Frankie 8,313 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) In October and November 2015 members of constituted Rangers Supporters Groups voted overwhelmingly to explore the possibilities of integrating the different groups into a unified entity. A working party comprising of members of Rangers First, Rangers Supporter Trust, The Rangers Supporters Association, The Rangers Assembly and The Rangers Fans’ Board was formed and is now in a position to publish their Proposal Document for consideration by all Rangers supporters. The proposal is to unify the various groups under CLUB 1872, One Rangers. We ask that you study this document carefully before casting your vote for, or against this proposal. To give all interested supporters a chance to ask questions and have them answered we will be hosting question and answer sessions at the Ibrox Suite at 3.00pm on Sunday 13th March and at 7.00pm on Thursday 17th March. All members of existing groups and those who may consider joining in the future are welcome to attend. Voting will open on Monday 21st March and close on Sunday 27th March. - See more at: http://www.rangersfirst.org/club1872proposal/#sthash.kDfP36TR.dpuf'>http://www.rangersfirst.org/club1872proposal/#sthash.kDfP36TR.dpuf http://www.rangersfirst.org/club1872proposal/ Edited March 9, 2016 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 http://therst.co.uk/media/1065/final-club-1872-proposal.pdf 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,313 Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 I've only had a cursory look through the proposal (and it still seems quite generic and unclear in some places) but it seems largely agreeable to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,313 Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) One thing that does stand out to begin with (and perhaps plgsarmy can clarify) is why the organisation wants to limit itself to a 25%+1 shareholding? Surely 50%+1 is better or is that just bad wording in the proposal? Edited March 9, 2016 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,313 Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 BTW, if anyone fancies writing up their opinions on this into an article, it would be good to have opposing views on the website (i.e. a for argument and an against argument). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 One thing that does stand out to begin with (and perhaps plgsarmy can clarify) is why the organisation wants to limit itself to a 25%+1 shareholding? Surely 50%+1 is better or is that just bad wording in the proposal? Surely if independent it would be down to the members how their money is spent. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,313 Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Surely if independent it would be down to the members how their money is spent. Sure and it seems increasing the shareholding is the main aim (alongside any one-off projects) but, like I say, the document is unclear. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 " 5% - Club 1872 administration costs. ". I know that there is an option to reduce that cost later and maybe someone can point me to where that cost is justified, but it seems excessive to me at first glance. I'm merely making an observation and am willing to be corrected. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,313 Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) " 5% - Club 1872 administration costs. ". I know that there is an option to reduce that cost later and maybe someone can point me to where that cost is justified, but it seems excessive to me at first glance. I'm merely making an observation and am willing to be corrected. Hmmm, initial website costs alone would run into the high four figures. Add in the full-time wage of an administrator then you're up to £20-30K+ a year easily. You'd imagine there could be a staged handover to the elected board to help minimise costs but if we want it done professionally then we have to be prepared to pay for it. Edited March 9, 2016 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,313 Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) I think another concern for me has to be the nomenclature over the group. Many people have talked of one single group in the past which is clearly not what is being proposed here. Yes, the RFB and Assembly are falling on their swords but although their MO may change, others such as the Association, RST, RF and NARSA/ORSA may retain their individual 'entity' status. As such, are we discussing unity or umbrellas given the latter has given us two failed organisations in little over 12 years? Edited March 9, 2016 by Frankie 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.