Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I signed up to Rangers First and not the RST one purely because I'm not a member of the RST and I'm not sure I want to be, so Rangers First has been great. I'm pretty sure I've seen both schemes talking to & about each other and promoting both schemes. I doubt that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) To participate in Buy Rangers you need to be a member, this is a legal requirement. Not something we made up. Perhaps RF doesn't come into this as they are donation based. That's one way to put it. Another way would be to say that RST members do not have to contribute to BR. On the other hand everyone of the 4,000 who participate in RF are contributing monthly; this is not the case with the RST/BR. Last I heard about 200 of the then 2,500 RST members were contributing monthly. Would you care to say how many of the 4,000 are now contributing monthly and the average amount? Would anyone involved with RF care to state their average contribution? I previously suggested that both organisations should agree to a high level independent Chair (and perhaps a small working party who understand the technicalities and who could bring in expert guidance) to review each organisation's constitution and scheme details with a view to finding a way to amalgamate. I'll even suggest a name Buy Rangers First. (This doesn't imply someone like RST is buying RF!) That said, I am not certain that RF actually have a constitution, outside the fund raising scheme itself. It's time to put pasts differences aside for the greater good. Edited January 19, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think that merging is a silly idea. It is quite depressing to see it repeated constantly. Having two schemes gives people a choice about how to participate. There are a number of reasons to prefer one and not be interested in the other. As a result more people do participate. Both schemes are going absolutely nowhere so merging really isn't a silly idea at all. Until there's one main vehicle for supporters to get behind, this will always be a pipe dream. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Both schemes are going absolutely nowhere so merging really isn't a silly idea at all. Until there's one main vehicle for supporters to get behind, this will always be a pipe dream. In the event of decent men taking control at the club, I would like to see them organise something to be done through official channels with both of these schemes being wound up. That is definitely something that I could buy into. Edited January 19, 2015 by Rangersitis 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Both schemes are going absolutely nowhere so merging really isn't a silly idea at all. Until there's one main vehicle for supporters to get behind, this will always be a pipe dream. I don't agree that they are going nowhere but I agree that one scheme is required; and it's not often that I agree with SBS. Let's say that both organisations could achieve 5,000 members/donors (and crucially all of the RST members contributed) at an average £10/month, allowing for some cross over, combined they could achieve a 5% holding in less than a year. Edited January 19, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) I agree and it's not often that I agree with SBS. Let's say that both organisations could achieve 5,000 members/donors (and crucially all of the RST members contributed) at an average £10/month, allowing for some cross over, combined they could achieve a 5% holding in less than a year. It doesn't matter if they merge or not. As long as both schemes use their shares to vote for the same things (and at the moment it's obvious what they'll be voting for) the result is the same. Edited January 19, 2015 by Thinker 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 they could achieve a 5% holding in less than a year. I would not be surprised if both schemes held 5% between them, in 12 months, with the current setup still in place. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Both schemes are going absolutely nowhere I disagree. Both are making good progress demonstrated by the recent increase in contributions and memberships. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I would not be surprised if both schemes held 5% between them, in 12 months, with the current setup still in place. I wouldn't be surprised either but in order to be effective they need to act together and that would be so much easier if it was one organisation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 RF's average contribution I think is just above £10 - although that was before the large upsurge in membership I am not supportive of the vehicles merging (not that I believe they can). 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.