Union of Fans Statement: 23/04/14

[Darthter 542]

I think an awful lot of people are going to be disappointed with the contents of the review - certainly the version that gets published publicly.

 

I think a lot of folk are expecting to see details which simply can't be/shouldn't be available to the general public ie. specific funding sources etc. How many companies (worldwide) publish a highly detailed business plan to the general public???

 

However, the review must contain a clear, concise & achievable route forward for the club. A reasonably detailed summary of how the IPO money was spent & highlighting areas where spend has been overly excessive/needless etc.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

So this confirms that they have dropped the Trust idea, no wonder it was not mentioned in last night's leaflet.

 

A set of completely unrealistic demands and a reiteration of the preposterous security pipe dream which they know full well will not be granted in a month of Sundays.

 

In any case what on earth is the point in coming out with this less than 48 hrs ahead of the release of the review.

 

Ally knows more about tactics than this lot.

 

If we get enough funds and backers in place then they will have little choice but to provide us security.

 

The only question is will we.

 

Imho not until Celtc are tonking us but we will see.

 

You can be sure it will happen eventually as rangers fans will not tolerate failure and that all this board are going to deliver.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Attention seeking pure and simple, just like SOS

 

That's a pathetic piece of nonsense.

 

We are a 7000 plus strong group of fans deeply concerned about the way our club is being run.

 

No one can make a case for that concern being unjustified.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I think an awful lot of people are going to be disappointed with the contents of the review - certainly the version that gets published publicly.

 

I think a lot of folk are expecting to see details which simply can't be/shouldn't be available to the general public ie. specific funding sources etc. How many companies (worldwide) publish a highly detailed business plan to the general public???

 

However, the review must contain a clear, concise & achievable route forward for the club. A reasonably detailed summary of how the IPO money was spent & highlighting areas where spend has been overly excessive/needless etc.

 

Kings plan to get us back to the top includes 50 million quid worth of external funding.

 

We will see how the boards plan compares to that tomorrow.

[Frankie 8,218]

I think an awful lot of people are going to be disappointed with the contents of the review - certainly the version that gets published publicly.

 

I think a lot of folk are expecting to see details which simply can't be/shouldn't be available to the general public ie. specific funding sources etc. How many companies (worldwide) publish a highly detailed business plan to the general public???

 

However, the review must contain a clear, concise & achievable route forward for the club. A reasonably detailed summary of how the IPO money was spent & highlighting areas where spend has been overly excessive/needless etc.

 

I think it's difficult to form an opinion until we actually see it - ergo people dismissing it beforehand probably isn't fair.

 

IMO, the review should also be accompanied by some obvious accountable actions: e.g. a strict time-line for job/wage/funding cuts, a strict time-line for a new scouting system and, most importantly, key indications of new investment.

 

We have to remember, it isn't the fans that have given this review undue prevalence. It was the CEO and board themselves. As such, any failure to not address the business's problems in full should concern us all.

[Bluedell 5,408]

A company is now in place with Dave King as a director and Richard Gough and others to follow shortly. This will be the vehicle to hold the security should the board see fit to grant it.

 

I thought that the idea was that the fans were to be given the security. I don't see this statement as tying in with this principle.

 

Who are the shareholders of the company? Just Dave King? So it will be a Dave King controlled company? It's one thing to ask the directors of the club to grant security of the stadium to "the fans". It's another to ask them to grant it to what appears to be just Dave King, and despite my respect for him and my feelings on the current board, that idea makes me feel very uncomfortable.

 

It's almost as if they don't want the security because they seem to setting it up to make it impossible for the board to do what they are asking.

[Frankie 8,218]

I thought that the idea was that the fans were to be given the security. I don't see this statement as tying in with this principle.

 

Who are the shareholders of the company? Just Dave King? So it will be a Dave King controlled company? It's one thing to ask the directors of the club to grant security of the stadium to "the fans". It's another to ask them to grant it to what appears to be just Dave King, and despite my respect for him and my feelings on the current board, that idea makes me feel very uncomfortable.

 

It's almost as if they don't want the security because they seem to setting it up to make it impossible for the board to do what they are asking.

 

I guess the idea is that the fans are to trust this vehicle over the club's directors/beneficial owners.

 

Given the fans are clearly consulting with King on the matter - as well as one of the club's foremost legends - I don't have any worries about their motives. However, legally, the issue is much more complicated (as your FF repost of yesterday showed) so the UoF and King have to be much more clearer about exactly what is happening here.

 

In any event, I do not see this fund be a widespread success. I'd fancy no more than maybe 1-2000 fans will put it and I'd say that figure is very generous as it stands.

[Darthter 542]

Kings plan to get us back to the top includes 50 million quid worth of external funding.

 

We will see how the boards plan compares to that tomorrow.

 

Worthy of Note is that DK's planned investment was based over a number of years (can't recall if he specified how many...). Therefore, being fair, the Board shouldn't need to pull in the £50m in one lump sum. I think the board must show an achievable roadmap of continued substantial investment/revenue which should hopefully tally up with DK overall investment figure.

 

 

I think it's difficult to form an opinion until we actually see it - ergo people dismissing it beforehand probably isn't fair.

 

IMO, the review should also be accompanied by some obvious accountable actions: e.g. a strict time-line for job/wage/funding cuts, a strict time-line for a new scouting system and, most importantly, key indications of new investment.

 

We have to remember, it isn't the fans that have given this review undue prevalence. It was the CEO and board themselves. As such, any failure to not address the business's problems in full should concern us all.

 

I think the review should include KPI milestones etc. The board should commit to implementing any changes by specific date(s). I believe if they did this, and met the deadlines it would go a long way to restoring some much needed trust from the fans.

[Bluedell 5,408]

The new company is called Ibrox 1972 Limited.

[der Berliner 3,424]

Info ...

 

IBROX 1972 LIMITED

 

Appointment: Active since 26/03/2014

 

King a director and Christine of the RST is also in there.