We Are The People - This Is Our Time

[Stimpy 0]

That particular message is wearing thin, Hildy. The first quote comes from RF, the second from BR.

 

 

 

As an ordinary Joe not versed in the minutiae of share ownership lingo, please enlighten me on the differences between the schemes.

 

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.

[Hildy 0]

That particular message is wearing thin, Hildy. The first quote comes from RF, the second from BR.

 

 

 

As an ordinary Joe not versed in the minutiae of share ownership lingo, please enlighten me on the differences between the schemes.

The RST wants Rangers to be a fan-owned club. It would eventually become something like Barcelona - member-owned - not shareholder owned.

 

RF wants fans to have a minority stake in the club, but only full fan ownership will close the door to the likes of Mike Ashley. What's the point in having 20% of the club if an unpopular party has the other 80%?

[rea 0]

The RST wants Rangers to be a fan-owned club. It would eventually become something like Barcelona - member-owned - not shareholder owned.

 

RF wants fans to have a minority stake in the club, but only full fan ownership will close the door to the likes of Mike Ashley. What's the point in having 20% of the club if an unpopular party has the other 80%?

 

The only stated policy of RF is to initially get to 5% which in a PLC gives you certain rights, then 10 and 25% which give you other rights. Upto the members what to do next depending on the ACT principal. Ending at a minority stake is certainly not the policy

[Rangersitis 0]

The RST wants Rangers to be a fan-owned club. It would eventually become something like Barcelona - member-owned - not shareholder owned.

 

RF wants fans to have a minority stake in the club, but only full fan ownership will close the door to the likes of Mike Ashley. What's the point in having 20% of the club if an unpopular party has the other 80%?

 

We were discussing the aims of BR, not the RST, but that was most enlightening. Where on the site that is pleading with people to purchase Rangers shares does it say, "Oh, by the way, your shares are going to be worth fuck all when Rangers become owned by it's members?

 

RF state that they want majority ownership - I even provided you with the quote from their website. Are they lying?

[Bluedell 5,679]

RF wants fans to have a minority stake in the club,

 

Where have they said that they only want a minority stake?

[Hildy 0]

We were discussing the aims of BR, not the RST, but that was most enlightening. Where on the site that is pleading with people to purchase Rangers shares does it say, "Oh, by the way, your shares are going to be worth fuck all when Rangers become owned by it's members?

 

RF state that they want majority ownership - I even provided you with the quote from their website. Are they lying?

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.

[Rangersitis 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.

 

Ok, good, so what does the BR scheme offer?

 

Do you consider any of the above to be a major barrier to all parties coming together, even loosely, to provide a more powerful body, or do you think that all the schemes are fundamentally the same and that egos and personality clashes are the real sticking point?

[Hildy 0]

Ok, good, so what does the BR scheme offer?

 

Do you consider any of the above to be a major barrier to all parties coming together, even loosely, to provide a more powerful body, or do you think that all the schemes are fundamentally the same and that egos and personality clashes are the real sticking point?

Egos and personality clashes are a major factor, which is inexcusable.

[Rangersitis 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.

 

Fair enough. I will leave it up to their leading lights to reply to that.

[Stimpy 0]

Ok, good, so what does the BR scheme offer?

 

Do you consider any of the above to be a major barrier to all parties coming together, even loosely, to provide a more powerful body, or do you think that all the schemes are fundamentally the same and that egos and personality clashes are the real sticking point?

 

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?