Buy Rangers

[Hildy 0]

Let some make small steps first. A bit like the Scottish Nationalists. They wanted devolution in 1997 but some were scared it would lead to Independance. They said no chance, just give us some power to run some things like health and education and we will be happy. Less than 15 years later the Independance referendum was announced that had not even a glimmer of support a short while before. I think the similarity is there to see, and for the RST and supporters like yourself, let us get the fans on board with fan involvement and share ownership first, let us ensure our stadium and training ground are safe from plunder, then perhaps it is an easier argument to make to those already halfway there, to make the jump to full ownership, or Club Independence if you like.

The SNP's main goal was always complete independence. That's why the party exists. They aren't afraid to say it. They didn't set up the party to stop at devolution.

 

Our publicly stated goal should not be to aim for a minority stake in the club - that will be an inevitable consequence of going on this journey anyway - it should the Star Trek option - to boldly go where we have never been, certainly in the modern era.

[Ruff 0]

Entirely disagree. As I have stated 25% stops the key fear that you raised.

 

The most influential people at Ibrox just now own significantly less than 25%.

 

I am going to add to this, 25% is the 3rd goal after 5 and 10. After that 25% is reached RF doesn't stop, we don't cancel our D/D, it is up to the members to decide where we go from there. Happy being listened to then we could vote for funding something for the club but there is nothing stopping the members deciding that they want to buy more and more shares. It doesn't stop at 25%.

[Hildy 0]

To each their own - I find your attitude to 25% ownership (an order of magnitude higher than current collective shareholding efforts) strange - particularly when you led with the point of stopping the sale of assets - which of course 25% legally can avoid.

 

If we are specifically speaking of RF then I find the possibility of using the monthly donations to improve the Rangers Community a fantastic idea and would allow us to gain a competitive advantage over our rivals into the future - that is more important to me than whether we have 100% ownership of the club - as long as we can influence the club so that it is being run in the correct manner (which circa 25% would certainly contribute to despite your protestations) as such a shareholding would do in any PLC.

 

I think this is a prime example of why having two separate vehicles offers advantages and choice.

While Rangers is under controversial ownership, thousands of people will not pay towards its upkeep because they believe that their money is being plundered instead of being wholly spent on the club's wellbeing.

 

If Rangers was fan-owned and in trustworthy hands, people would happily buy merchandise and attend games and do so uncomplainingly.

 

With untrusted ownership, which the RF plan leaves the door wide open to, they hold back or stay away or sometimes chuck it altogether. This current episode has already cost us support. Some will not return, and yet the RF plan is do precisely nothing to stop the whole sorry tale happening again. A lesson has not been learned here, which is both mystifying and inexcusable.

 

A quarter share will not save Rangers or make it the club it will need to be to recover its reputation both as a football club and as a sporting institution - and if the current lot can reduce Rangers to its current sorry state, don't imagine that a 25% holding is going to inhibit a majority owner with 51% or more who has acquired Rangers for reasons best known to himself.

 

Fan ownership will slam the door shut on the sharks and the charlatans. Minority ownership, however, most certainly will not.

 

I'm sorry to say it, but the RF plan looks like an exercise written up by accountants whose career experience has been to look after the books of the neighbourhood church.

 

Only by shutting out the crooks will we be properly rid of them - and the only hope of doing that is to become a fully fan-owned club.

[barca72 440]

While Rangers is under controversial ownership, thousands of people will not pay towards its upkeep because they believe that their money is being plundered instead of being wholly spent on the club's wellbeing.

 

If Rangers was fan-owned and in trustworthy hands, people would happily buy merchandise and attend games and do so uncomplainingly.

 

With untrusted ownership, which the RF plan leaves the door wide open to, they hold back or stay away or sometimes chuck it altogether. This current episode has already cost us support. Some will not return, and yet the RF plan is do precisely nothing to stop the whole sorry tale happening again. A lesson has not been learned here, which is both mystifying and inexcusable.

