We Are The People - This Is Our Time

[WATP_Greg 0]

Flinging my hat in.

1. An established community which already owns more than half a million shares

2. Shares transferable

3. Refunds allowed

4. Direct Debit or Single payment options

5. Democratic on line voting on shareholder resolutions

6. Umbrella Body RST will participate with Union of Fans lobbying on crucial issues affecting club.

 

Personally I think the main difference is the vehicle - CIC's are more flexible allowing various ways of getting shares under the control of RF. I like the monthly membership that goes in perpetuity so that we will always be increasing the shareholding rather than having to encourage people to have to buy another set of shares after a set period. I also like the idea of in the future (once the board room stuff is settled & the fans have authoritative consultative transparency ) that RF can do more than just buy shares, doing specifically contracted ventures that are voted on and agreed by the membership that will benefit the Rangers Community

 

 

RF also has an established membership that is growing in the last while - 400k shares with money to purchase more at the suspected upcoming issue.

 

All shares that RF own are protected by an asset lock, so investing in RF is putting money into the betterment of Rangers indefinitely.

 

4/5 are also the same - Though am I right in saying that BR shares are voted on by the RST membership? Whereas RF is one member one vote so that everyone who is contributing to the acquirement of shares has an equal say. So for instance, I am a member of The RST so I have a say in how BR's shares are voted for even though I don't have a community share?

 

RF as an organisation is apolitical - All members are welcome to hold whatever opinions they like but RF will only do what their members vote upon - Its all about being member led and its something that I agree with from a personal point of view.

 

I am obviously a big proponent of RF but at the end of the day I am only interested in the future of the club and the support. Whatever is good for the club I'll support. If people think that BR is the best option then I'm delighted that they are doing something to try and help the club.

[Stimpy 0]

Personally I think the main difference is the vehicle - CIC's are more flexible allowing various ways of getting shares under the control of RF. I like the monthly membership that goes in perpetuity so that we will always be increasing the shareholding rather than having to encourage people to have to buy another set of shares after a set period. I also like the idea of in the future (once the board room stuff is settled & the fans have authoritative consultative transparency ) that RF can do more than just buy shares, doing specifically contracted ventures that are voted on and agreed by the membership that will benefit the Rangers Community

 

 

RF also has an established membership that is growing in the last while - 400k shares with money to purchase more at the suspected upcoming issue.

 

All shares that RF own are protected by an asset lock, so investing in RF is putting money into the betterment of Rangers indefinitely.

 

4/5 are also the same - Though am I right in saying that BR shares are voted on by the RST membership? Whereas RF is one member one vote so that everyone who is contributing to the acquirement of shares has an equal say. So for instance, I am a member of The RST so I have a say in how BR's shares are voted for even though I don't have a community share?

 

RF as an organisation is apolitical - All members are welcome to hold whatever opinions they like but RF will only do what their members vote upon - Its all about being member led and its something that I agree with from a personal point of view.

 

I am obviously a big proponent of RF but at the end of the day I am only interested in the future of the club and the support. Whatever is good for the club I'll support. If people think that BR is the best option then I'm delighted that they are doing something to try and help the club.

 

RST has an asset lock. It was voted upon at an AGM two or three years ago.

[WATP_Greg 0]

Frankly, I do not believe this is their long term goal. In a recent discussion with one of their leading members it was suggested that that a minority share would be enough.

 

I don't disbelieve him.

 

And I don't agree with him.

 

I even spoke to someone on here who said that he joined RF specifically because it was not about fan ownership. He's either not very bright or he's wrong - and he seemed quite sharp to me.

 

Any 'leading member' only has one vote.

 

RF is member led - personally I don't see the need to go for a full takeover - staying just below the 30% mark would be my vote.

 

But I'm one member - RF will be decided by what the members want it to do. Its flexible.

 

I signed up to RF because I believe that it can help the club both at boardroom level and on the pitch going into the future.

[WATP_Greg 0]

RST has an asset lock. It was voted upon at an AGM two or three years ago.

 

BR doesn't - otherwise you couldn't get a refund

[Stimpy 0]

BR doesn't - otherwise you couldn't get a refund

 

Which goes back to the differences over both schemes. People like a refund policy.

 

I'm not getting into a debate over both for reasons I've said on many occasions. I and fellow members were lied to and fooled by elected reps. That's all I need to know.

