The CIC Meeting at The Louden - Twitter

[pete 2,499]

BH is writing up a report for your delectation but has been delayed by unreasonable romantic demands...tbf, he was at a Rangers meeting this morning, then was being filmed by a Rangers documentary crew this afternoon; respect is due.

 

Some highly unscientific thoughts from one who was entirely cynical but is now a little more amenable to the concept:

 

presentation was very good if heavily weighted on the 'best case scenario' side of the bed; hardly surprising. The details are fairly well known but broadly if a CIC comes about the 'plusses' would be:

 

the thing is set up by a solicitor, and initially only the solicitor & the SDS rep would have any legal powers at all. This changes when fans are elected in future by popular vote, say for talking's sake when 5,000 fans vote, most likely from the working party but could be anyone who stands and persuades enough people to vote for them. This ought to reduce internecine squabbling and allow a moving on from the past, since there'll be no worries about certain personalities pushing themselves forward undemocratically,

 

the CIC vehicle allows high net worth investors to contribute, alongside us paupers, but still retains that element of OMOV. Brahim will post his own thoughts on this as I believe he may not be quite 100% convinced. I, too, wonder whether HNWI's would be willing to throw money away without a quid pro quo but time will tell. Clubs in eg Germany seem to manage it well enough. I remain uncertain as to whether complete fan ownership can generate enough investment to get us to the level we need to get to; time will tell.

 

this vehicle, should it gain enough popular support, can be used as an arm twisting lever when dealing with boards. For instance, money can be given direct to the club for specific purposes and be ring fenced thusly; also, it would lent at 0% interest thus saving the club getting loans from Wonga type people.

 

there's not much more detail, the general thinking seemed to be that if this could be a vehicle which allowed previous disputes to be forgotten, and become a bus which we can all jump onto, then it would be well worth swallowing any things we don't like in order to finally get a Rangers fan body which might achieve something. Now, it may be that in the rush to get unity we are missing potential pitfalls but overall it seems like a price worth paying to finally move on.

 

Rangers fan ownership is not like other clubs: we have to deal with a fanatically hostile media and lunatic fans of other clubs who would, I have no doubts, buy into any scheme in order to sabotage it. They're that nuts! Nothing is ever easy for us, and this would be no exception. Still and all, I'd say there was a good bit of merit to this idea.

 

Finally, highlight of the day for me, this day and pretty much any day of the last 20 years - I spent 3 hours sitting next to, and discussing Rangers, with Colin Jackson...nothing anyone said about CIC's could top that. I said to the great man on leaving that it was an honour to chat with him and I meant it. If this scheme is going to work, I think it will need legends who pulled on the Blue Shirt to front it up: if Colin Jackson said go for it, I probably would; likewise Walter Smith, say, or Sandy Jardine. No matter what age we are we still idolise our heroes...maybe we need to call on them to do yet more service in the cause.

 

You mean big don't rip my tights Jackson.

[SteveC 150]

Remember, not everyone has to commit to that, that's just weighted averages based upon what others have achieved

 

Just back from the meeting which ran on until after 1.30pm.

 

Andy is off on Valentine's duties this afternoon and I will be this evening.

 

So we have agreed that I will draft a report and send it to him to review and publish on here.....

 

... A working party is being formed and I have put my name forward.

 

As sergeant Wilson used to say "do you think that's wise, sir?" Not querying your capabilities but is this not likely to be controversial to some/many, or to reopen scarcely closed wounds?

 

If I am out of line I apologize, I know the history is a complex one and I was not there but just going by recent events on this forum it would seem potentially divisive.

 

Then again I may be misunderstanding those recent spats

Edited February 14, 2014 by SteveC

[SteveC 150]

I read elsewhere that it was mentioned money could go to other things e.g. youth development, is that not a function of the club board? This may put some fans off who are only interested in a scheme where all monies raised would go to buying shares in the club.

 

That would only happen were everyone to vote for it though, surely? Is it not just that the word "could" is applicable to almost anything until a constitution is agreed?

