interests via a 'party' or block.

 

I think it is inevitable that this will happen anyway given we would have to elect people based on manifestos every few years...

 

Gersnet backs AN Other, FF backs Joe Bloggs, Rangers Media backs Someone Else - then onto the fan groups, RSCs and so forth.

 

Not sure how we can avoid that....

[maineflyer 0]

I think it is inevitable that this will happen anyway given we would have to elect people based on manifestos every few years...

 

Gersnet backs AN Other, FF backs Joe Bloggs, Rangers Media backs Someone Else - then onto the fan groups, RSCs and so forth.

 

Not sure how we can avoid that....

 

But that's quite different from one individual or organisation having direct control over a block of votes. I'm all for persuasion but not the other thing.

[calscot 0]

I think the some of the problems with OMOV is that to make it accessible to all, it would have to come with an equal investment of a lowish amount - like the �£40 per year that Hamburg fans pay. Even then I think many would hesitate to part with a significant wad with little return except a vote every couple of years - and even then why buy a membership in the years between elections.

 

There is no sense of ownership here are you are merely renting a ballot box.

 

 

The RST was �£10 per year and did not exactly go stratospheric. It was �£100 for life membership which is more like the yearly amounts being talked about but how many took that up - and how many regret it? Paying �£100 per year for membership with no ownership would be hard to sell. Once the year runs out you have nothing to show for it.

 

The RST share save scheme has, I believe, raised more money than the membership, and the reason for this could be the fact that the "savers" money does not disappear but instead turns into equity and also that they had a say in where the money was spent.

 

I think that actually owning shares in the club would give a far bigger incentive - although, like I said is best if those shares have yearly depreciation to reflect the value of the club.

 

The second problem is that there is no incentive to invest beyond the base level and that means by democratising it for the lowest common denominator of income means that revenue from the membership is severely limited.

 

Having a tiered system that allows multiple entry levels with proportional rights would give the scheme an incentive - especially if the investment had some net residual worth.

 

As said before there could be ceilings on how much someone could own but that could easily say be in the order of 1% or less, which would reduce any undue influence of bigger hitters.

 

I think someone who has been a member for 10 years or more would be happier that he either has more influence than a newcomer, that he has done enough and can stop paying while still having residual ownership and voting rights, or that he can somehow cash in some or all of his shares, albeit for a reduced value.

 

That all sounds a lot more motivating that paying for ten years, stopping for a year and having nothing to show for the investment. That's why a lot of people feel a bit cheated when they take a break from their season ticket after many years. I think people want to be rewarded for their loyalty...

 

In the end a lot of people will like the principle of �£100 membership and OMOV, but how many will be ready to stump up that cash when it comes to it, knowing that after a year, their money is spent and gone?

[Frankie 8,402]

But that's quite different from one individual or organisation having direct control over a block of votes. I'm all for persuasion but not the other thing.

 

Of course - just highlighting the fact that politics is an essential (though perhaps murky) part of making this work actually.

[maineflyer 0]

To be fair though, the RST membership probably had less to do with cost and more to do with infighting and a lack of tangible achievement. You can't blame people for rejecting something if it's no good.

 

In the case we're discussing, the members wouldn't leave, they'd remove the executive. Which action might have saved the RST if it had been available.

[Bluedell 5,516]

I see the RST are talking about an annual membership fee of �£80-�£90.