 

Fan ownership is a busted flush without the backing of serious individuals.

[Hildy 0]

Any 'leading member' only has one vote.

 

RF is member led - personally I don't see the need to go for a full takeover - staying just below the 30% mark would be my vote.

 

But I'm one member - RF will be decided by what the members want it to do. Its flexible.

 

I signed up to RF because I believe that it can help the club both at boardroom level and on the pitch going into the future.

I believe a full takeover is essential.

 

Random majority ownership has brought us to this.

 

We have to learn our lesson.

[SteveC 150]

It's quite simple, and yes I agree that I have made the point several times - but perhaps not as often as Rab has implied that King might have as much dosh as we think . . .

 

Rangers is a sick football club. We can agree on that.

 

The root cause of its illness is the ownership issue.

 

Instead of seeking a cure, and there is one out there, we see thread after thread repeating the same debate about the internal politics of the club. We are no longer football fans. We are amateur accountants. We slag off each other for not recognising that Whyte, Green or whoever was the right sort. We could have a prediction league on boardroom happenings instead of the football.

 

Despite everything, we are still not looking for a cure for our ills. It exists but we can't be bothered to save enough cash to actually acquire it. It becomes pointless after a while then to spectate and speculate on what will happen next to what we think of as 'our club'. We are applying ointment to the patient instead of giving it the major surgery that it requires.

 

I remind you once again: the ownership of Rangers is the cause of all of our problems. If we are not going to properly address this, we will get the club we deserve, and as you can see, it's not a pretty sight.

 

Buying Rangers for ourselves is the route out of this place, but we'd rather gossip about boardroom shenanigans than to actually take it.

 

 

My disagreement with you is not over your main points here. My disagreement is that you not only think there is one vehicle for achieving these aims, but that the vehicle you support is not trusted (whether rightly or wrongly) by many and won't ever succeed. It's been running for many years and has made little progress. At the time our club was most in need of FO the option wasn't even there and it won't ever be under the one and only scheme you support. You are right in all you say re FO, but you are deluded if you think it can come about under RST. That may be unfair, it may be sad (it certainly is to me) but it is where we are and where you have been stuck for ages now.

 

You seem to want FO but only under RST. Those two have proved mutually incompatible, hence = stasis and endless repetition that deadens an already faded message.

[Hildy 0]

It would probably be a good thing for the RST and RF to examine fan ownership at clubs in Spain and Germany and any examples elsewhere worth looking at.

 

If major clubs can make member-ownership work for them, surely we can make it work here.

 

Let there be a model for everyone to look at, and if it needs tweaking and adjusting to make it better, we can do it, but it's time to roll out a model and say - this is how it could be.

[Rangersitis 0]

Fan ownership will never succeed without the push from a healthy Rangers that values the support.

 

RF, from your last sentence, was borne out of egos.

 

Eventually both schemes will work together but we're miles away at present.

 

We need the wealthy benefactor. Rangers fans are the same as unionists parties and loyalist groups in NI....we have too many working for the same thing separately. Hence the reason I'd support direct rule over Stormont.

 

PS: What's happened to the font on the forum?

 

Oh, I know that there is blame to be apportioned to all three groups who, as you say, are working for the same thing separately. I'm certainly not here to cheerlead for any of them.

 

Don't see any difference in the font.

 

Are you coming out to play this Saturday or Sunday? Heading East about elevenish. No Rangers politics all weekend!

[rea 0]

It would probably be a good thing for the RST and RF to examine fan ownership at clubs in Spain and Germany and any examples elsewhere worth looking at.

 

If major clubs can make member-ownership work for them, surely we can make it work here.

 

Let there be a model for everyone to look at, and if it needs tweaking and adjusting to make it better, we can do it, but it's time to roll out a model and say - this is how it could be.

 

 

Indeed, a great deal of research has been done.

 

There is no one size fits all, and the Fan owned history of many of the larger European Clubs has more to do with the model they find themselves using that perhaps how they would chose to be structured should they be presented with the "blank sheet of paper" option, which is where RF started.

 

Choosing the best bits from everything but in the context of what the legal structures available in the UK are and what lessons could also be learned from other UK examples.

 

also important to note that no model is a Panacea....it is not that FO is guaranteed to work or work better but what is guaranteed is the fundamental funders of any Club (the Fans) will have transparency to respond to actual facts in the Clubs running

Edited October 9, 2014 by rea
more info