[3909 04 0]

Remember, not everyone has to commit to that, that's just weighted averages based upon what others have achieved

 

 

 

As sergeant Wilson used to say "do you think that's wise, sir?" Not querying your capabilities but is this not likely to be controversial to some/many, or to reopen scarcely closed wounds?

 

If I am out of line I apologize, I know the history is a complex one and I was not there but just going by recent events on this forum it would seem potentially divisive.

 

Then again I may be misunderstanding those recent spats

 

Mr Dingwall has already had a pop at "loonball" Brahim's likely involvement.

 

Our man BH will need a thick skin in order to participate...

[andy steel 0]

There was a definite - an absolutely rock solid - feeling at the meeting that bygones had to be bygones and moving forward was the only answer.

 

Anyone who wants to remain outside the tent can do so, of course. But really, it's very childish. If Brahim is on the working party, he has no more say than anyone else who signs up. None at all, only the ability to maybe frame some proposals the membership put forward in legally sound terms; which he can do, given his background. And he only gets elevated if people vote for him, which is your actual basic democracy. So where's the problem?

 

I might point out that BH got a resounding round of applause when he made a plea for unity and progressive thinking. The history may be complex but that's where it has to remain, in the past. A perfect solution will never be found - look at the hassle trying to organise a dinner! But bitching about the past before the thing is even started is utterly futile.

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

There was a definite - an absolutely rock solid - feeling at the meeting that bygones had to be bygones and moving forward was the only answer.

 

Anyone who wants to remain outside the tent can do so, of course. But really, it's very childish. If Brahim is on the working party, he has no more say than anyone else who signs up. None at all, only the ability to maybe frame some proposals the membership put forward in legally sound terms; which he can do, given his background. And he only gets elevated if people vote for him, which is your actual basic democracy. So where's the problem?

 

I might point out that BH got a resounding round of applause when he made a plea for unity and progressive thinking. The history may be complex but that's where it has to remain, in the past. A perfect solution will never be found - look at the hassle trying to organise a dinner! But bitching about the past before the thing is even started is utterly futile.

 

I honestly think there's about 15 guys online who hate everything, and everyone else really can't be arsed.

 

I wouldn't say I'm best pals with everyone, but we all want the same things at the end of the day. Today proved that when you get guys in a room together, there's generally always a common ground. We all know something has to be done.

 

The fans have to empower themselves. The Club we have is a reflection on us. It's up to us to change that.

[Zappa 0]

Sorry to throw in another negative, but again it comes back to 'moonbeams' because it's a serious stretch to imagine that certain fractures in our support will miraculously be welded back together for the better good. They should be and I'm sure most of us wish all the baggage and bad reps would just evaporate, but the chances of that happening are practically zilch.

 

New faces and fresh ideas is the only way to go. Obviously there needs to be support from the right people like ex-players and Club legends, but that's not a stumbling block. Baggage is a stumbling block.

[BEARGER 1,830]

That would only happen were everyone to vote for it though, surely? Is it not just that the word "could" is applicable to almost anything until a constitution is agreed?

 

It would take a unanimous vote? If that is the case then it may be a goer. Fans mostly only want their money to buy shares IMO.

[Mountain Bear 0]

The RST's BuyRangers scheme also states completely unrealistic targets. The Trust has been running for over a decade, so you'd think they would at least have mastered the art of being realistic, but no, instead of being realistic they have to state that their target is 50+%. Erm, in which century?

 

Zappa, 50%+ is more their raison d'être, rather than an unrealistic target. Nothing wrong in my book about setting out the aspiration and then looking for ways to realise it. I do agree that we're talking about the distant future at the current rate of progress, but I've said on here several times before, that anything in the range of 20-25% would bring genuine influence given our Shareholder base.

 

I do think that 10k giving £10 per month is realistic today, whether through Buy Rangers or a CIC vehicle and that would be great progress.

[Mountain Bear 0]

I should add that the real challenge will come if and when there's a share issue.

 

The fans have been burnt more than once with shares in Rangers, but if they don't invest again, what little influence we have today will be further diluted.