Rangers fans divided by loyalties

[ian1964 10,724]

THOSE Rangers supporters who have so far not renewed their season tickets for next season are currently facing some stark choices.

 

 

Do they pledge their cash to Ibrox 1972 Ltd, the company launched by the Union of Fans group this week, and hope security will be granted over the stadium?

 

Or do they give their money direct to the club as usual and book their seats for home games in the SPFL Championship in the 2014/15 campaign?

 

Alternatively, they can sit back and see how the stand-off develops during the summer months before deciding how to proceed.

 

What the Light Blues fans do, and in what sort of numbers, will determine the short-term future of the troubled Glasgow club.

 

There is certainly backing for the scheme to withhold cash in the company that has former director Dave King and club legend Richard Gough as trustees.

 

That is despite the fact the Rangers board stated once again this week that it "has no intention of granting security over Ibrox to anybody".

 

Many fans were alarmed when it emerged that both Edmiston House and the Albion car parking facilities had been used as security for two loans of £1.5million earlier this year.

 

And there are serious fears that institutional investors, who have seen the share price tumble since the IPO in 2012, may seek to maximise the club's assets in future.

 

George Thomson, a law

 

student from Paisley who has been a season ticket holder for 10 years, is one of those who will be putting his money into Ibrox 1972 Ltd.

 

He said: "I think there comes a point where you have to say: 'Enough is enough.'

 

"And this, for me, is that point. I will be withholding my season ticket money from the club.

 

"I am unhappy at how the club is being run and have no faith in this board. I think we need change at the top in order to move on as a club and I would like to see Dave King involved.

 

"He is a Rangers fan and has money that he is prepared to invest that could make a real difference to us. How many of the current directors or investors can say that?"

 

Yet, there are also many supporters who are unsettled by the path being taken by King and the Union of Fans and the implications it may have for Rangers.

 

David Somers, the club chairman, has stated there would be a serious doubt over the Govan club's ability to continue as a going concern if fans withheld their cash.

 

James Clark-Dick, a retired quantity surveyor from Uddingston who has been a season ticket holder at Ibrox for nearly 30 years, is against the plan.

 

He will be renewing the three season tickets he has in the Copland Road Stand - he attends every home game with his wife and daughter - and believes he is in a "silent majority".

 

He feels that withholding money from Rangers in the coming weeks could actually help to bring about the eventuality that King and the Union of Fans are hoping to avoid.

 

"Withholding season ticket money from the club this

 

summer until security is

 

granted over Ibrox seems like a ludicrous idea to me," he said. "I don't think it is the right way to go.

 

"My worry is that if you push the shareholders enough then that (utilising the club assets) is just exactly what they might do. It might be what they have to do."

 

The 63-year-old feels there are many Rangers fans like him whose views are not being represented by the supporters' organisations which comprise the Union of Fans.

 

"I have met and spoken to Chris Graham (the Union of Fans spokesman) on a few

 

occasions in the past and he came across well," he said.

 

"But Chris and others like him are described as fans' representatives. Well, I am a fan and I don't have a representative."

 

Given the gross mismanagement of previous regimes at Rangers, Mr Clark-Dick admitted he was "cautious" about the current custodians of the club.

 

However, he also has serious misgivings about South Africa-based businessman King

 

getting involved and the company that he has set up.

 

He said: "I'm not pro-board and I'm not anti-board. I'm neither. I'm pro-Rangers. And I don't think this idea to withhold season ticket money is a great idea.

 

"If it hadn't been for this campaign then I think we would have been all right. And apart from this season ticket fund, I don't know what plan Dave King has for the club.

 

"Everybody has criticised the Rangers review. But what more did people expect? You are only ever going to get the bare bones of a business plan in a review.

 

"I have been a shareholder for 30 years. The last batch of shares I bought were the fourth lot I have acquired. And the review is the most information I have had out of Rangers during that time.

 

"They detailed exactly where the £67million went. They showed that £26m was used up in one-off costs.

 

"That is the most clarity we have had."

 

What the future holds for Rangers, though, will remain shrouded in uncertainty until it emerges how many supporters have renewed season tickets and how many have withheld.

 

At the moment, it is too close to call.