 

A quarter share will not save Rangers or make it the club it will need to be to recover its reputation both as a football club and as a sporting institution - and if the current lot can reduce Rangers to its current sorry state, don't imagine that a 25% holding is going to inhibit a majority owner with 51% or more who has acquired Rangers for reasons best known to himself.

 

Fan ownership will slam the door shut on the sharks and the charlatans. Minority ownership, however, most certainly will not.

 

I'm sorry to say it, but the RF plan looks like an exercise written up by accountants whose career experience has been to look after the books of the neighbourhood church.

 

Only by shutting out the crooks will we be properly rid of them - and the only hope of doing that is to become a fully fan-owned club.

 

That's where your plan stumbles right there. You should work on proving that part before you go attacking someone else's plan with a bunch of hypotheticals.

No sale, once again.

[WATP_Greg 0]

While Rangers is under controversial ownership, thousands of people will not pay towards its upkeep because they believe that their money is being plundered instead of being wholly spent on the club's wellbeing.

 

If Rangers was fan-owned and in trustworthy hands, people would happily buy merchandise and attend games and do so uncomplainingly.

 

With untrusted ownership, which the RF plan leaves the door wide open to, they hold back or stay away or sometimes chuck it altogether. This current episode has already cost us support. Some will not return, and yet the RF plan is do precisely nothing to stop the whole sorry tale happening again. A lesson has not been learned here, which is both mystifying and inexcusable.

 

A quarter share will not save Rangers or make it the club it will need to be to recover its reputation both as a football club and as a sporting institution - and if the current lot can reduce Rangers to its current sorry state, don't imagine that a 25% holding is going to inhibit a majority owner with 51% or more who has acquired Rangers for reasons best known to himself.

 

Fan ownership will slam the door shut on the sharks and the charlatans. Minority ownership, however, most certainly will not.

 

I'm sorry to say it, but the RF plan looks like an exercise written up by accountants whose career experience has been to look after the books of the neighbourhood church.

 

Only by shutting out the crooks will we be properly rid of them - and the only hope of doing that is to become a fully fan-owned club.

 

"While Rangers is under controversial ownership, thousands of people will not pay towards its upkeep because they believe that their money is being plundered instead of being wholly spent on the club's wellbeing."

 

Exactly, that’s ACT is required before any subsequent investment – You really should look at what RF is proposing

 

"If Rangers was fan-owned and in trustworthy hands, people would happily buy merchandise and attend games and do so uncomplainingly.

I agree – Getting ACT can be a method with which trust is built with the club, however, it would also help identify where the interests of the club are not being matched by the actions of this or any future board.

 

With untrusted ownership, which the RF plan leaves the door wide open to, they hold back or stay away or sometimes chuck it altogether. This current episode has already cost us support. Some will not return, and yet the RF plan is do precisely nothing to stop the whole sorry tale happening again. A lesson has not been learned here, which is both mystifying and inexcusable."

 

Sorry, but that is a complete straw man – ACT is a safeguard and to get that we need a significant shareholding. You dismissing it does not alter the fact that circa 25% ownership is significant. Laxey have a man on the board with significantly less of a shareholding for instance.

"A quarter share will not save Rangers or make it the club it will need to be to recover its reputation both as a football club and as a sporting institution - and if the current lot can reduce Rangers to its current sorry state, don't imagine that a 25% holding is going to inhibit a majority owner with 51% or more who has acquired Rangers for reasons best known to himself."

 

Again 25% allows the blocking of sales of assets and shareholders have influence, I cannot understand you dismissing that so readily – look at any business environment – shareholders have great power. Personal incredulity does not change reality

 

 

"Fan ownership will slam the door shut on the sharks and the charlatans. Minority ownership, however, most certainly will not.

 

I'm sorry to say it, but the RF plan looks like an exercise written up by accountants whose career experience has been to look after the books of the neighbourhood church. "

 

I disagree, It seems that you are unfamiliar with RF – you should have a proper look at it IMO – come down The Louden tomorrow from 2 and discuss it with the lads. I’ll even buy you a pint. Also, why the use of such derogatory terminology, RF has the largest number of individuals involved in a collective shareholding initiative amongst the Rangers support – surely it deserves a bit of respect. But I would like Rangers supporters to always be respectful of one another.

