fitbaliketheolddays 0 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 The fan ownership dream is to be club - not a club controlled by a company. The club would be owned by its members - not its shareholders. This idea that we can settle for being a minority with serious influence needs to be knocked on the head. A fan minority group against a majority shareholder or a cabal of hedge funds and fast buck merchants will exert no meaningful influence at all. As for pipe dreams, I'm sure the same thing was said to nationalists who wanted an independent Scotland. They didn't settle for bring a minority and now they are a whisker away from seeing their 'pipe dream' becoming a reality. Don't settle for anything less than fan ownership for Rangers. Have the dream and work towards making it happen - because it really can happen. As a newbie - I assume that is your argument against the Buy Rangers set-up (foul-up) and hence why you believe RangersFirst is the more laudible aspiration?! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I still think the biggest discouragement to these schemes is that fans are not actually buying shares but donating money to a fan group to buy shares for that group. As someone pointed out, many people leave fan groups, for whatever reasons but it doesn't seem like they can take their shares with them - especially if they start to disagree with the fan group which has historically happened. I think it would be more encouraging if fans put a money into a scheme whereby they are allocated the appropriate number of shares in a database and get a pro-rata vote when electing representatives and other polls. Then after a set period of time, if they wish to leave they just need to pay for the administrative fee for transferring the owneship of the appropriate number of shares that they have accumulated. Or they can sell the shares back to the group at the current price, which is then paid for by the monthly income. When the scheme has enough for a certain amount of shares and the price is stable or low, it buys them and allocates them to the subscribers pro-rata (obviously with each person having a "remainder" amount that is used next time). The point being that you pay for your shares and have control of them as well as being more of an investment where you can get some cash back if you are in financial difficulty. If the other schemes work that way then I've got it wrong - but it's not the way it all comes across. It all just seems like a charity payment that you never see again, and other people have control - which sounds a tiny bit like the Rangers board... That was more or less how the original RST/Gersave Scheme worked. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 As a newbie - I assume that is your argument against the Buy Rangers set-up (foul-up) and hence why you believe RangersFirst is the more laudible aspiration?! Cat among the pigeons. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitbaliketheolddays 0 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Cat among the pigeons. No - just as in other thread, I could not see any logic in RST's vehicle propping-up Greenco at a higher price than they needed to pay. EDIT: Own 9% when you want and Greenco can still play around !!!!! That is what I took from your points! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 But if someone managed to acquire 29% then they'd only need to offer 90% of the highest shareprice in the previous 12 months for remaining shares do they not ? not a lot of money by any means is it?Some of the institutions may now want out surely? The 90% claim is nonsense. King not looking so stupid now is he? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,771 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 The 90% claim is nonsense. King not looking so stupid now is he? or when you reach 29% you have to make an offer for remaining shares based on shareprice value over prtevious 12 months ? King doesnt have the money. Get over it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 or when you reach 29% you have to make an offer for remaining shares based on shareprice value over prtevious 12 months ?King doesnt have the money. Get over it Rab, when it comes to stock market rules regulations and company law at least go and read them before you spout your nonsense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,815 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Rab, when it comes to stock market rules regulations and company law at least go and read them before you spout your nonsense. It would be far more helpful (and a show of dignity) if you don't post stuff like above but give the actual figure and numbers. Rab and we all will then learn and know it in the future. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Fs You have a lot more patience than I have. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 It would be far more helpful (and a show of dignity) if you don't post stuff like above but give the actual figure and numbers. Rab and we all will then learn and know it in the future. I've already done so on numerous occasions, but i suppose your mythical ignore button means you can claim not to have seen those. You have access to Google look and see yourself. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.