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/rangers-fans-divided-by-loyalties-162650n.24161559

[Chibmark 19]

It's a terrible position for the fans to be put in, asking us to take a punt on who we trust most, when in reality, neither party deserve our trust.

 

The fans groups, who represent very little in way of the wider Rangers support, have backed King, but I'm struggling to see what the big draw is with King. From what I see, if he really wanted to buy the club, or take up a big chunk of shares, he could easily do so but has chosen no to, and play God with potentially the Club's future.

 

I long for stability but we've became the Portsmouth of Scotland.

[Frankie 8,562]

It's a terrible position for the fans to be put in, asking us to take a punt on who we trust most, when in reality, neither party deserve our trust.

 

The fans groups, who represent very little in way of the wider Rangers support, have backed King, but I'm struggling to see what the big draw is with King. From what I see, if he really wanted to buy the club, or take up a big chunk of shares, he could easily do so but has chosen no to, and play God with potentially the Club's future.

 

I long for stability but we've became the Portsmouth of Scotland.

 

This is the truly desperate situation we're in.

 

The responsibility is completely with the club in terms of changing this. So far, they're making next to no effort to do so. It's infuriating.

[Stimpy 0]

Most of my mates in Belfast and back in Clydebank are not in groups but hate the current regime and are still undecided. I think they're leaning towards King and the season ticket company but don't understand how it works.

[buster. 5,193]

 

I long for stability but we've became the Portsmouth of Scotland.

 

The choice given in the article was somewhat incomplete...........

 

Do they pledge their cash to Ibrox 1972 Ltd, the company launched by the Union of Fans group this week, and hope security will be granted over the stadium?

 

Or do they give their money direct to the club as usual and book their seats for home games in the SPFL Championship in the 2014/15 campaign not being able to trust a board on where that money ends up or how it is used.

 

And the only way to change the dynamic is for the supporters to stop lining the pockets of those in and around the boardroom.

 

The crux is that we can't TRUST those in executive control, nor do we know who some of the main shareholders behind them are. Some of these shareholders who have been at the coalface of decision-making through the 'vanishing 70M' time.

 

 

There are no easy choices here, there are only different degrees and timescales of pain.

The board represent a continuation of what we've now become used to. They would be in control of a club that fades away in terms of competivity. Then there will be the push to takeover the assets when or sometime after the contingent liability was to go away.

 

For those who want to fund the club with this board in charge then look forward to downwards expectation management, empty corporatespeak, a lot of spin, talk but no walk, fans spending a lot of money but not seeing the proportionate benefits, being second best (in a good year) and in time the Europa League Qualifiers or equivalent.

 

We will be established as the longterm 'Espanyol' of Glasgow in the shadow of Celtic.

That is to say that our journey back will end in not being able to make that final step up and becoming happy with the odd Cup win like other provincial teams, think the early 80's.

 

 

The alternative is also painful but there lys real ambition and a mission statement that will centre on the club, rather than trying to pocket as much of our cash as possible directly or indirectly. There isn't enough money coming in for both the club and upstairs&friends (eg.an onerous sports direct).

[Gribz 850]

 

I long for stability but we've became the Portsmouth of Scotland.

 

Leeds or Coventry resemble us a bit more, Portsmouth were always punching above their weight while a club like Leeds are giants and hit disaster due to going on a similar run of ambition we was on.

[andy steel 0]

Mr Clark-Dick's position is one everyone would like to be in, just supporting the team. Bit self-indulgent now, though.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

T4C makes a good point. A lot of the IPO money disappeared, with as yet no real satisfactory explanation. Yet very few (if any) of the major shareholders queried this at any length? Either losing money doesn't bother them, or they have turned a blind eye to the misappropriation of funds, That worries me.

[Frankie 8,562]

Although mismanaged the IPO money has been largely accounted for.

 

Yes there remains some questionable generalisations within that for Joe Bloggs but I can only assume the larger shareholders were given more detail upon further enquiry. They clearly feel they can differentiate between 'past' and 'existing' regimes/boards.

[chilledbear 16]

I always have in mind the offer of the defeated candidates at the AGM, to work without pay. Perhaps there were good reasons why the major Shareholders didn't fancy Wilson or Murdoch, but when you think of the savings there could have been, you have to wonder why the offer was rejected.