the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Well you have outlined your plan - but you have added a caveat throughout the thread that you dont want those with a criminal past involved. So does that then exclude King ? my plan doesn't involve king. I named some examples of the quality of people required. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 On the absence of magic solutions we agree' date=' But if people are going to engage in a course of conduct the consequence of which is likely to be admin 2 - I would like to know there are some assurances that our club will emerge from that.[/quote'] are these people the board? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 my plan doesn't involve king. I named some examples of the quality of people required. Yes you named Bennet/Letham & Smith - Im not even convinced Bennet would accept such a position unless his position has changed from when he was part of The TBK. But you are making something of a quantum leap here GS . These men would be ideal candidates for our board but the plan you are outlining is likely to lead to admin 2 given the precarious state of our finances - Im in no way convinced they would be able to raise the type of sums involved in an admin event and the consequences thereafter. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 No alternatives then ! Due to the direct and indirect executive control and their management we are in a perilous state. It has taken the club on a journey of sp.iv control and the creaming off of many, many millions of pounds, onerous contracts, farce, looking at Ashely (already of onerous) to take us forward, talking to our new youth scout Rafat Ritzvi (of Interpol / fraud & possible faceless 'investor').............I could go on and on and on..... .........and you say that the support would be to blame ? There wouldn't be enough money to get to the end of the season regardless. This board will take us to a dark place regardless and at the same time relieve us of our main assets. The only doubt would be timescale. Perhaps I should say - No assurances then ! I dont think anyone on here is either satisfied or confident this current board will take us to where we want our club to be - but deliberately embarking on a course of action, the likliehood of which is admin 2 , makes little sense either, What is frightening is the rejection of the fan ownership 5% factor which Frankie raised. Surely at some point all our FO models realise if they are to see their dreams come to fruition they are going to have to work together - or is it exclusively our way or nothing else ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Perhaps I should say - No assurances then ! I dont think anyone on here is either satisfied or confident this current board will take us to where we want our club to be - but deliberately embarking on a course of action' date=' the likliehood of which is admin 2 , makes little sense either, What is frightening is the rejection of the fan ownership 5% factor which Frankie raised. Surely at some point all our FO models realise if they are to see their dreams come to fruition they are going to have to work together - or is it exclusively our way or nothing else ?[/quote'] The RST wants fan ownership. RF wants something that appears to fall a good bit short of that. Vanguard Bears wants what exactly - full fan ownership or a halfway house? If fan ownership is the goal, there should only be one group because having more than one leads to confusion and mixed messages, so who wants fan ownership and who doesn't? If the goal is the same, co-operation and unity should be achievable, but if it is not, they will remain apart - and so will our supporters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 The RST wants fan ownership. RF wants something that appears to fall a good bit short of that. Vanguard Bears wants what exactly - full fan ownership or a halfway house? If fan ownership is the goal, there should only be one group because having more than one leads to confusion and mixed messages, so who wants fan ownership and who doesn't? If the goal is the same, co-operation and unity should be achievable, but if it is not, they will remain apart - and so will our supporters. I would hope for the sake of our club they could identify common goals and where appropriate, work together to achieve them. I honestly think if fans can see change being effected, even if it requires them working together to achieve the 5% then all will benefit as a consequence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) The RST wants fan ownership. RF wants something that appears to fall a good bit short of that. Vanguard Bears wants what exactly - full fan ownership or a halfway house? If fan ownership is the goal, there should only be one group because having more than one leads to confusion and mixed messages, so who wants fan ownership and who doesn't? If the goal is the same, co-operation and unity should be achievable, but if it is not, they will remain apart - and so will our supporters. The usual 'my way, or the highway' pish. That is the main reason why the uptake has been so poor. Folk are sick of the division. EDIT: I should add that this isn't only a failing of the RST. Edited September 11, 2014 by Rangersitis 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 There is absolutely no way the RST will work together with either RangersFirst or Vanguard Bears, not a snowball's chance in hell. It might be possible for VB & RF to join forces, but I can't see that happening either because it would require VB to proxy their voting rights to RF and I don't think they will do that because VB have invested a very considerable amount of money in shares and will probably want to keep control of their own voting block. The only way I can see any remote possibility of a 5% (or more) fan voting block in the near future, would be if it were formed by a consortium of wealthy fans who each have considerable numbers of shares or if those types of fans were to proxy their voting rights to either BuyRangers or RangersFirst. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Yes you named Bennet/Letham & Smith - Im not even convinced Bennet would accept such a position unless his position has changed from when he was part of The TBK. But you are making something of a quantum leap here GS . These men would be ideal candidates for our board but the plan you are outlining is likely to lead to admin 2 given the precarious state of our finances - Im in no way convinced they would be able to raise the type of sums involved in an admin event and the consequences thereafter. I am nearly giving examples of the type of person. The names are neither here nor there. Our board would need to be crazy not to accept my plan. They would need to want admin. If they want admin then a boycott is irrelevant as a reason. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 The RST wants fan ownership. RF wants something that appears to fall a good bit short of that. Vanguard Bears wants what exactly - full fan ownership or a halfway house? If fan ownership is the goal, there should only be one group because having more than one leads to confusion and mixed messages, so who wants fan ownership and who doesn't? If the goal is the same, co-operation and unity should be achievable, but if it is not, they will remain apart - and so will our supporters. RF want the benefits of FO but not the need to have 100% of the club - as a PLC I think its entirely appropriate. If we got to 25% we wouldn't need to go any higher imo 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.