BuyRangers versus RangersFirst

[pete 2,499]

I can answer questions on Buy Rangers and have been to the two public meetings of the CIC group but I can try to answer questions.

 

Oh Christine you should change your user name to Mata hari.

[plgsarmy 111]

See first post.

Am I correct or not on points 1& 2?

What is the answer to point 3 for BuyRangers?

I realise you cannot speak for RangersFirst.

 

Point 1 is true for Buy Rangers, although that will depend on the success of the scheme. People won't get their full money back if there is a financial cost to the RST. Obviously, if everyone suddenly wanted their money back we would be unable to do it. Re Rangers First, I don't know for sure but Richard did mention the word donation a few times and there was no mention of you getting anything for your donation apart from a vote but someone would have to clarify that.

Point 2 is definitely true.

Point 3 - we pay all running costs from the membership fees and other fundraisers, like our annual dinner. I can only assume that the CIC will deduct running costs from the £18.72 but they may have other plans.

[plgsarmy 111]

Oh Christine you should change your user name to Mata hari.

 

As the exotic dancer or the spy?

[pete 2,499]

As the exotic dancer or the spy?

 

Can we judge that. Centre circle Saturday:drum:

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

Nice when people invent competition which doesn't exist, isn't it?

 

Your point about costs isn't true either. 1% is the figure in costs for Rangers First, with Buy Rangers you get 1%, plus whatever admin costs plus your £10 annual RST membership.

 

As I've said previously too, Rangers First will be focussed on buying shares initially too, the flexibility is about long-term.

 

I'll state again, however, if Buy Rangers is what you choose - great, both schemes are aimed at doing the same things. I'd ask you to avoid trying to create conflict which doesn't exist though.

 

Promote Buy Rangers, don't criticise the other. I'm a supporter of both.

[chilledbear 16]

Nice when people invent competition which doesn't exist, isn't it?

 

Your point about costs isn't true either. 1% is the figure in costs for Rangers First, with Buy Rangers you get 1%, plus whatever admin costs plus your £10 annual RST membership.

 

As I've said previously too, Rangers First will be focussed on buying shares initially too, the flexibility is about long-term.

 

I'll state again, however, if Buy Rangers is what you choose - great, both schemes are aimed at doing the same things. I'd ask you to avoid trying to create conflict which doesn't exist though.

 

Promote Buy Rangers, don't criticise the other. I'm a supporter of both.

 

I'm not sure if you answered the 3 points or not.

[Hildy 0]

There's probably plenty of reasons why I don't think we are fit to govern Rangers. The main one for me is we love a figurehead to look up to.

 

Yes, we do indeed - I've made this point myself - but are we effectively admitting or suggesting that we are a backward support if we lack self-belief and have no willingness to try a more democratic way?

 

Is there something fundamentally wrong with us that we would rather beg for a rich man to come in than work together constructively to build a better future?

[plgsarmy 111]

Nice when people invent competition which doesn't exist, isn't it?

 

Your point about costs isn't true either. 1% is the figure in costs for Rangers First, with Buy Rangers you get 1%, plus whatever admin costs plus your £10 annual RST membership.

 

As I've said previously too, Rangers First will be focussed on buying shares initially too, the flexibility is about long-term.

 

I'll state again, however, if Buy Rangers is what you choose - great, both schemes are aimed at doing the same things. I'd ask you to avoid trying to create conflict which doesn't exist though.

 

Promote Buy Rangers, don't criticise the other. I'm a supporter of both.

 

1% is the cost of the direct debit but I suspect the op was talking about other costs such as legal, insurance, marketing, postage, stationery, website, printing etc.

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

Point 3 is unanswerable, because it hasn't even got to that stage yet. It would seem logical to me to try and cover any overheads by other means though, but that's just an individual thought.

 

Point 2; yes, the money can be used for more than just buying shares. That doesn't mean it's going to be used for other things in the short-term though. Not sure how many times it can be explained that it's just a flexibility worth having. If, after you get to the level of ownership required to get the level of transaprency and accountability that fans require, why would you continue to buy shares? Why not fund projects which wouldn't be funded otherwise?

 

Long term that's a massive benefit, but if that's not what you want to do with your money, then that's fine - join Buy Rangers. Nobody is advising against it.

 

Point 1; Technically you can get your money back from Buy Rangers, it depends upon the RST having the money to do so though. Nobody is asking you to contribute money you can't afford to live without though, if you need the money back, I'd advise you to keep hold of your money and invest at a later date.

 

For example, if every Buy Rangers member backed out at year 3, at current value the RST would have to sell all its shares and still find £140kish to pay everyone back. The more shares the RST buys at current rates, the quicker that sum will drop though.

 

My point was more aimed at asking people not to draw battle lines, both have their merits and both are aimed at doing something positive, can't we just support the one we prefer without trying to point score?

[ThatsWhyWeirChamps 0]

1% is the cost of the direct debit but I suspect the op was talking about other costs such as legal, insurance, marketing, postage, stationery, website, printing etc.

 

No reason why those costs can't be covered outwith member contributions. I'm not sure how the OP got his information though, none of that has even been discussed yet.