 

 

"Only by shutting out the crooks will we be properly rid of them - and the only hope of doing that is to become a fully fan-owned club."

 

Not the only way IMO.

 

 

Hopefully I have tried to put across my own opinions on the matter – I think that either option would be better than the current situation so I urge all Rangers supporters to get involved in a collective shareholding initiative.

[Hildy 0]

"While Rangers is under controversial ownership, thousands of people will not pay towards its upkeep because they believe that their money is being plundered instead of being wholly spent on the club's wellbeing."

 

Exactly, that’s ACT is required before any subsequent investment – You really should look at what RF is proposing

 

"If Rangers was fan-owned and in trustworthy hands, people would happily buy merchandise and attend games and do so uncomplainingly.

I agree – Getting ACT can be a method with which trust is built with the club, however, it would also help identify where the interests of the club are not being matched by the actions of this or any future board.

 

With untrusted ownership, which the RF plan leaves the door wide open to, they hold back or stay away or sometimes chuck it altogether. This current episode has already cost us support. Some will not return, and yet the RF plan is do precisely nothing to stop the whole sorry tale happening again. A lesson has not been learned here, which is both mystifying and inexcusable."

 

Sorry, but that is a complete straw man – ACT is a safeguard and to get that we need a significant shareholding. You dismissing it does not alter the fact that circa 25% ownership is significant. Laxey have a man on the board with significantly less of a shareholding for instance.

"A quarter share will not save Rangers or make it the club it will need to be to recover its reputation both as a football club and as a sporting institution - and if the current lot can reduce Rangers to its current sorry state, don't imagine that a 25% holding is going to inhibit a majority owner with 51% or more who has acquired Rangers for reasons best known to himself."

 

Again 25% allows the blocking of sales of assets and shareholders have influence, I cannot understand you dismissing that so readily – look at any business environment – shareholders have great power. Personal incredulity does not change reality

 

 

"Fan ownership will slam the door shut on the sharks and the charlatans. Minority ownership, however, most certainly will not.

 

I'm sorry to say it, but the RF plan looks like an exercise written up by accountants whose career experience has been to look after the books of the neighbourhood church. "

 

I disagree, It seems that you are unfamiliar with RF – you should have a proper look at it IMO – come down The Louden tomorrow from 2 and discuss it with the lads. I’ll even buy you a pint. Also, why the use of such derogatory terminology, RF has the largest number of individuals involved in a collective shareholding initiative amongst the Rangers support – surely it deserves a bit of respect. But I would like Rangers supporters to always be respectful of one another.

 

 

"Only by shutting out the crooks will we be properly rid of them - and the only hope of doing that is to become a fully fan-owned club."

 

Not the only way IMO.

 

 

Hopefully I have tried to put across my own opinions on the matter – I think that either option would be better than the current situation so I urge all Rangers supporters to get involved in a collective shareholding initiative.

I'm all for respect, but I cannot be expected to approve of or join an organisation that only wants the Rangers support to be a fringe player when it comes to all the key aspects in the way that the club is run.

 

If one party has 51%, the club will be run in a way that reflects that person's thinking, and if said person has a motivation of greed, or worse, that comes ahead of the general wellbeing of the club, the club will suffer and a quarter share of ownership will find itself on the losing side time after time.

 

I cannot imagine why anyone who cares deeply for Rangers would want that, especially after all that we have witnessed, and are still witnessing.

 

I don't doubt your fondness for Rangers, but the club needs to be wrestled away permanently from those who would wreck it for a quick buck. Rangers First is not going to do that, even after all that has happened.

 

The club needs to be transformed into a member-owned club where every fan has a vote on who the president should be. It's time we embraced fan ownership fully instead of chasing a 25% share and hoping that the other 75% finds its way into appropriate hands.

 

Surely by know we must realise that this is a recipe for catastrophe.

[WATP_Greg 0]

I'm all for respect, but I cannot be expected to approve of or join an organisation that only wants the Rangers support to be a fringe player when it comes to all the key aspects in the way that the club is run.

 

If one party has 51%, the club will be run in a way that reflects that person's thinking, and if said person has a motivation of greed, or worse, that comes ahead of the general wellbeing of the club, the club will suffer and a quarter share of ownership will find itself on the losing side time after time.

 

I cannot imagine why anyone who cares deeply for Rangers would want that, especially after all that we have witnessed, and are still witnessing.

 

I don't doubt your fondness for Rangers, but the club needs to be wrestled away permanently from those who would wreck it for a quick buck. Rangers First is not going to do that, even after all that has happened.

 

The club needs to be transformed into a member-owned club where every fan has a vote on who the president should be. It's time we embraced fan ownership fully instead of chasing a 25% share and hoping that the other 75% finds its way into appropriate hands.

 

Surely by know we must realise that this is a recipe for catastrophe.

 

Sorry I was watching the game, great performance btw.

 

You certainly shouldn't doubt my 'fondness' for Rangers. I don't feel the need to justify myself in that regard.

 

But I think I'll leave this discussion. I fundamentally disagree with many of the points that you are making and continue to make despite what I believe to be relevant counterpoints. I believe that there are many ways to influence the boardroom at Ibrox beyond owning 100% of the club. The scenario of a 51% nefarious owner is entirely hypothetical and with us being a plc I think it should be acknowledged that any major shareholder will hold significant sway. I am open to any solutions that I feel will help the club and the support.

[Hildy 0]

Sorry I was watching the game, great performance btw.

 

You certainly shouldn't doubt my 'fondness' for Rangers. I don't feel the need to justify myself in that regard.

 

But I think I'll leave this discussion. I fundamentally disagree with many of the points that you are making and continue to make despite what I believe to be relevant counterpoints. I believe that there are many ways to influence the boardroom at Ibrox beyond owning 100% of the club. The scenario of a 51% nefarious owner is entirely hypothetical and with us being a plc I think it should be acknowledged that any major shareholder will hold significant sway. I am open to any solutions that I feel will help the club and the support.

Full fan ownership is more likely to protect the club and keep it safe from those who would do it harm.

 

Settling for being a minority and wilfully leaving space for an undesirable incomer to arrive and dominate the club is, to put it mildly, unwise.

 

Right now, we are open to and flirting with devastation. If RF achieves its 25% goal, that will still be the case.

 

I've stated openly since coming on to this forum that I support fan ownership. It is perfectly clear now that Rangers First is not only not going to deliver this, it has no intention of delivering it.

 

In that respect, this discussion has been very helpful.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

This is better Hildy, you are much far better poster accentuating the positives.

 

Full fan ownership is more likely to protect the club and keep it safe from those who would do it harm.

 

Settling for being a minority and wilfully leaving space for an undesirable incomer to arrive and dominate the club is, to put it mildly, unwise.

 

Right now, we are open to and flirting with devastation. If RF achieves its 25% goal, that will still be the case.

 

I've stated openly since coming on to this forum that I support fan ownership. It is perfectly clear now that Rangers First is not only not going to deliver this, it has no intention of delivering it.

 

In that respect, this discussion has been very helpful.

[WATP_Greg 0]

Full fan ownership is more likely to protect the club and keep it safe from those who would do it harm.

 

Settling for being a minority and wilfully leaving space for an undesirable incomer to arrive and dominate the club is, to put it mildly, unwise.

 

Right now, we are open to and flirting with devastation. If RF achieves its 25% goal, that will still be the case.

 

I've stated openly since coming on to this forum that I support fan ownership. It is perfectly clear now that Rangers First is not only not going to deliver this, it has no intention of delivering it.

 

In that respect, this discussion has been very helpful.

 

 

Actually, the membership of RF will decide what is done - I am just one member. Whatever the majority says goes.

 

If you were able to convince the RF membership to aim for 100% ownership then thats what they would do - I have only spoken in a personal capacity.

 

Though I completely stand by my assertions and opinions and I am very comfortable to be part of RF and what it is trying to achieve.